JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. All the above Appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 193/2002 whereby the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for six months. However, the respondent accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 2084/2004 is an Appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 2083/2004 is an Appeal preferred by the State seeking enhancement of sentence qua the accused herein. Criminal Revision Application No. 396/2004 is a Revision Application preferred by the original complainant. 3. The case in brief and the incident which occurred on 31.07.2002 are as under:- 3.1. It is the case of the complainant/the deceased Ashaba that she got married with the accused herein prior to about 1 1/2 years from the date of incident. For about six - seven months after the marriage, everything appeared to be normal and the deceased was looked after very well. The accused used to work as a tanker driver but gradually, he started remaining unemployed for most part of the time and slowly got involved in gambling activities and also started drinking liquor. It is also stated in the complaint that thereafter, the jewellery of the deceased was sold by the accused to fund his gambling activities and this was objected to by Ashaba. The deceased periodically used to tell the accused to go for appropriate employment opportunities. The accused did not like the deceased on this count and started torturing her mentally and physically and this was informed by the deceased to her brother - Gajendrasinh. Gajendrasinh then advised the accused to mend his ways, to which the accused got angry and threatened Gajendrasinh with his life. Ashaba was also repeatedly tortured but believing that the situation would improve in future for the best, she put up with the torture meted out to her. 3.2. Gajendrasinh then advised the accused to mend his ways, to which the accused got angry and threatened Gajendrasinh with his life. Ashaba was also repeatedly tortured but believing that the situation would improve in future for the best, she put up with the torture meted out to her. 3.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the ill-fated date in the night hours, the deceased was at home. It is alleged that the accused came home, gave verbal abuses to the deceased, took out the kerosene from stove and poured it on the body of Ashaba. The original accused No. 2 - Sarojba (the mother-in-law of the deceased) and the original accused No. 3 - Nitaba (who is the sister-in-law of the deceased and living in an adjoining room alone) also came and caught hold of Ashaba and the accused herein is alleged to have lit a matchstick and set Ashaba on fire. When the deceased started shouting for help, the neighbours in the locality came rushing and tried to rescue Ashaba. It is alleged that the accused husband herein with an ulterior motive and with an intention to show everybody that he cared for his wife tried to rescue Ashaba, made her sit in a rickshaw and took to JJ Hospital for treatment. Ashaba had received severe burn injuries all over her body. The learned Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. 3.3. A complaint was lodged before the Jamnagar City 'B' Division Police Station and the investigation commenced under the Investigating Officer PI Dilipsinh Gatorsinh Vaghela, who went to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration of Ashaba. During the course of treatment at the hospital, Ashaba expired. After following the necessary procedures, the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem to M.P. Shah Medical College, Forensic Department. Charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code were added qua the accused. The dowry that was given at the time of marriage of Ashaba was seized and the Report was sent to the FSL Officer. Statements of various witnesses were recorded and bills pertaining to purchase of jewellery were also seized. The panchnama of the scene of offence was taken. The chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, being a Sessions triable case. 3.4. Statements of various witnesses were recorded and bills pertaining to purchase of jewellery were also seized. The panchnama of the scene of offence was taken. The chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, being a Sessions triable case. 3.4. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- Particulars Exh. Executive Magistrate Mr. Dilip prabhulal Jani 21 Dr. Pinakin Khimchandbhai Sutaria 24 Dr. Oimnath Gambhirsinh (the Doctor who conducted the post mortem) 26 Witness Gitaba, W/o Dilipsinh 30 Witness Gajendrasinh Dilipsinh 31 Witness Jethalal Punabhai parmar 33 Witness Bapalba, W/o. Kalubha 34 Witness Kanchanba, W/o. Pratapsinh 52 Witness Ibrahimbhai Hajibhai 53 Dr. Sudha Becharbhai Patel 54 PSO Rambhai Devidanbhai Gadhvi 56 PSI Dharmendrasinh Lakhuba Jhala 59 Investigating Officer Dilipsinh Gatorsinh Vaghela 63 Dr. Ajaybhai Maganlal Rajyaguru 84 The prosecution also relied upon various documentary evidence, some of them are:- Particulars Exh. Dying Declaration Before the learned Executive Magistrate 23 Case Papers of the treatment 25 Post Mortem Note 29 Medical Certificate 55 Extract of the Station Diary 57, 58 Original Complaint 61 Dying Declaration Before the Police Inspector 64 Analysis Report 73 to 75 3.5. At the end of the trial, further statement of the accused under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which the accused pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. Thus, after recording the further statement of the accused and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the above judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed, as aforesaid. 4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.M. Lakhani for the original accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni for the State and learned Advocate Mr. V.H. Kanara for the original complainant. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni for the State has taken this Court to the medical evidence as well as the two dying declarations recorded, one before the Executive Magistrate and the other before the Police Inspector. Hardik Soni for the State and learned Advocate Mr. V.H. Kanara for the original complainant. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Soni for the State has taken this Court to the medical evidence as well as the two dying declarations recorded, one before the Executive Magistrate and the other before the Police Inspector. It is submitted that panchnama of the scene of offence clearly shows and suggests the manner in which the incident occurred which has supported the version of the deceased and therefore, while appreciating all the evidence, the learned trial Judge should not have come to the conclusion that there is a discrepancy in the Dying Declaration and there is inconsistency at the time of recording of the First Information Report and the Dying Declaration. It is further submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and merely acquitted the accused from the charges on the ground that their presence at the time of the incident is highly doubtful. Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires the interference of this Court and the enhancement Appeal preferred by the State be allowed and the accused be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that the complainant herein is the victim herself. Considering the act which was committed by the accused, it is submitted that he should be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the original accused No. 1 (the respondent herein) Mr. P.M. Lakhani has submitted that the history given by the deceased at the first point of time is required to be considered. It is further submitted that the trial Judge has granted benefit of doubt on the basis of the statement given by the deceased wherein she had stated that she suffered burns because of an accident. It is also submitted that Dr. Oimnath Gambhirsinh (the Doctor who conducted the post mortem), has opined in his cross examination, translated version of which reads as under:- "14. It is true that in burn cases, it is difficult to opine whether the injuries are homicidal or suicidal. 15. It is also true that the injuries qua the deceased could have also occurred in the case of suicidal burns. It is true that in burn cases, it is difficult to opine whether the injuries are homicidal or suicidal. 15. It is also true that the injuries qua the deceased could have also occurred in the case of suicidal burns. From the nature and extent of the opposition injuries on the body of the deceased, it can be said as to whether they were homicidal burns or not? It is also true that if no opposition injuries are noticed on the body of the deceased, then there are chances of it being suicidal burns. It is also true that in the case of post mortem of Ashaben, other than burn injuries, no other type of injuries are noticed." It is further submitted by learned Advocate Mr. P.M. Lakhani that the subsequent dying declaration was not believed by the learned trial Judge and the benefit of doubt was granted to the accused. He has further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, even if a second view is possible, this Court should not interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. We have heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the records of the case. We are of the view that the Appeal preferred for enhancement of sentence is misconceived and therefore, the same is dismissed. Taking into account the medical evidence adduced, even if a second view is possible, it would not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to reverse the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. Qua the acquittal of the respondent, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge should not be disturbed considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments which are referred hereinunder:- In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39 , the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below." Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415 , the Apex Court laid down the following principles: 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: [1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. [5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court." Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Even in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed as under: "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with." Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. In the case of Luna Ram Vs. Bhupat Singh and Ors, reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10 and 11 has held as under:- "10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so-called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence." Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and Anr. Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SCC 321 , the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:- "4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellant very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. Since counsel for the appellant very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]." It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981, SC 1417, wherein it is held as under:- "This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary, (1967) 1 SCR 93 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice." Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivasharanappa and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2013(7) SC 66. 10. In the result, all the Appeals being devoid of merits, are dismissed accordingly. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2013(7) SC 66. 10. In the result, all the Appeals being devoid of merits, are dismissed accordingly. The judgment and order dated 15.04.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 193/2002 is hereby confirmed. If the accused has not undergone the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court, he is directed to surrender to custody within 12 weeks from today to serve the remaining period of sentence, failing which, the concerned investigating agency shall take necessary actions, in accordance with law. The accused be given set off for the period of sentence they have already undergone. If the accused has already served the period of sentence, as has been awarded by the Trial Court, he is not required to surrender to custody except if he is required in any other offence. Record and proceedings be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. Criminal Revision Application No. 396/2004 also stands dismissed.