JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. Present appeal, filed by the State of Gujarat, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arises out of the judgment and order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 10, Gondal, Camp at Dhoraji (hereinafter referred to as “the Sessions Court”) in Sessions Case No. 119 of 1998 (with Sessions Case No. 4 of 2007) acquitting the respondent accused from the charges levelled against them for the offences under sections 143, 147, 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded, is that respondent accused No. 1-Valiben Sidibhai, accused No. 2-Manjuben Palabhai and accused No. 3-Dhaniben were residing at Rajkot and accused No. 4-Ismailbhai Amadbhai Kureshi was residing at Junagadh. Earlier, some dispute had taken place between the complainant Jayantibhai and the accused Valiben, Manjuben, Dhaniben and Ismailbhai with regard to the visits of Ismailbhai at the house of Dhaniben, as the complainant did not like it. On 24.4.1998, the complainant lodged a complaint before the PSI, Dhoraji camp, alleging inter-alia that on 24.4.1998 at about 9 p.m. when complainant Jayantibhai was at home, the said Valiben, Manjuben, Dhaniben, Ismailbhai alias Islo and Bhimabhai had come to the house of complainant and started beating him. Thereafter, the said Bhimabhai and Ismailbhai had caught hold of the complainant and poured kerosene on him from the kerosene Can lying there and set the complainant on fire. As a result thereof, the complainant got injuries in both the legs and also both palms of the hand. The complainant was, thereafter, taken to the Government Hospital at Dhoraji by one Kantilal Khimabhai and Kishanbhai Khodabhai and, thereafter, was taken for further treatment at Junagadh. The said complaint was registered at Dhoraji police station with regard to the incident in question, as C.R. No. I-89 of 1998 of the alleged offences under sections 143,147,307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The investigating officer, after recording the statements of witnesses and carrying out the investigation, had submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhoraji, who committed the same under section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Sessions Court, Rajkot at Dhoraji. The said case was registered as Sessions Case No. 119 of 1998. 3. The investigating officer, after recording the statements of witnesses and carrying out the investigation, had submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhoraji, who committed the same under section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Sessions Court, Rajkot at Dhoraji. The said case was registered as Sessions Case No. 119 of 1998. Since the accused No. 4 Ismail was absconding, on his arrest additional charge-sheet was filed against him. On the committal of said case, the same was registered as Sessions Case No. 4 of 2007 in the Sessions Court. 4. The accused having not pleaded guilty, the Sessions Court had framed the charge against them at Exh.14 for the offences under sections 143, 146,147, 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Sessions Court to prove the said charges. After the completion of the trial, further statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which, they denied the allegations levelled against them. The Sessions Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them by the impugned judgment and order. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakker for the appellant, taking us through the evidence on record, submitted that though the complainant Jayantibhai had not fully supported the case of the prosecution, from the complaint at Exh.73 and the Panchnama of the scene of offence at Exh.46 and the medical papers at Exh.57, alleged incident as well as involvement of the accused in the said incident was duly proved by the prosecution. She further submitted that earlier also the disputes had taken place between the complainant and the accused for which, the complaints were lodged against each other, which are on record at Exhs.53 and 54 from which, it clearly transpires that there was enmity between the accused and the complainant, which had resulted into the alleged incident. She has also relied upon the evidence of the P.W-4 Pravinchandra Sajpal at Exh.65 before whom the complainant had stated about the alleged incident at the earliest point of time after the incident. She has also relied upon the evidence of the P.W-4 Pravinchandra Sajpal at Exh.65 before whom the complainant had stated about the alleged incident at the earliest point of time after the incident. In short, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has urged that the Sessions Court having not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution in proper perspective, the same is required to be re-appreciated and the accused are required to be convicted for the offences charged against them. 6. However, learned advocate Mr. Thakore appearing for the accused, supporting the findings recorded by the Sessions Court, submitted that there being number of contradictions appearing in the evidence of the complainant as well as other witnesses, the Sessions Court has rightly granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. 7. As stated hereinabove, the Sessions Court has acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. Hence, this Court, being appellate Court, is required to independently appreciate the said evidence and see as to whether the prosecution had proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt or not. Needless to say that the most important evidence with regard to the incident in question would be of the complainant himself, who had received the burn injuries. The complainant Jayantibhai has been examined as PW-1 at Exh.36. He had stated in his deposition that on the date of incident when he was preparing for his meals, Valiben, Manjuben, Dhaniben, Ismailbhai alias Islo and Bhimabhai had come to his house and started beating him and thereafter had thrown him on the burning lamp. Since he started screaming, they all had run away and, thereafter, he had become unconscious. He had further stated that he did not know what had happened thereafter, but he had received burn injuries on his legs. As regards the motive, he had stated that the accused wanted to purchase his house for Rs. 3000/- which was constructed by his father by spending about Rs. 17,000/-. On showing the complaint lodged by him, he denied that the thumb impression below the said complaint was his thumb impression. He also denied that the settlement having taken place with the accused, he was not stating the correct facts. 8. 3000/- which was constructed by his father by spending about Rs. 17,000/-. On showing the complaint lodged by him, he denied that the thumb impression below the said complaint was his thumb impression. He also denied that the settlement having taken place with the accused, he was not stating the correct facts. 8. Now if the said evidence of the complainant before the Court is appreciated in the light of the complaint lodged by him and his statement before the Executive Magistrate, the Court finds that there are number of contradictions in his evidence. Though in the complaint he had alleged that Bhimabhai and Ismail had caught hold of him and poured kerosene, in his evidence before the Court, he had stated that he was thrown on the burning lamp and, therefore, he received burn injuries. As regards the motive also, though it was alleged in the complaint that the incident had taken place, as some dispute had taken place with Manjuben and because he did not like the accused Ismail coming to the house of Dhaniben, in his evidence before the Court, he had stated that the disputes had taken place, as the accused wanted to purchase his house for Rs. 3000/-. Though the Executive Magistrate PW-4 Pravinchandra Sejpal, was examined at Exh.65, before whom the dying declaration of the complainant was recorded, the said dying declaration had paled into insignificance, the complainant having survived. The said statement would be only a statement before the Executive Magistrate and could not be treated as dying declaration admissible in evidence as contemplated under section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though in the medical case papers produced at Exh.57, there was a mention about the burn injuries of the complainant, the details of the incident as to how the complainant had received such burn injuries have not been mentioned. PW-2 Kantilal Khimabhai Sondarwa and PW-3 Rameshbhai Maghabhai, who happened to be the neighbours of the complainant and had allegedly taken the said complainant Jayantibhai to the hospital, had also not supported the case of the prosecution and both were declared hostile. 9. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that there are number of contradictions appearing in the evidence of the complainant as well as the other witnesses which the prosecution has failed to clarify. 9. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that there are number of contradictions appearing in the evidence of the complainant as well as the other witnesses which the prosecution has failed to clarify. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that the prosecution had proved the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even otherwise, it is settled legal position that when two views are possible, the High Court should not reverse the judgment and order of acquittal given by the Sessions Court, merely because other view is possible. Beneficial reference of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 , may be made in this regard. 10. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 10, Gondal, Camp at Dhoraji in Sessions Case No. 119 of 1998 (with Sessions Case No. 4 of 2007) dated 27.2.2007 is confirmed. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. Appeal dismissed.