JUDGMENT B.R.Gavai, J. - The State has approached this Court taking exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No.90 of 2010, dt.8.8.2012 thereby acquitting the appellant/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 450 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus : Crime No.16 of 2010 came to be registered by Police Station Chhani on 9th March, 2010 against the accused on the basis of statement of victim Shital, which was recorded on 8th March, 2010 by the Executive Magistrate, Akola. In her statement, she has stated that, on 7th March, 2010, at around 6.00 p.m., she was talking with her neighbour Shilabai in the courtyard of house of Shilabai. Accused came there. He abused Shital and Shilabai. Thereafter, Shital went in the house. Accused came behind Shital. Accused Nitain and Jagat caught hold of hands of Shital. Accused Rajendra picked up a kerosene can, poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Thereafter, the accused ran away. They locked the door of the house of Shital from outside. Neighbours opened the door and entered in the house of Shital. They extinguished fire. They admitted Shital in the hospital at Chatari and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital at Akola. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. Learned trial Judge framed charges below Exh.33. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, learned trial Judge passed the order of acquittal, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 4. Shital Ramesh Sardar (PW1) is a star witness. Nodoubt that she has stated about the incident as narrated above in her examination-in-chief. However, the learned trial Judge found that her evidence was contradictory to the statement which was initially recorded as a dying declaration by the Executive Magistrate. He states that, in the said declaration, she has only named accused no.1 Rajendra and not named the other accused. Learned trial Judge, therefore, found that Shital (PW1) has improved her case and as such, only on the basis of her testimony, conviction of the appellant would not be proper. He states that, in the said declaration, she has only named accused no.1 Rajendra and not named the other accused. Learned trial Judge, therefore, found that Shital (PW1) has improved her case and as such, only on the basis of her testimony, conviction of the appellant would not be proper. He has further observed that though there were independent witnesses who, according to Shital (PW1), had witnessed the incident, none of them are examined. Prosecution has also examined Suresh Ramesh Sadar (PW3), son of the victim. Though, in his examination-in-chief, he supports the prosecution case, he admits in his cross-examination that he was playing inside the house and therefore, he cannot say as to what exactly happened inside the house. Learned trial Judge, therefore, found that the evidence, as led by the prosecution, was not sufficient enough to record the order of conviction. 5. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited. Only if it is found that the finding, as recorded, is perverse or improbable, interference would be warranted. No perversity or impossibility could be noticed in the approach as made by the learned trial Judge warranting interference. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.