JUDGMENT : MAULIK J. SHELAT, J. 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.09.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Session Case No. 44 of 2001. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Sections 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 The prosecution alleges that on 28.04.2001 at about 6 p.m. the complainant-Labhuben Nanubhai was doing work outside her house situated in the street of Vaja Master near “Shravan Talkies” Surendranagar, after the completion of mason work in her house. At that time, the accused no. 1 Nanubhai Talshibhai Chunara Koli, called the deceased to come in the house. Thereafter, all the accused caught hold of her and tied her hands. Thereafter, accused no. 2 Rameshbhai Talshibhai Chunara Koli threw chilly powder in her eyes and then sprinkled kerosene on her body and set her on fire. On making shouts, the persons residing nearby, came to the scene and she was taken to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar. Her complaint was recorded at the hospital at the instance of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Surendrangar. 2.2 Thereafter, First Information Report (FIR) with Sub Divisional Police Officer, Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas, collected medical documents, and obtained the post-mortem report. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar. Given the seriousness of the alleged offenses, the aforesaid Court committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar. Given the seriousness of the alleged offenses, the aforesaid Court committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.4 Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Sessions Court, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trust worthy and taking into consideration the testimony of the Medical Officers and considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges. 3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J.K. Shah at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.13 against the Respondents-Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents-Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They were tried for the said offences and in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 18 prosecution witnesses and also produced 17 documentary evidence, which are as under: Oral Evidences S. No. Exhibit No. Name of Witness Nature of Witness Remarks 1. 18 Aileshbhai Mansukhbhai PW-1 2. 22 Rakeshbhai Ratilal PW-2 3. 23 Janakbhai Mavjibhai PW-3 Hostile 4. 24 Vasantben Janakbhai PW-4 Hostile 5. 25 Lilaben Mavjibhai PW-5 Hostile 6. 26 Dilipbhai Ramjibhai PW-6 Hostile 7. 27 Champaben Gatorbhai PW-7 Hostile 8. 28 Ramaben Harkhbhai PW-8 Hostile 9. 29 Salimbhai Mahemudbhai PW-9 Hostile 10. 30 Maganbhai Jivabhai PW-10 Hostile 11. 31 Rajubhai Bababhai PW-11 Hostile 12. 32 Ex. Mg. Magistrate 13. 35 Dr. Mansukhbhai Pattani Doctor 14. 38 Kanaiyalal Arvindbhai Ninama Police Officer 15. 41 Dr. Arjun Parikh Doctor 16. 43 PSO. Laxmansinh PSO 17. 47 PSI Manbhai PSI 18. 55 Dr. Kanubhai Vasani Doctor Documentary Evidences S. No. Exhibit No. Name of Witness 1. 19 Panchanam of place of offence 2. 20 Inquest panchnama 3. 21 Arrest Panchnama 4. 33 Police Yadi 5. 34 DD 6. 36 PM Note 7. 39 Complaint 8. 40 Police Yadi 9. 42 Medical certificate 10. 44 30/01 copy 11. 45 Station dairy 12. 55 Dr. Kanubhai Vasani Doctor Documentary Evidences S. No. Exhibit No. Name of Witness 1. 19 Panchanam of place of offence 2. 20 Inquest panchnama 3. 21 Arrest Panchnama 4. 33 Police Yadi 5. 34 DD 6. 36 PM Note 7. 39 Complaint 8. 40 Police Yadi 9. 42 Medical certificate 10. 44 30/01 copy 11. 45 Station dairy 12. 46 Transfer of investigation 13. 49 Muddamal parikshan 14. 50 Receipt of Muddamal parikshan 15. 51 FSL Aheval 16. 52 FSL certificate 17. 53 Map 5. Thus, the prosecution had examined medical officers who either treated complainant- Labhuben or performed her Post Mortem (P.M.) and other police witness, which according to the prosecution, brought home the charges levelled against the accused in support of their case. The prosecution has also heavily relied upon Dying Declaration of complainant-Labhuben and documentary evidences in support of the oral evidence led by them before the Trial Court. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J.K. Shah would submit that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law, erroneous and based on irrelevant material. It is further contended that learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondents-accused and not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record though the prosecution had proved its case against the Accused. It is further contended that learned Trial Court has given undue weightage to the minor omission and contradiction in the evidence of witnesses, though there was no material omission and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. The learned Trial Court has relied on minor contradiction and discarded the evidence of the witnesses. He would further submit that learned Trial Court failed to appreciate medical evidence in its true spirit and without appreciating serious offence being committed by accused, erroneously comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges against accused. 6.1 He lastly submitted that the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and the prosecution has established the guilt of all the accused and learned Trial Court has committed an error both on law and facts. Thus, he would submit that learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused. Thus, he would submit that learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused. 6.2 So, according to State, the learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and appropriate sentences for the offences be passed against all the accused by allowing the present appeal. 7. Per Contra, Learned advocate, Mr. Rahul K. Dave, for learned advocate Mr. Kirti R. Dave appearing for the accused-respondents herein, submitted that the order of learned Trial Court, is just and proper according to the facts & circumstance of the case. There is no error committed by Session Court while acquitting accused from all charges. He would submit that prosecution has failed to prove any of charges levelled against accused. He would submit that none of the doctors, who have been examined by the prosecution, has supported the case of prosecution. It has come on record by way of oral evidence of medical officers that when Labhuben Nanubhai was brought into hospital at that time, she was in the state of mind to give dying declaration. He would further submit that entire case of prosecution is rest upon the dying declaration of deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai, which is not proved on record in accordance with law and in absence of any motive established, the Sessions Court has not committed any error whatsoever while acquitting the accused. Thus, he would lastly submit that impugned judgment does not require any interference and hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. No other and further submissions being made by any of respective parties. 9. We have gone through the records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India while deciding acquittal appeal. 10. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law as declared by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal. 11. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 has held as under: “39. 11. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 has held as under: “39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below: “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “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, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise 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. (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.” 40. 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.” 40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. as follows: “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence. 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material. 41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 12. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 12. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after appreciating the evidence on record, following glaring facts, which are noticed by learned Sessions Court, while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered while deciding the present appeal. 13. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence in detail and closely examined the dying declaration of deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai as well as oral evidence of Dr. Mansukhlal Pattani-PW-13, Dr. Arjun Mohanlal-PW-15 and Dr. Kanubhai Vasani-PW-18. So far as evidence of other witnesses are concerned, they are either turned hostile or not supported the case of the prosecution. 14. It has been vehemently submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that accused, being family members i.e., husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai, have committed the serious offence of murder by burning alive the Complainant-Labhuben Nanubhai. So, minor contradiction in the evidence of prosecution may not be given benefit to the accused from acquitting serious charges levelled against the accused. Mr.Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has also taken us through copy of dying declaration at Exh.34, wherein, he has pointed out that deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai has categorically mentioned and referred name of all the accused for committing such heinous crime. He has also taken us through oral evidence of medical officers, examined by prosecution and according to his submission, the learned Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not appreciating evidence brought on record and thereby, committed an error in acquitting the accused. 15. As the entire case of the prosecution is rest upon the dying declaration of deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai and in absence of any supporting evidence led by prosecution, whereby established the motive of the accused, it is very important for us to examine as to whether the dying declaration given by the deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai was under conscious state of mind? and whether she was able to speak, understand and give correct information to Executive Magistrate, who has recorded such dying declaration?. 16. Now, We are examining the 3 crucial oral evidence of Medical Officers, who were examined by prosecution. 16.1 Dr. and whether she was able to speak, understand and give correct information to Executive Magistrate, who has recorded such dying declaration?. 16. Now, We are examining the 3 crucial oral evidence of Medical Officers, who were examined by prosecution. 16.1 Dr. Mansukhbhai Pattani-PW-13, who happens to be Medical Officer in Emergency ward in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar, who had performed post mortem of deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai, wherein, he has admitted in his cross-examination that he had seen the treatment case paper of the deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai. He voluntarily stated that there was 100% burn injury, which was spread on her entire body. He has further admitted that such type of patients may become unconscious due to so much pain and shock. 16.2 Another witness, namely, Dr. Arjun Parikh-PW-15, who was a medical officer at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar in Emergency Ward on 28.04.2001, appears to have given initial treatment to deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he had tried to talk to deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai but all of his efforts went in vain. He has further admitted that when deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai was brought before him, at about 7:35 p.m., till 8:00 p.m., he was on duty, and during such period, the treatment was given by him and the patient was not fully gained consciousness. 16.3 Lastly, Dr. Kanubhai Vasani-PW-19, who was medical officer at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar on 28.04.2001, has admitted in his cross-examination that in dying declaration, it is not stated that deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai was fit to give dying declaration. He has further admitted that dying declaration was recorded at about 12:20 late night and at that time, he has not examined the patient (deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai). 17. So, after re-appreciating the above stated medical evidence, which would clearly suggest that prosecution has failed to prove about the conscious state of mind of deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai at the time of recording of dying declaration. 18. Thus, the conjoint reading of all the medical evidences, vis-a-vis, 100% burnt injuries were found on the body of the deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai, which led to only one conclusion that she would not be in a position to understand, speak and give correct information to Executive Magistrate about happening of incident in question. 19. 18. Thus, the conjoint reading of all the medical evidences, vis-a-vis, 100% burnt injuries were found on the body of the deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai, which led to only one conclusion that she would not be in a position to understand, speak and give correct information to Executive Magistrate about happening of incident in question. 19. It is required to be noted that when deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai was brought to Hospital at around 7:35 p.m. on 28.04.2001, the doctor, who had given initial treatment to her, his evidence clearly suggest that deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai did not gain consciousness until he left his duty at about 8:00 p.m. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges by producing any cogent medical evidence, which can prove that later on, deceased-Labhuben Nanubhai had regained consciousness and was able to understand, speak and in a position to give her dying declaration. 20. Thus, after going through entire set of evidence and its re-appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Sessions Court, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against accused and unable to established the motive of the accused for commission of such crime. According to us, the reasons, assigned by learned Session Judge, are just and proper and we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting accused. 21. Considering these set of evidences on record, above stated reasons and in light of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with scope of acquittal appeal, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2001 while acquitting the respondents. 22. Thus, the appeal is meritless and requires to be dismissed, accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the Session Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. No order as to cost.