JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE) 1. The present appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.12.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Session case No.11 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court acquitted the respondents-accused for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 306 304(B) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is the case arising out of an incident by which the informant herself, viz. Prasannaba (since deceased), who is wife of accused No.1 and daughter-in-law of accused No.2 resident of Jamnagar was time and again being harassed by the respondents-accused for the dowry and due to continuous harassment, she herself set on fire by poring kerosene on 09.10.1999. She was taken to Irvin Hospital on, where she gave dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate. Ultimately, she succumbed to her injuries and died on 10.10.1999. In this connection, FIR came to be registered with Jamnagar “B” Division Police Station. 3. Learned APP submitted that it is a case of dying declaration, where deceased was in conscious state of mind and gave her dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate. It is submitted that the marriage span was only of three years and doe to continuous harassment by the respondents-accused for dowry, the deceased had set herself on fire. 3.1 It is submitted that the Sessions Court has taken into consideration the evidence of hostile witnesses, i.e. parents of the deceased, whereas dying declaration of the deceased recorded before the Executive Magistrate has not been taken into consideration, which is most crucial and material evidence and the said dying declaration clearly suggested involvement of the respondents-accused in the offence. 3.2 It is submitted that apart from dying declaration, there are other corroborating evidences, i.e. medical evidence, which supports the case of prosecution. 3.3 Learned APP relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Chinubhai @ Chinyo Vadilal Thakore, reported in 2016JX (Guj.) 1692 and submitted that the appellate Court can re-appreciate and review the evidence upon which acquittal is recorded by the trial Court. 3.4 Learned APP also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kothe Vs. Chinubhai @ Chinyo Vadilal Thakore, reported in 2016JX (Guj.) 1692 and submitted that the appellate Court can re-appreciate and review the evidence upon which acquittal is recorded by the trial Court. 3.4 Learned APP also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kothe Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2024 SC, 2682 and submitted that once a dying declaration is found to be authentic and inspiring confidence of the Court then the same can be relied upon and can be sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. 4. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondents-accused submitted that there is contradiction between the time of dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the Police authorities. 4.1 It is submitted that the deceased was of unstable mind and before marriage also, she had taken treatment for the same, which has come on record in the depositions of her partners. 4.2 It is submitted that it has not come on record from deposition of any of the witnesses that the deceased was harassed by the respondents-accused for demand of dowry. On the contrary, marriage life of the deceased was going on very well. 4.3 It is submitted that parents and brother of the deceased have turned hostile and have not supported case of prosecution and in fact, they all have deposed that the deceased was of unstable mind. The Sessions Court has therefore rightly recorded acquittal. 5. On the contrary, marriage life of the deceased was going on very well. 4.3 It is submitted that parents and brother of the deceased have turned hostile and have not supported case of prosecution and in fact, they all have deposed that the deceased was of unstable mind. The Sessions Court has therefore rightly recorded acquittal. 5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that to prove the case against the respondents-accused, the prosecution relied upon following oral evidence:- Sr.No. Name of the witness Exh.No. 1 Deposition of Anupsinh Jilubha Vadher 18 2 Deposition of Dhrupadba Anupsinh Vadher 19 3 Deposition of Pradumansinh Anupsinh Vadher 20 4 Deposition of Hitendra Ratilal Kelaiya 21 5 Deposition of Chandrikaben Bharatbhai 24 6 Deposition of Dr.Sandip Kansal 27 7 Deposition of Dr.Rakhol Chandra Datta 29 8 Deposition of Dinesh Surendrabhai Vyas 32 9 Deposition of Mahesbhia Virabhai Gadhavi 37 10 Deposition of Dr.Gnahdhyam C.Joshi 45 5.1 The prosecution also relied upon following documentary evidence:- Sr.No. Particular Exh.No. 1 Dying declaration 22 2 Letter written for taking dying declaration 23 3 Medical case papers of the deceased 28 4 Letter written for conducting post-mortem 30 5 PM report of the deceased 31 6 Letter written to PSI City “B” Division Police Station 33 7 Entry of station diary 34 8 Panchnama of scene of offence 35 9 Inquest panchnama 36 10 Letter about whether or not deceased is conscious 38 11 Original complaint 39 12 Letter written to register offence on the basis of complaint 40 13 Dying form 41 14 Letter written to add Section 306, etc. 42 15 Letter written to initiate further proceedings after death of deceased 43 16 MLC case papers of the deceased 46 17 Injury certificate of the deceased 47 6. From perusal of record, it appears that is a case of multiple dying declarations and all these versions of the deceased contain contradictions. 7. PW No.1-Anupsinh Jilubhai Vadher, Exh.18, who is father of the deceased in his deposition has stated that her daughter was of unstable mind. The deceased he frequently used to come to her parental home, but had never stated about any harassment caused to her by the respondents. He has deposed that the deceased had never told about any dowry demanded by the respondents. The deceased he frequently used to come to her parental home, but had never stated about any harassment caused to her by the respondents. He has deposed that the deceased had never told about any dowry demanded by the respondents. 7.1 Similarly, PW No.2-Drupadba Anupsinh Vadher, Exh.19, who is mother of the deceased, in her deposition has stated that her daughter was of unstable mind. The deceased he frequently used to come to her parental home, but had never stated about any harassment caused to her by the respondents. She has deposed that the deceased had never told about any dowry demanded by the respondents. 7.2 PW No.3-Pradumansinh Anupsinh Vadher, Exh.20, who is brother of the deceased has also deposed on the same lines as the above witnesses. 7.3 PW No.5-Chandrikaben Bharatbhai, Exh.24, who is neighbour of the deceased in her deposition has stated that she does not know anything about quarrel taking place between the deceased and the respondents and any harassment caused the deceased. It is pertinent to note that all these four witnesses are declared hostile and have not supported case of prosecution. 7.4 PW No.4-Hitendra Ratilal Kelaiya, Exh.21 was the Executive Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. In his deposition, he has stated that he reached at Irvin Hospital at 20;10 and after obtaining fitness certificate of Doctor of the deceased being fit to depose, took her dying declaration from 20;25 to 20;50, where she stated about torture and harassment caused to her by her husband and in-laws. 7.5 PW No.10-Dr.Ghanshyam C.Joshi, Exh.45 was the Medical Officer at Irvin Hospital before whom the deceased gave history of torture and harassment and suspicion by her husband and in-laws. He has stated that the deceased was taken to him at 05;25 pm and at that time, she was conscious and was able to give statement. 7.6 PW No.9-Maheshbhai Virabhai Gadhavi, Exh.37 was the Investigation Officer. Before this witness, the deceased has stated about the torture and harassment caused to her by her husband and in-laws and that the deceased set herself ablaze by poring kerosene due to family issues. 7.7 PW No.6-Dr.Sandip Virendra Kansal, Exh.27 was the Medical Officer, who gave primary treatment to the deceased. Before this witness, the deceased has stated about the torture and harassment caused to her by her husband and in-laws and that the deceased set herself ablaze by poring kerosene due to family issues. 7.7 PW No.6-Dr.Sandip Virendra Kansal, Exh.27 was the Medical Officer, who gave primary treatment to the deceased. He has stated in his deposition that he gave fitness certificate to the Executive Magistrate and when the Executive Magistrate recorded dying declaration of the deceased, her relatives were present. 7.8 PW No.7-Dr.Rakhol Chandra Datta, Exh.29 was the Forensic Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem of the deceased and has stated cause of death due to shock on account of burns. 8. On perusal of medical case papers of the deceased Exh.28, it appears that at 19;15 hours, the deceased was unconscious and therefore, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution of the Doctors and Executive Magistrate is under cloud. 9. Looking to the above mentioned facts as a whole, the prosecution should prove its case beyond doubt through evidences and if there is even slightest doubt on the case of the prosecution, the accused can get the benefit of the same. As discussed earlier, if dying declaration is reliable and believable, it does not require corroboration of other evidences and punishment can be awarded on the basis of dying declaration. However, as discussed earlier, the parents as well as the brother of deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution. The relatives on the maternal side of deceased have given evidence that at the time of giving dying declaration and even before the marriage, the deceased was suffering from mental illness. The maternal side relatives of the deceased have denied that the present respondents-accused gave any kind of harassment or torture to her at the matrimonial home and that there is no reason for the maternal side relatives of the deceased to support the accused. From the record, it also appears that certain things are overwritten in the medical papers and that the endorsement of the doctor that the dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate and complaint before the Police were being recorded simultaneously. Though the Defense has contended from the beginning that the deceased was suffering from mental illness, no witness has been examined or no evidence has been produced by the prosecution in this regard. Though the Defense has contended from the beginning that the deceased was suffering from mental illness, no witness has been examined or no evidence has been produced by the prosecution in this regard. It also appears that in fact respondent No.1-accused tried to save the deceased. As the dying declaration was recorded after the maternal side relatives of the deceased arrived and also the complaint before the Police was recorded, there is possibility of tutoring by the maternal side relatives of the deceased. 10. The Court finds that that the history given before the Doctor, dying declaration recorded before the Executive Magistrate and the complaint of the deceased recorded before the Police, on which the Prosecution has relied upon and which are produced as three different dying declarations of the deceased, the Sessions Court has found the dying declaration to be doubtful and they are not believable and reliable. 10.1 The Court has perused the three dying declarations, before the Police, Executive Magistrate and Medical Officer being Exhs.37, Exh.22 and Exh.45, respectively. The Court finds that there is lack of consistency insofar as the version of cause and also each stage, there is adding and improvement in the version. 11. Under such circumstances, the accused persons can get benefit of the doubt. Moreover, on appreciation of all the facts and evidence on record as well as entire circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent No.1-accused had suspicion on the deceased and in order to get dowry, respondent No.2-accused, subjected the deceased to mental and physical pain and harassment and abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 12. In case of Chinubhai @ Chinyo Vadilal Thakore, the facts were quite different, where though there were three different dying declarations, all were supported by several oral dying decorations made by the deceased to number of other witnesses and there was not a slightest deviation or inconsistency in any of the dying declarations. All dying declarations pointed to a single chain of events of the accused having committed the offence, whereas in the present case there are number of inconsistencies and contradictions apart from different time shown by different witnesses. 13. All dying declarations pointed to a single chain of events of the accused having committed the offence, whereas in the present case there are number of inconsistencies and contradictions apart from different time shown by different witnesses. 13. In case of Rajendra S/o Ramdas Kothe the Apex Court found the dying declarations to be authentic and inspiring confidence and the same were supported by corroborating medical evidence, whereas as stated hereinabove, in the present case, there are number of contradictions in the deposition of witnesses and not supported by medical evidence. 14. The Court may also draw strength from the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein the Apex Court has examined the case law with regard to the power of the High Court to overturned the decision of the Sessions Court where an another view is possible. Examining the case including that of Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Apex Court has culled out the general principles regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal. The Apex Court has held that the appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the appellate court has to keep in mind that in case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and thereafter, upon securing of acquittal, the presumption is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened, and therefore, whenever there are two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, ordinarily, the Apex Court would not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial court. 15. The Court has also perused judgment and order of the Sessions Court and finds that cogent and convincing reasons are assigned by the Sessions Court while acquitting the respondents-accused. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. Records and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Sessions Court.