MAIN POPINT
Unlike the appellate power of High Court under section 378, its revisional power u/s 379 CrPC is very limited.

JUDGMENT

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th October, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.321 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment dated 29th May, 2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.4 of 2004 acquitting the appellant- accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and remanded back the proceedings for consideration afresh to the Session Court.

2. The factual matrix reveals that the deceased Archana married to the appellant-accused on 6th June, 2003. Satyanarayan Puja was performed on 8th June, 2003. As per family traditions, Archana returned to her father's house on 9th June, 2003 and, thereafter, she went back to matrimonial home on 11th June, 2003.

3. On 14th July, 2003 the deceased Archana sustained 95% burn injuries in her matrimonial house. Her husband, appellant-accused was present in the house at the relevant point of time. She was admitted in Civil Hospital, Satara, where the Special Executive Magistrate had recorded her dying declaration on 14th July, 2003 (first dying declaration).

4. The message of the burn injuries suffered by Archana was received by her maternal uncle on 15th July, 2003. He along with his wife, went to see Archana and found that she was under medical treatment in Civil Hospital at Satara.

5. On 16th July, 2003, Special Executive Magistrate recorded another dying declaration of Archana at Civil Hospital, Satara (second dying declaration).

6. Dilip Bajrang Kale (in short Dilip), father of the deceased Archana, thereafter lodged an FIR on 16th July, 2003 with the Pusegaon Police Station, District Satara against the appellant-accused alleged that the accused had given mental and physical harassment to Archana, since dowry demand was not fulfilled and that, ultimately, Archana was made to suffer burn injuries.

7. On 17th July, 2003 inquest panchnama on the body of the deceased was carried at Civil Hospital, Satara and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report suggested that death is caused due to 90% superficial and deep burn injuries.

8. The appellant-accused was arrested and initially proceeded for the charges under Section 498A and 307 IPC. After the death of Archana, he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 498A IPC.

9. After investigation, the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Satara. The prosecution produced a number of witnesses and documentary evidence.

10. The Sessions Judge tried the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 498A IPC and after recording the evidence and appreciating submissions made by the parties acquitted the appellant- accused of the offences alleged against him.

11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal dated 29th May, 2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, the complainant Dilip, father of the deceased invoked revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 Cr. P.C. to challenge the legality and validity of the order of acquittal. The High Court under revisional jurisdiction while accepted that appreciation of evidence is not within the jurisdiction of the revisional court, re-appreciated the dying declaration and observed as follows:

"23. Having taken survey of the law regarding dying declaration and value which is to be attached to it, now let me turn to the dying declarations which are available on record.

24. The deceased had stated in her first dying declaration dated 14.7.2003 that on 4.7.2003 i.e. on the date of incident at about 3.30 p.m. while cooking in the kitchen on gas stove fire caught to the shore of her saree which she tried to extinguish, and, ultimately, suffered injuries. That her husband, who was in the next room brought a bed sheet and bad cover to extinguish fire. That he had also suffered burn injuries.

25. In the second dying declaration recorded on 16.7.20