Important Point:
That in an appeal against acquittal filed under Section 378 of the Code, 1973, as such there is no limitation on the Appellate Court to review the evidence. But at the same time, if on fact as well as on law, conclusion drawn by the trial Court based on appreciation of evidence unless compelling, cogent and substantial reasons appear for interference and when findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, acquittal is not to be reversed or disturbed. When acquittal is based on the surmises and conjectures and not substantiated by law and evidence on record, an Appellate Court may re-appreciate and review the entire evidence to see that undue benefit is not given to the accused. Now, it is well settled that even if two views are possible, the Appellate Court shall not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal in a routine manner unless the judgment of the trial Court is per se wrong on facts and on law or perverse, substituting its own views by the High Court is not permissible. That in case of acquittal, it is to be borne into mind by the Appellate Court that there is double presumption in favour of the accused that firstly, presumption of innocence in favour of a guilty on the premise that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by the Court of Law, and secondly, when accused secures an acquittal, such presumption of innocence is reinforced and reaffirmed by the trial Court.

Anant S. Dave, J.

1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has filed this appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [in short, 'Code'] challenging the judgment and order dated 26.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Gandhidham-Kutch in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2003 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498(A), 304(B), 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, Gitaben - complainant aged 21 years and studied upto 7th standard was married to the accused No. 1 and was living in the joint family at the matrimonial home with her in-laws. That marriage of the complainant was 'sato' so no dowry was exchanged between the families, however her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband caused her mental and physical harassment on this issue. On 05.02.2003 after taking dinner the complainant, her husband and sister-in-law were watching television till late night and the complainant retired to her room and later on came to call her husband. At that time, her husband got furious and thrown her out of the room and, therefore, the complainant had knocked the door so as to permit her to come in. At that time, sister-in-law of the complainant caught hold of her and husband poured kerosene over her body and lighted a match stick and set her ablaze. The complainant received extensive burn injuries and, therefore, while shouting for help, she fell down and due to severe burn injuries she was unable to see and she did not know who had extinguished fire and taken her to the hospital. At that time, the complainant was conscious. The complainant was brought to the hospital by the husband at 00:30 am and initially history was given that she received burn injuries while preparing tea. At 01:30 am, the Executive Magistrate reached the Hospital and till 02:10 am he recorded the Dying Declaration wherein she clearly made the statement that sister-in-law caught hold of her and husband of the complainant poured kerosene and ignited the matchstick. Accordingly, FIR being C.R.I-12/03 registered at Rapar Police Station After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court, Gandhidham, Kutch. The Trial Court framed charge against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and to substantiate the charge the prosecution had produced oral as well as documentary evidences.

3. In order to prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined the following important prosecution witnesses:-

S. No.	PW No.	Exhibit	Name of the Witness
1	PW-01	Exh. 19	Sureshbhai Karshanbhai
2	PW-02	Exh. 29	Vimalkumardas Vaijnathdas
3	PW-03	Exh. 36	Vishanji Jethalal Thakkar
4	PW-04	Exh. 37	Vinechand Keshavlal
5	PW-05	Exh. 43	Kasturiben Jethalal
6	PW-06	Exh. 45	Laxman Bhika
7	PW-07	Exh. 46	Ramji Amba
8	PW-08	Exh. 52	Rajeshgar Bhimgar
9	PW-09	Exh. 53	Parshotam Hari Mali
10	PW-10	Exh. 56	Karshan Bajarang
11	PW-11	Exh. 57	Pushpaben Vishanjibhai
12	PW-12	Exh. 61	Suleman Daud
13	PW-13	Exh. 62	Genaji Pathuji
14	PW-14	Exh. 64	Kanaji Naranji Solanki

3.1 In order to prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had inter alia examined, the following important documentary evidence:-

S. No.	Exhibit No.	Particulars
1	Exh. 21	Letter to Executive Magistrate for recording Dying Declaration
2	Exh. 22	Dying Declaration
3	Exh. 23	Office Order
4	Exh. 30 & 31	Prescription report
5	Exh. 32	Postmortem note
6	Exh. 33