Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w. 34, 498-A, 304-B r/w. s.34 – Prosecution case that appellant-accused (husband of victim deceased) poured kerosene on the victim and lit fire and ran away from the spot – Consequent to which, victim sustained grievous burnt injuries and later died in the hospital – Dying declaration of the victim was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate – In dying declaration victim categorically stated that appellant-accused burnt her – Police filed charge sheet against the three accused persons including appellant-accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498- A, 304-B, 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and ss.3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Trial court acquitted all the accused – However, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal of the appellant accused and held him guilty – On appeal, held: In the instant case, there was a dying declaration given by the victim which was proved and supported by the independent witnesses i.e. the metropolitan magistrate and the medical officer – But the same was discarded by the trial court on some minor contradictions/omissions – On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, it was found that the approach of the trial court was patently erroneous and the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable – Trial court committed a patent error in discarding the dying declaration and other material evidence – Therefore, the interference by the High Court in the appeal against the acquittal of the appellant was justified – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 and 6.