exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court could have only examined glaring errors in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Re-appreciation of the evidence could not be done. The Trial Court, in the case in hand, after appreciating evidence led by both the parties had come to a conclusion that prosecution had not been able to make out any case against the appellants and acquittal was ordered. He further submitted that the High Court had wrongly observed that the dying declaration was not properly considered. He has referred to the dying declaration of the deceased placed on record and submitted that even if the dying declaration is considered in its totality, still it does not make out a case against the appellants. It can merely be said to be an unfortunate accident. Even appellant No. 1 suffered burn injuries in the same accident when the deceased had gone to the kitchen in the early hours of morning to heat up the milk for the children. As is evident from the dying declaration, while sleeping at night, since the gas regulator
