15. It goes without saying that when the dying declaration has been recorded in accordance with law, and it gives a cogent and plausible explanation   of   the occurrence, the   Court   can   rely upon   it as the solitary piece of evidence to convict the accused. It is for this reason that Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to the general   rule   against   the   admissibility   of   hearsay   evidence   and its Clause (1)   makes   the   statement   of   the   decease   admissible.   Such statement, classified as a “dying declaration” is made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to the injuries which culminated to his death or the circumstances under which injuries were inflicted. A dying declaration is thus admitted in evidence on the premise that the anticipation of brewing death breeds the same human feelings as that of a conscientious and guiltless person under oath. It is a statement comprising   of   last   words   of   a person   before   his   death   which   are presumed to be truthful, and not infected by any motive or malice. The dying declaration is therefore admissible in evidence on the principle of necessity as there is very little hope of survival of the maker, and if found reliable, it can certainly form the basis for conviction.

23. The other important reason to depart from the High Court’s view re. conviction of the appellants is that the power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378, CrPC should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court was a ‘possible view’. The judgment of the trial court cannot be set aside merely because the High Court finds its own view more probable, save where the judgment of the trial court suffers from perversity or the conclusions drawn by it were impossible if there was a correct reading and analysis of the evidence on record. To say it differently, unless the High Court finds that there is complete misreading of the material evidence which has led to miscarriage of justice, the view taken by the trial court which can also possibly be a correct view, need not be interfered with. This self-restraint doctrine, of course, does not denude the High Court of its powers to re-appreciate the evidence, including in an appeal against acquittal and arrive at a different firm finding of fact.

24. If the case in hand is evaluated on these parameters, it may be seen from paragraphs 4 and 6 of its order that the High Court dealt with the appeal against acquittal summarily and did not even discuss the ocular evidence….