1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.86/2008 (Pralhad s/o Asaram Lokhande Vs. Vitthal Abarao Kadve and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14 th September,2009. 1. Counsel for complainant – Pralhad called absent. Same position on earlier dates, as is evident from the record. 2. The acquittal recorded in Sessions Case No.197/2006 by learned Additional Sessions Judge at Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.197/2006 for an offence under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, is subject of criticism. 3. The learned Judge has considered Exhibit-28, the dying declaration, dated 23.4.2006 of the deceased recorded by Police officer. I have gone through the said dying declaration, as its copy is now produced by Mr. N.G.Shah, Counsel representing the accused. This is the dying declaration, first time recorded at 3.30 p.m. by the Police officer, after obtaining Consciousness Certificate from the Medical Officer. 2 In this dying declaration, Rajeshwari, the deceased, has demonstrated the manner in which the incident and she suffering burn injuries has taken place on 21.4.2006. She indicated, it was accidentally she suffered burn injuries, her husband also tried to extinguish the same in which his both hands were also suffered. She has not implicated her husband in the matter and informed the police that she is matriculate, know what she is saying and gave statement cautiously. This was one of the cause for the learned Judge to consider about the allegations made against the accused. The assessment of the evidence by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse, requiring any interference. 4. Criminal Revision Application lacks merit, it is dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv86.08