1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.314 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Anjani Bhanudas Hon & ors ..Respondents Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P, for the State Mr.S.M.Oak, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2008 P.C. . Heard. 2. It is very sorry state of affair that a married girl after a few months of her marriage set herself ablaze. Her marriage was settled by P.W.2 Dashrath. P.W.3 Pushpa is the wife of P.W.2. P.W.2 and P.W.3 in their respective evidence have not attributed any accusing finger against the accused regarding presentation of sarees at the time of marriage at the instance of accused. According to P.W.2, Vaishali never made any complaint to him against accused or the complainant 2 never disclosed him regarding the situation faced by Vaishali at the matrimonial home. That apart, after the incident when Vaishali was taken to hospital, P.W.2 enquired with her regarding the incident and in his evidence there is nothing to suggest that because of harassment at the hands of accused, she set herself ablaze. The evidence of these two witnesses has taken toll of the prosecution case. The learned A.P.P tried to canvass that these two witnesses though are closely related to Vaishali but on earlier occasion they have not supported prosecution case. This may be the correct position. However, on my specific query to the learned A.P.P whether such situation has emerged in any of the record or evidence or was it so suggested to either P.W.2 or P.W.3, the learned A.P.P fairly accepted that no such case was put up to these witnesses. Thus, statement of the learned A.P.P is extraneous to the evidence before this Court and therefore, it cannot be considered to reach to the conclusion about the conduct of P.W.2 and P.W.3 in the matter. 3 3. The victim has suffered 98% burns which is so stated by the Medical Officer in his evidence. The Medical Officer did not endorse about fitness and consciousness of the deceased to give statement. However, P.W.5 Dnyaneshwar Lashkare, who was working as a S.E.O has stated to have recorded Dying Declaration. In the said situation the observations of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Thane that there being doubtful condition created by virtue of evidence of P.W.9 Dr.Suhaskumar Mohanalkar S.E.O did not contact him and did not seek his opinion regarding the condition of the patient cannot be doubted. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge found such evidence of S.E.O to be unreliable and consequently, did not rely on the Dying Declaration. This view of the learned Judge therefore, in the light of evidence adduced before him was the only possible view which could have been taken. It is emerged that two paternal and maternal uncles of the victim were in Police Department. However, she has never conveyed them against her matrimonial affairs to them. F.I.R 4 shows that after marriage Vaishali stayed at her matrimonial home for one month. The evidence does not inspire any confidence to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, Leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)