1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 3364 of 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2008 (State of Mah. .vs. Panjabrao Laxmanrao Pund and 3 ors.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for the Appellant/State .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE &, A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 1. Heard Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for the State. 2. According to the prosecution the marriage between accused no.4 Nitin and Anita (the deceased) had taken place on 2.6.2002. After marriage she was being illtreated by her father-in- law (accused No.1), brothers-in-law (accused Nos. 2 and 3) and husband (accused No.4). On 31.10.2005 Anita committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person as she could bear the illtreatment. On the next day i.e. on 1.11.2005 PW6 Mr. Shinde, Special Executive Magistrate visited the hospital and after satisfying himself about the fitness of Anita to give statement, 2 recorded her dying declaration (Exh.75) wherein she stated about illtreatment meted out to her. She also stated that she could not bear the illtreatment and hence she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person. 3. The prosecution has also examined Anita's father (PW1), Anita's brother (PW3) and their neighbour (PW4) who on learning about the incident, rushed to the hospital and met her. According to them Anita stated them about the illtreatment. She also stated that her father-in-law, brothers-in-law and husband burnt her. It is thus apparent that there is inconsistency between the dying declaration (Exh.75) recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate and the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by deceased Anita before her father and brother. It seems that because of this inconsistency, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence and acquitted all the accused. We see no perversity in the judgment. Leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai