1 APEAL516.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.516 OF 2010 Shri Raman P. Makwana : Appellant (Orig.Informant) V/s. Nikhil Babubhai Waghela & Ors. : Respondents .... Ms Indu Varma for the appellant. Mrs.A.S.Pai, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.3. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.3-State. 2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court whereby the respondents came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the 2 APEAL516.10 prosecution has examined in all six witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is contended that the evidence of P.W.1 Raman Purshottam Makwana, P.W.2 Maya Navin Makwana, P.W.3 Nainaben Ramjibhai Dhandaliya and P.W.4 Nainaben Jitubhai Darji clearly shows that the respondents-accused were the authors of the burn injuries sustained by the deceased. It is contended that the husband of the deceased ill-treated her and the evidence on record clearly shows that he is responsible for the injuries sustained by the deceased. The learned counsel has submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the prosecution evidence, including the medical evidence in the right perspective, which has resulted in the acquittal of the respondent nos.1 & 2. It is contended that the judgement and order of acquittal being perverse, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel. Perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. 5. In the instant case, it is no doubt true that as per the postmortem report, the deceased died due to burn injuries. The Chemical Analyzer's report shows that kerosene residue was detected on the clothes of the deceased. We want to express that the medical evidence only 3 APEAL516.10 demonstrates the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased and the cause of death. The prosecution has to establish the author of the injury by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. A perusal of the evidence of these four witnesses would show that they have only mentioned in their respective testimony that the husband of the deceased used to ill-treat the deceased. There is not even a whisper about the nature of ill-treatment and the kind of ill-treatment given to the deceased by her husband. It is also not mentioned in the testimony the date and time when the deceased was ill-treated by her husband prior to the incident. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is cryptic and is wholly inadequate to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The medical evidence by itself does not prove the charge. 6. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal suffers from lack of merits and the same is dismissed. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)