1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1560/2008 [State of Maharashtra .vrs. Sudhir @ Sham Deorao Dange and three others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the appellant/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JULY 11, 2008 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the appellant/State. 2. The husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased Chhaya were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and alternatively under Section 306 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them were acquitted of all the charges. The State has challenged their acquittal. 3. A perusal of the judgment shows that Chhaya made two oral dying declarations before her brothers PW 1 Dnyaneshwar s/o Narayanrao Dhande and PW 3 Vishwas s/o 2 Narayanrao Dhande. As many as three dying declarations were recorded, one by PW 15 ASI Panjabrao Kate at Exh.77 at 11.30 a.m., second by PW 13 PSI Raosaheb Shirsat at Exh.71 at 5.30 p.m. and third by PW 11 Surekha Duddalwar, Executive Magistrate at Exh.57 at 9.00 p.m. In the first two dying declarations i.e Exh.77 and 71, Chhaya stated that she poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire because of the illtreatment by her husband, whereas in the third dying declaration she says that all the accused are responsible for the said incident . However, it is nowhere stated that the accused persons set her on fire. Perhaps that is why the trial court found that multiple dying declarations are inconsistent with each other and that no dying declaration can be believed. We find that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence, leave to file appeal is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande