1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1327 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Sandip Madhavrao Sawant & ors ..Respondents Mr.P.S.Hingorani, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 6TH MAY, 2008 P.C. . The respondents were accused in Session Case No.56 of 2007 where they were charged for the offence punishable under Section 306, 304-B and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to convict the accused. 2. Insofar as respondent No.4 is concerned, he was only the 2 mediator who had arranged the marriage. There is no evidence whatsoever against the accused/respondents. Hence, application against him must be dismissed at the threshhold. 3. Insofar as the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, let us first examine the issue under Section 498-A. The learned Trial Court has considered the evidence brought on record by the prosecution to that effect. That apart we find the case under Section 498-A is sought to be made on behalf of the prosecution based on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. 4. The prosecution case was that she set herself on fire because the previous night she had been kept out of the house the whole night and asked to bring the articles from her house. In the circumstances, in the morning she poured kerosene on herself and lit a match stick in order to commit suicide. On the other hand, evidence has also on record by way of Dying Declaration given by the deceased. In her Dying Declaration she has stated that she was 3 igniting the hearth which was not burning and as said she poured kerosene from the can to facilitate the ignition and as excessive kerosene was poured there was explosion. The Dying Declaration was confirmed by Dr. Premlata Pandurang Shinde. The Dr. was examined as D.W.1 by the defence. Dr.D.W.1 Premlata Pandurang Shinde has stated that she was present when the Dying Declaration ws made and that she had certified that the deceased was conscious. The Dying Declaration therefore, had to be accepted. The prosecution instead of bringing this evidence on record sought to keep away examination of D.W.1 as prosecution witness. 5. The prosecution must bring all the evidence before the Court and not keep away evidence which according to them does not support the prosecution case. Ultimately it is for the Court to consider the Dying Declaration and the statement recorded by P.W.2 and P.W.3. 6. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court after 4 considering the evidence has arrived at conclusion that benefit be given in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. In our opinion, considering what we have discussed this would not be a fit case to grant the application for leave. Consequently, application is rejected. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)