1 Cri.Application No. 5210 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5210 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Rajiv Ramchandra Shinde & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr N.R. Shaikh, A.P.P. for the applicant. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 23rd December, 2010 PER COURT : This is an application filed by the applicant - State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, dated 30th September, 2010, in Sessions Trial No.54 of 2007, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under section 302, 304-B, 498-A read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had alleged that Sujata, wife of the accused no.1 was set ablaze by the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, on 8.2.2006, at about 4.00 p.m. Sujata had sustained 98% burns. The immediate disclosure made by Sujata to the Medical Officer and which is 2 Cri.Application No. 5210 of 2010 reflected in the medical case papers at Exh.54 was that she had sustained burns accidentally. Dying declaration of Sujata came to be recorded by P.W.9 Judicial Magistrate at 10.15 p.m. on the same day in which Sujata had reiterated that she had sustained burns accidentally. The said dying declaration is at Exh.51. Subsequently in less than an hour from recording of the dying declaration at Exh.51, P.W.9 Judicial Magistrate First Class recorded another dying declaration of Sujata at Exh.53 at 11.05 p.m. In the dying declaration at Exh.53 Sujata had stated that on account of the assault by her husband, she had attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself ablaze. On the next day, i.e. on 9.2.2006 P.W.9 Judicial Magistrate recorded another dying declaration at Exh.53. On the same day P.W.11 also recorded the dying declaration at Exh.75 and P.W.12 also recorded another dying declaration at Exh.49. In the dying declarations at Exhs.53, 75 and 49 Sujata had stated that she was set ablaze by the accused after pouring kerosene. 2. Learned A.P.P. Shri Shaikh has submitted before us that Sujata could not have sustained 98% burns accidentally. It is stated that Sujata has also stated in the dying declarations that the earlier versions have been narrated by her on account of the threats given to her by her husband. The Trial Court found that the dying declarations at Exhs.53, 75 and 49 could not be relied upon in the light of the inter se variances between them. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the 3 Cri.Application No. 5210 of 2010 Judicial Magistrate had obtained the toe impression of Sujata as it was not possible to obtain the thumb impression. However, the dying declarations at Exhs.75 and 49 contained the thumb print of Sujata. The Trial Court further found that no reliance could be placed in respect of charge under section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code in the light of the exaggerations and contradictions in the evidence of the maternal relatives of Sujata. 3. In cases resting on multiple dying declarations it is incumbent for the prosecution to lead evidence in respect of the recording of the dying declaration, particularly about the consistency of the dying declarations. In the present case we have three sets of dying declarations. The dying declarations at Exh.54 and 51 state about accidental burns. The second set of dying declaration is Exh.53 in which Sujata had stated that she had attempted to commit suicide. The third set of dying declarations comprises of Exhs.53, 75 and 49 in which Sujata had stated that the accused had poured kerosene on her and had set her ablaze. In the face of such conflicting and contradictory versions, according to us no reliance can be placed on such versions. We, therefore, find that the Trial Court has not committed any error in declining to place reliance on the said dying declarations. In any event, the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to justify any interference in this appeal against acquittal. 4 Cri.Application No. 5210 of 2010 4. In that light of the matter, there being no merit in the application, application is dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criap5210.10