AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2512 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicants Vs. Samshad Ahmed Mohd. Abbas Ansari & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged judgment and order dated 3/2/2010 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.459 of 2007 to the extent it acquits accused 1 of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and to the extent it acquits accused 2 to 7 of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 34 and 498-A of the IPC. AJN 2 2. We have heard learned A.P.P. in support of the application, at some length. The case of the prosecution appears to be that deceased Musharat who was the wife of accused 1 was subjected to ill-treatment by all the accused persons, who are members of her matrimonial family. In the night between 5/8/2007 and 6/8/2007, all the accused are said to have poured kerosene on her and are said to have set her on fire. Due to injuries received by her, she died. Her son, who was sleeping next to her also received burn injuries. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that though the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC are not proved against accused 1, offence under Section 302 of the IPC is proved against him. He, therefore, convicted accused 1 under Section 302 of the IPC. So far as rest of the accused are concerned, while acquitting them of all the offences, learned Sessions Judge has observed that the deceased and her son were sleeping in one room and accused 2 to 5 were sleeping in the hall. Accused 6 and 7 are cousins of accused 1, who were staying separately. In the dying declaration dated AJN 3 6/8/2007, the deceased has stated that when she received burn injuries, she saw accused 1 in her room. She has not stated that she was sleeping in the same room where accused 2 to 5 were sleeping. In the circumstances, her story that all the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire does not appear to be true. We concur with learned Sessions Judge on this aspect. Learned Sessions Judge has also come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons. This conclusion of learned Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. 3. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. The view taken by learned Sessions Judge is a reasonably possible view. Hence, leave refused. The application is rejected. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]