1 Criminal Appl.No.4307 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4307 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Asha Nivrutti Borhade RESPONDENT Mr.D.V.Tele, learned counsel for the appellant. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 09/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant/State questioned the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner dated 29/06/2010 in sessions case No.45/2009, acquitting the respondent/accused for an offence punishable u/s. 302 of The IPC. 2. The respondent/accused was put to trial on the allegations that he had poured kerosene at Nivrutti on 19/05/2009, and had set him ablaze. P.W.No.4 is a witness examined by the prosecution, who had seen the victim Nivrutti running towards his house and had also seen the accused running behind Nivrutti. Prosecution also placed reliance on the dying declarations at Exh.38 and 30. Unfortunately, the witnesses who had recorded the two dying declarations, did not state about the contents of the dying declaration. The dying 2 Criminal Appl.No.4307 of 2010 declarations, therefore, do not proved. 3. A reference at this juncture may usefully be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Jivan and another versus State of Maharashtra, 2008 All MR, (Cri.) 2018, and in Laxmibai Versus State, 2010 All MR (Cri.) 182. In the light of the fact that the prosecution has filed to prove the contents of the dying declarations, the aforesaid dying declarations have been allegedly rejected by the Trial Court. 4. We have heard the learned A.P.P. and we have perused the record and proceedings. The prosecution also relied upon the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made by the Nivrutti. The statements of the witnesses came to be recorded after more than a month of the incident, even after the police were asking probing questions in the village as to whether anyone was acquainted with the facts of the case. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court to warrant any interference. In that light of the matter, therefore, their being no merit in the matter, criminal application no.4307/2010 is dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/FEB. 2011/cri.appl.4307-10