1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra Appellant-ori.complainant versus 1. Pandurang s/o Punjaram Dharme age 25 years, occup. : agriculture, 2. Punjaram Vitthal Dharme, age 60, occupation : agril. 3. Punjabai w/o Punjaram Dharme, age 51 years, occup. household. All r/of Bidkin, Taluka Paithan, District : Aurangabad. Respondents-ori.accused. --------- Shri N. B. Patil, A.P.P. for the appellant. Shri Amol Shinde, Adv. Holding for Shri D.R. Shelke, Advocate for the respondents. ---------- Coram: A. H. Joshi and A. R. Joshi, JJ. Date : September 13, 2011. Judgment : ( Per: A.H.Joshi, J.) 01. Heard learned A.P.P. For the appellant-State and learned Advocate for the respondents-accused. 02. The respondents-accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No.161 of 1993, by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, and were acquitted of the charges, by judgment and order order dated 28.10.1993. 2 3. The prosecution has, in support of its case in relation to ill-treatment and dowry related demands by accused persons, relied on the testimonies of PW-1 Namdeo Mange, PW-3 Khandu Rithe and PW-5 Barku Kajve. However, the evidence on the point of charge under Section 498-A is worthless. 4. Insofar as case being of either homicidal, or suicidal death, is concerned, the prosecution relies on two dying declarations (Exhs.20 and 26). 5. Perused the dying declarations at Exhibits 20 and 26, and the testimonies of the witnesses proving the same, namely, PW-6 Dinkar Nikam and PW-7 Dhondopant Kulkarni, respectively. 6. It is pertinent to note that the versions contained in the dying declarations are divergents as to who set the deceased ablaze. 7. Exhibit 20 reveals that neighbourers Shri Bhujangrao Dhorkule, Sunil Sutar and Bhaya Vitthal, extinguished the fire and took the deceased to the hospital. 8. In Exhibit 26, however, the deceased has named only Bhujangrao Dhorkule, as one who had extinguished the fire and took the deceased to the hospital. 9. However, none of these three persons is examined to support the prosecution case. 3 10. The prosecution story has thus come under the clouds of serious doubts. The dying declarations have gone uncorroborated, in spite of evidence in that respect being available. The persons named in the dying declarations could have been those to whom the deceased may or could have named the accused, or the circumstance contemporary to fire or cause thereof. 11. In the result, no other conclusion than that of acquittal was possible. 12. On the basis of available evidence, this court would not be in a position to take a different view of the matter than the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 13. The appeal has no merits. Appeal is dismissed. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.H. JOSHI, J.) pnd/criapl-125.94