1 A IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2307 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant V/s. Ashok Gangaram Chavan & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P.for the State. None for the Respondents. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C. Heard learned A.P.P.Mr.Adsule for the State of Maharashtra, the applicant. 2. This is a delay condonation application for condonation of delay of 34 days in preferring a leave petition to file an appeal against the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. original accused. Said Respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 2 306 and 498 A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It appears that the delay is caused due to time taken for processing of the papers and authorization, at Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya. Mumbai, and as such said delay is accordingly condoned and delay condonation application is allowed. 3. Now, in order to ascertain whether the present leave petition can be allowed or not, even in the absence of anybody from the Respondents acquitted accused, this Court has gone through the reasoning given by the Sessions Court and it is decided that present leave petition can be disposed of even at this stage and also appropriate orders can be passed. 4. It appears that the the incident of one Smt.Mangala wife of Respondent No.1, getting burn injuries in the courtyard of her house occurred on 13th April, 2007. Marriage of said Smt.Mangala with accused No.1 was performed about 18 to 19 years back, however, allegedly according to the case of the prosecution, she was being ill treated on imposing certain allegations of bad character and that count there was quarrel between Respondent No.1 and herself. Apparently, apart from the substantive evidence of P.W.No.5, one brother of the deceased, there is no other evidence to show that there was some alleged ill-treatment and cruelty practice on the deceased by the accused persons. It appears that the independent witness i.e. P.W.No.4 neighbour of the accused did not support the case of the prosecution. 3 In fact there is a statement recorded of the deceased and which do not implicate any of the accused and mentioned that due to the burst of the kerosene stove she sustained burn injuries. Deceased died on the same day of the incident, however, according to her brother P.W.No.5 and also according to another brother P.W.No.3, she made oral disclosure involving the accused persons and such disclosure was made while under the treatment at the hospital and it was made before P.W.No.3. However, there is nothing in witting to that effect and in fact was narrated to the police by P.W.No.5 as to such oral dying declaration made by deceased before P.W.No.3, and was made known to him by P.W.No.3. 4. It is also an admitted position that though the incident is of 13th April, 2007, the F.I.R. came to be lodged some time on 4th June, 2007, however, according to P.W.No.5 he lodged complaint on 26th April, 2007. On this aspect, trial Court examined two court witnesses i.e. police persons from the concerned police station and ascertained that on the relevant day either on 13th April, 2007 or 26th April, 2007 there was no any station diary entry as to the complainant or relatives of the deceased filing of any complaint or giving statement. 5. In view of the above circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing again to reagitate the matter in appeal and as such the present leave petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. 4 (A.R. JOSHI, J.)