:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3949 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3949 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3949 OF 2007 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant versus Sau. Sindhubai Bajarang Zagade ..Respondent Mrs. P. H. Kantharia for the Appellant - State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI And CORAM : BILAL NAZKI And CORAM : BILAL NAZKI And S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. S. A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . This is an Application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal in an offence under Section 302. The prosecution tried to establish a case against the accused on the basis of the dying declarations made by the deceased. According to Public Prosecutor there were three dying declarations. Exhibits ’19’ and ’20’, two dying declarations were recorded by Doctor P.W. 7 and the third one, Exhibit ’31’ is recorded by the Investigating Officer. All the three dying :2: declarations give three different versions of the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. In one of the dying declaration it is stated that mother-in-law, the accused brought kerosene and poured it on the deceased and lit the match stick. In second dying declaration, the deceased is supposed to have stated that she herself poured kerosene over her and tried to commit the suicide, and, in third dying declaration she is supposed to have stated that the mother-in-law brought the kerosene but the deceased herself poured it on herself and lit the match stick. Therefore, there are three inconsistent dying declarations and it is not possible for this court to come to a conclusion as to which of the dying declaration was correct in the absence of any further corroborative evidence. Therefore, we do not think that this is a case where this court come to a conclusion that the trial court had adopted a course, which was totally unfounded. Therefore, leave refused. Application dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)