ladda 1 appln-4033-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4033 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra.. ..Applicant. versus Prafulla Kaluram Parkhi and Anr.. ..Respondents. Smt S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Applicant-State. Mr Sachin Thombre with Sachin Pawar, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 10th March, 2011 P.C. :- 1. This an application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of both the accused, preferred by the State. 2. Heard learned A.P.P.for the State. Perused the appeal Memo and accompanying documents and also perused R and P. 3. The charges levelled against both the respondents - original ladda 2 appln-4033-09 accused i.e. husband and brother-in-law of the victim woman were punishable under sections 498-A, 306, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Incident of burning occurred in the house of the victim and Respondent No.1, victim’s husband, on 19th January, 2008. Apparently, there are two dying declarations of the victim woman recorded on the same day at Exhs. 20 and 25. First one is not incriminating and mentioning regarding the accidental burning as when she woke up in the house. due to her feet, the lantern turned turtled and caught fire as kerosene came out and her nylon saree also caught fire. Her husband, Accused No.1 tried to extinguish the fire by pouring the water and placing quilt on her person. In the process, he also sustained burn injuries. In the scene of offence panchnama, there was presence of water in the room. Apart from the first dying declaration there was another dying declaration recorded on the same day. However, in between, admittedly, PW No. 1, (father of the deceased) visited the woman for seeing her condition in the hospital and thereafter reportedly second dying declaration which is incriminating to both the respondents accused came to be recorded by the police officer. In the said second dying declaration, allegations against respondents are that they were ill- treating her and respondent No.1 her husband was addicted to ladda 3 appln-4033-09 consuming liquor and used to harass her. Due to such torture victim had poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. Apparently, according to the prosecution, abetment to commit suicide was spelt out from the said dying declaration. However, the said plea has not been accepted by the trial Court and reasons given for such non-acceptance is no cause established by the prosecution as to need for recording the said dying declaration immediately on the same day and secondly that both the dying declarations were recorded by the same police officer. It is also a factual position that out of seven witnesses recorded by the prosecution, PW No. 3 uncle of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution. So also, one panch witness for the scene of offence, PW No. 5 did not support the case. However, another panch PW No. 6 was examined by the prosecution and in the said spot panchnama as mentioned above the place was found in water condition and that time one kerosene lantern was taken charge of. 4. Needless to mention that when there are two views possible on given set of circumstances and when one view is accepted by the trial Court, while dealing with the matter, after appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, there is nothing much in arriving at the different conclusion than that has been arrived at by the learned trial Court. In ladda 4 appln-4033-09 that view of the matter, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the accused persons and that has been done by the Sessions/Trial Court while acquitting the respondents. 5. In view of the above, there is nothing to re-agitate the matter. Hence, consequently, the leave to file appeal stands rejected and accordingly disposed of. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) LRS