1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3722 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Roshanbi w/o Shaikh Yousuf & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for the applicant. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 11th November, 2009 PER COURT : The State being aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, dated 15.7.2009 rendered in Sessions Case No. 74 of 2008 acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under section 498-A, 302 and 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed the present application seeking leave to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment. 2. The Trial Court at paragraph 16 has referred to the evidence against the present respondents. The aforesaid evidence comprises of five written dying declarations, out of which first four dying declarations exonerated the respondents/accused. The fifth dying declaration came to be recorded after the arrival of the relatives of the deceased. In the aforesaid written dying declaration the deceased implicates the 2 respondents of having poured kerosene on her and having set her ablaze. In the light of such discrepant dying declarations, the Trial Court found that no reliance at all could be placed on the fifth dying declaration which implicated the respondents/accused. The other evidence comprises of the testimony of the minor daughter of deceased Anisabi. The Trial Court found that she was a child witness who was susceptible of being tutored and had been residing with the relatives of her mother. Further, the Trial Court found that there was total variance in respect of the allegations made in the written dying declaration of deceased and the testimony of the child witness. In the absence of any corroboration to the testimony of the child witness, the Trial Court found that no reliance at all could be placed on the aforesaid dying declaration. The Trial Court further found that the presence of the child witness at the scene of the offence at the time of commission of offence itself was doubtful and, therefore, chose not to place any reliance on her testimony. 3. We have heard Shri K.G. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the applicant - State, with whose assistance we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court and upon such perusal we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to justify the grant of leave for filing an appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. In that light of the matter, therefore, we see no merit in the present application and the application is dismissed. Leave refused. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap3722.09