Criminal Appln.No.4618 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4618 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Bapurao s/o Ramdhan Rathod and ors. .. Respondents Mr B.V.Wagh, A.P.P. for applicant CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 9th December 2010 PER COURT 1. By this application the applicant/State challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmatnagar, date3d 22.7.2010, in Sessions Trial No.46/2009, acquitting the respondents of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323 and 302 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution had alleged that Sunita wife of respondent No.1 was set ablaze by the accused on 12.7.2009 at about 6.00 a.m. Sunita had been immediately admitted in the hospital at Aundha and as per the medical papers she had disclosed to the Medical Officer that she had accidentally sustained the burn injuries on account of fall of the kerosene lamp. Sunita was thereafter shifted to the hospital at Parbhani where as per Exh.64 she had stated to the Medical Officer that she had accidentally Criminal Appln.No.4618 of 2010 2 sustained the burn injuries. Thereafter her dying declarations at Exhs.38 and 42 came to be recorded by P.W.5 and P.W.6, respectively in which she had stated that the accused had assaulted her and thereafter had set her ablaze after pouring kerosene. 3. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground that there was no explanation whatsoever as to how Sunita had stated in the medical papers about sustaining the burns accidentally. The trial Court came to the conclusion that in the light of the aforesaid two dying declaration made to the Medical Officer, the written dying declarations could not be relied upon as there was possibility of Sunita being tutored by her relatives. In respect of the oral dying declarations, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the parents of Sunita had not stated anything to the Police that Sunita is alleged to have told them and for the first time stated about the oral dying declarations when their statements came to be recorded on 25.7.2009 i.e. after about thirteen days. The trial Court, therefore, extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused. 4. We have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the applicant with whose assistance we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court. Upon such perusal, we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to justify any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view of the trial Court appears to be a possible Criminal Appln.No.4618 of 2010 3 view taken on the basis of evidence on record. In that light of the matter, the present application is dismissed. Leave refused. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4618.10criappln)