1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 925 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...VERSUS... Smt. Sunanda wd/o Tulshiram Patharkar & ors. -------------------------------------------------------- Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP, for appellant/applicant. -------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI & P.D. KODE,JJ. Date : 01.3.2011. COURT'S ORDER: This is an application filed by the State seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order acquitting the respondents/original accused no. 2 to 5 of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. In support of the application, Mr.Mirza, learned APP, argued that the learned trial Court committed an error in not considering the dying declarations in proper perspective and the other evidence on record tendered by the prosecution. He submits that the dying declarations given to the witnesses, namely P.W.1 Gajanan and P.W.3 Bhanudas ought to have been believed. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal 2 recorded by the learned trial Court. 3. We have gone through the impugned judgment made by the learned trial Court so also the relevant evidence, copies of which were placed before us. The dying declaration (Ex.74), that was recorded by the Magistrate in vernacular, to us, shows that the deceased stated that her mother-in-law and father-in-law were responsible for her condition and had assaulted her. In the dying declarations she did not at all state the names of the accused persons as the persons responsible for her death nor she stated that any of them had administered poison to her. However, the story about administration of poison to her has been stated by her brother P.W.1 Gajanan and P.W.3 Bhanudas by way of improvement which the trial Court refused to believe. The learned trial Court therefore extended benefit of doubt to the accused persons while acquitting them. We concur with the findings recorded by the trial Court and there is no reason for us to take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court. 4. In the result, the application seeking leave to appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed so also the criminal appeal. JUDGE JUDGE 3