1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.518 OF 2011. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2011. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS ROSHAN NARHARI RAUT. ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. B. P. Maldhure, APP for State applicant/appellant. Coram : P.V. HARDAS AND S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. Date : 20th AUGUST 2011. 1. By this application, the applicant – State seeks leave to file the appeal against the Judgment and order of the Assistant Sessions Judge-3, Amravati, dated 19-11-2010 in Sessions Trial No.87 of 2009, acquitting the respondent – accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The entire prosecution case revolves around the testimony of the victim i.e. Vrushali wife of the present respondent. Vrushali has been admitted in the hospital having sustained burns. Immediately her 2 statement came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate and in the aforesaid statement, Vrushali had stated that she had sustained the injuries accidentally while she was cooking in the Kitchen. Thereafter, it appears that on 9-3-2009 i.e. practically after 2 ½ months, Vrushali lodged the First Information Report contending therein that the appellant had poured Kerosene on her and set her ablaze. 3. The Trial Court held that the discrepant version of Vrushali and particularly the delay in lodging of the First Information Report went against the prosecution case. 4. In response to the various grounds urged in the present application seeking leave to appeal, we have heard the learned APP for the applicant and we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as we have perused the copies of the depositions of the witnesses which have been annexed to this application. 5. Upon such perusal, according to us, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 3 We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal. 6. In that light of the matter, there being no merit in the present application, application is dismissed. 7. Leave refused. Judge Judge |mule|