1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4110 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Akhilabegum w/o Md. Asef & anr. ..RESPONDENTS Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for the applicant. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 14th January, 2010 PER COURT : This is an application by the applicant - State seeking grant of leave to file appeal against acquittal of the respondents as recorded by the Sessions Judge, Beed by judgment dated 14.8.2009 in Sessions Case No.10 of 2009 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section 307, 498-A and 323 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 2. Insofar as the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of the complainant P.W.1 Shaikh Raiesa and P.W.5 Shaikh Ershad. According to P.W.1 Shaikh Raiesa the respondents poured kerosene on her and were about to set her on fire. However, P.W.5 Shaikh Ershad entered the house and helped her in reaching the house of her grand- father. According to her she narrated the incident to her grand-father and immediately the first information report came to be lodged. The evidence of P.W.5 Shaikh Ershad is contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1 Shaikh Raiesa. According to P.W.5 Shaikh Ershad he was passing on the road and a call was given to him and he turned back thinking that the lady who had given him the call was his cousin. On reaching near the lady he noticed that the lady was an unknown lady. P.W.1 Raiesa requested P.W. 5 Ershad to reach her to her grand-father's house. Ershad also states that Raiesa had disclosed to him that the respondents had attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene. The contradiction in the evidence of these two witnesses is (i) Raiesa states that Ershad had entered the house, whereas Ershad does not state so. According to Ershad he mad met P.W.1 Raiesa on the road; (ii) Ershad states that Raiesa had disclosed the incident to him but P.W.1 Raiesa does not state so and (iii) evidence of P.W.1 Raiesa indicates that since Ershad had entered the house, Ershad was a person of acquaintance, while evidence of P.W.5 Ershad is to the effect that Raiesa was not acquainted with him. 3 Apart from this, Raiesa alleges that 3 to 4 Ltrs. of kerosene was poured on her, while evidence of Ershad is that he had not smelt the odor of kerosene though he had carried P.W.1 Raiesa on his motorcycle. Raiesa states that Ershad had reached her to her grand-father's house while Ershad states he had left her at the water tank. The Trial Court, in the light of the aforesaid discrepant evidence of P.W.1 Shaikh Raiesa and P.W.5 Ershad declined to place any reliance on the said testimony. According to Raiesa, first information report was lodged immediately and a telephone was made to P.W.3 Durani Tajmohammad, father of P.W.1. The evidence of the Investigating Officer indicates that the offence came to be registered at 10.00 p.m. If Raiesa was in the police station at 6.00 p.m., we see no reason as to why the offence came to be registered at 10.00 p.m. For all the aforesaid reasons the Trial Court found that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Raiesa insofar as the offence relating to section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In respect of the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution adduced the evidence of Raiesa, who was illtreated within 3 to 4 months of her marriage on account of demand of Rs.50,000/- by her husband/respondent in order to set-up a Computer Training Institute. The Trial Court found that the aforesaid illtreatment had not been disclosed by Raiesa to her parents immediately but had disclosed it after the birth of her son, which was nearly about 5 to 6 months from the commencement of the illtreatment. The Trial Court also 4 found that though a writing was executed between the parties that Raiesa would be treated properly, there was no evidence much less of reliable nature to corroborate the testimony of Raiesa that she was illtreated. The Trial Court also doubted the demand of Rs.50,000/- ostensibly for the purpose of setting up a Computer Training Institute on the ground that the accused did not hold the requisite qualification. The Trial Court also found that the standard of living of the accused was far lower than the standard of living of the parents of the complainant and it was apparent that P.W.1 Raiesa did not intend to reside in the house of the respondents. 4. Insofar as the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the Trial Court found that no specific dates/details had been furnished by P.W.1 Raiesa in respect of the alleged assault by the accused. 5. The Trial Court, therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them. 6. We have heard the learned A.P.P. for the applicant - State, with whose assistance we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court. On such perusal we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken 5 on the basis of evidence on record. In that light of the matter, therefore, this application seeking leave to file appeal against acquittal being sans merit is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap4110.09