1 Criminal Appl.No.3100 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3100 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Sandip Bapu Supekar and others RESPONDENTS Mr.K.G.Patil, learned A.P.P. for State. Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 17/01/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed by the State, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 16/10/2009 in Sessions Case No.101/2008, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable u/s. 498-A, 302, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of The IPC. 2. The entire prosecution case revolves around the testimony of the witnesses who are alleged to have recorded the 2 written dying declarations at Exh.33 and 29. Exh.33, a dying declaration came to be recorded by P.W.No.3 Head Constable Shri.Pathan, while Exh.29 , 2 Criminal Appl.No.3100 of 2010 a dying declaration came to be recorded by P.W.No.1 Tahsildar. The Trial Court found that there was no consistency whatsoever in the recitals of the two dying declarations. In Exh.33, injured Savitra had stated that on the day of the incident, all the 3 accused had assaulted her by fists and kicks and had asked her to bring money from her parents. She further states that thereafter all the accused poured kerosene and all the accused then exhorted that the victim be set ablaze and accordingly the father in law set the victim ablaze. In the dying declaration at Exh.29, the victim states that all the 3 accused assaulted her and thereafter all the 3 accused poured kerosene on her and all the accused set her ablaze. The Trial Court therefore came to the conclusion that there was marked departure in the recitals between Exh.33 and Exh.29. The Trial Court also found that no reliance could be placed on the aforesaid dying declarations. The Trial Court thereafter placed reliance on the evidence of 2 witnesses, who had in no uncertain terms stated that deceased and accused no.1 were residing separately from the other accused. The Trial Court, in that background therefore, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish the offence against the applicants beyond reasonable doubt. 3. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel representing the respondents, we have perused the record and proceedings. Upon such perusal, according to us, the view taken by the Trial Court can not be said to be a perverse view not 3 Criminal Appl.No.3100 of 2010 supported by the material on record. In that light of the matter therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in this application seeking leave to file appeal against acquittal. 4. Consequently, there being no merit, this application is dismissed. Leave stands refused. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JAN. 2011/cri.appl.3100-10