1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2241 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Versus Subhash s/o Bhimrao Salve ..Respondent Mr.D.R.Kale, Assistant Public Prosecutor for applicant-State Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for respondent-sole CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 24th August 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed by the applicant-State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, dated 15.3.2010, in Sessions Case No.21 of 2008, acquitting the respondent-accused of offence punishable under Section 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice to the respondents had made it clear that the acquittal of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 498A was confirmed and had only issued notice as against acquittal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The entire prosecution case against the respondent-accused revolves around two dying declarations viz., Exh.40 recorded by P.W.9 Head Constable Raju and Exh.25 recorded by P.W.4 Jaiprakash, an 2 Executive Magistrate. In the dying declaration at Exh.40 injured Meena had stated that the respondent-accused had poured kerosene on her and had set her ablaze. In the dying declaration at Exh.25 injured Meena had stated that the respondent-accused had poured kerosene on her and had fled from the house and she was set ablaze by her parents in law and step son. The prosecution also relied upon the oral dying declaration alleged to have been made to the father of deceased Meena. The oral dying declaration is also similar to the dying declaration at Exh.25. 3. The trial Court rejected both the dying declarations in the light of the discrepant versions in the dying declarations as to who had actually set deceased Meena ablaze. The discrepancy in respect of the accused who is alleged to have set her ablaze is a major discrepancy and, therefore, the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting both the dying declarations. In cases resting on multiple dying declarations, it is expected that the multiple dying declarations should corroborate each other in material particulars, particularly the prelude to the incident, the number of accused and the participation and the overt act attributed to each of the accused. In the present case, in Exh.25, injured Meena makes a marked departure from the recitals in the dying declaration at Exh.40. Interestingly, the parents in law and the step son of deceased Meena were not made accused in the sessions trial. 3 4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, according to us no case for interference is made out. This application being sans merit is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. Leave refused. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/2241.10criappln)