1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4809 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs Sajid Apsar Sayyad & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Rajesh More,APP for the State CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 7th APRIL, 2010 P.C. [ PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ]: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e original accused nos. 1 to 3 came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. In addition, respondent no.2-original accused no.2 came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C. 2. This case arises out of private complaint filed by PW1 Jubeda Shaikh who is the mother of deceased Ruksana. Ruksana was married to respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2 is the 14.appa4809­09 2 real brother of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 is the mother of respondent no. 1. The prosecution case is that on 22.11.2002 at about 5.00 p.m., accused assaulted the deceased and thereafter they set her ablaze. 3. When the deceased sustained burn injuries, she was taken to hospital. When she was in hospital, her dying declaration came to be recorded. It is pertinent to note that in the said dying declaration, she has stated that she sustained burn injuries due to flickering of stove. She died in the hospital on 15.12.2002 i.e three weeks after the incident. Despite the fact that she was in the hospital for about three weeks, no dying declaration came to be recorded, wherein Ruksana implicated any of the accused persons. Nor was the statement of any witness recorded, wherein they alleged cruelty being meted out to Ruksana by any of the accused persons. 4. PW1 Jubeda Shaikh has filed complaint almost one year after the incident. No reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by her as to why she waited for a period of one year and thereafter, she approached the Court of JMFC for lodging her complaint. The fact that she kept silent for a period of about one year creates grave doubt in our mind about veracity of her case. Looking to the fact that 14.appa4809­09 3 complaint has been filed after almost one year and the fact that in her dying declaration which came to be recorded, the deceased had clearly stated that she sustained burn injuries due to flickering of stove, we find that the view taken by learned Sessions Judge was a reasonable and possible view. 5. The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different possible view may arise from the evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Anthony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. We have already observed that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. In view of the above, leave to file appeal, is rejected. Consequently, Appeal is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 14.appa4809­09 4 14.appa4809­09