1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1347 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Ramesh Sarjerao Goje and ors. ...Respondents ..... Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for applicant Shri Shriniwas M. Ganachari holding for Shri R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to4. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 28 th July, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2008, passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 74 of 2007, acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the offences punishable under 2 Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 The victim Geeta married with accused no.1 Ramesh on 21.4.2006 and allegedly committed suicide on 1.6.2006 setting herself on fire after pouring kerosene on her person and sustained 100 per cent burn injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on 7.6.2006. Accused no.1 Ramesh is the husband of victim Geeta and accused no.2 Parmeshwar is her brother-in-law; whereas accused no.3 Savitrabai is her mother-in-law and accused no.4 is her sister-in-law. 4 To substantiate the afore said charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined in as much as six witnesses, namely PW1 Sudam Rangnath Pathade, who is brother- in-law i.e. husband of sister of deceased Geeta and son-in-law of the complainant; PW2 Ashish Pandurang Nimkar, who is friend of son of the complainant; PW3 Muktabai w/o Janardhan Dake, mother of the victim; PW4 Radhabai w/o Bandu Dandge, aunt of victim Geeta i.e. sister of complainant Muktabai; PW5 Ravindra s/o Janardhan Dahake, who is brother of deceased Geeta; and PW6 P.S.I. Dhumal, investigating officer. 3 5 Admittedly, there is one dying declaration Exh.52 of the victim, but it appears that the prosecution has not produced the said dying declaration on record, and therefore, it was required to be brought on record by the accused through the cross-examination of PW6 P.S.I. Dhumal. On perusal of the said dying declaration Exh. 52, it appears that the victim has stated that while she was preparing tea on stove, the stove bursted and her sari caught fire suddenly and due to which she herself was ablazed, and at that time accused no.3 - mother-in-law and accused no.4 – sister-in-law attempted to extinguish the fire by water, and her husband and brother-in-law were called on telephone and she specifically stated that she has no complaint against her in-laws, that too against the accused. Hence, considering the contents of the said dying declaration, the trial Court has made observations to that effect in para 18 of the impugned judgment that the said contents of dying declaration are contrary to the prosecution case. 6 Moreover, it also appears that although the incident occurred on 1.6.2006 and although the victim Geeta succumbed to the injuries on 7.6.2006, the first information report came to be lodged by PW3 Muktabai after the delay of 1½ month i.e. on 22.7.2006 and explanation given by PW3 Muktabai in respect of the said delay in her deposition is only of illness. Pertinently, no ailment, 4 with which she was suffering, has been specified by her and no medical certificate has been produced on record to substantiate the said contention, and accordingly, said delay has not been explained properly and observations made by learned Judge to that effect cannot be faulted with. 7 Moreover, it also appears that there are general and omnibus allegations against the accused regarding illtreatment to which victim Geeta was allegedly subjected and no specific instances/particulars have been specified by the witnesses, and there is no independent witness examined by the prosecution to prove the said allegations, except PW2 Ashish Nimkar, but his evidence also cannot be construed as incriminating against the accused persons, and hence, the observations made by the learned Trial Judge in that respect also do not appear to be perverse. 8 In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge is a possible view to be adopted and same does not appear to be perverse, and therefore, no interference therein is warranted under the appellate jurisdiction, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 5 9 In the result, present application being sans merit stands dismissed and leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal stands refused. R. and Ps. be sent back to the concerned Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1347.09