-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1601 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1601 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1601 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant. V/s. Umakant Govind Taware & Ors. ... Respondents. .... Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the Applicant. None for the Respondents. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2008. : 20TH JUNE, 2008. : 20TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The State is in the Appeal against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.20 of 2003 dated 16th January 2008. 2. There were altogether 6 accused. The learned Judge convicted Accused No.1 (husband) for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one year. The accused No.1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default S.I. for 9 months. Accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 35 of I.P.C. and -:2:- Accused Nos.2,3,5 and 6 were acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of I.P.C. During the trial Respondent No.4 expired and the case was treated as abated against him on account of his death. 3. On behalf of the prosecution the learned A.P.P. submits that there was oral dying declaration made by the deceased. Dr. Avinash D. Ashtekar who conducted the post mortem and was the Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital has deposed that the patient was conscious when she was brought to him and that the patient has history of suicidal burn. The defence had examined Dr. Vilas B. Salunkhe. He was examined as a witness since he had examined Umakant and Ramakant who are the Respondents 1 and 2. It was their case that they attempted to douse the fire. Similarly, defence examined DW-2 Sonanis, retired A.S.I. According to him he had visited the patient Manisha and has recorded the statement. According to him she had given the statement that she had sustained accident with burn when she was boiling water for bath. In cross examination by the P.P. he admitted that there is no mention of any statement recorded by him pertaining to Manisha. 4. The evidence of PW-3, in our opinion will have to prevail over the evidence of the relatives who have deposed to dying declaration made by the deceased to -:3:- them. There is no other evidence, in so far as charge under Section 302 is concerned. 5. Considering the above, in our opinion, the learned Judge having considered all aspects of the matter and having considered carefully the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be said to be incapable of being taking out or that the findings are perverse. 6. In the light of the above, the application stand dismissed. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)