1 criapl-338.93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 338 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra .. appellant/orig, complainant. versus Deelipsingh s/o Ralaram Lahot, age 55 years, occup. service, r/of Medical Quarter, .. respondent/ Aurangabad. ori. accused. -------- Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for the appellant-State. Shri C.A. Jadhav Adv. h/for Shri V.D. Hon, for the respondent. Coram: A. H. Joshi and A. R. Joshi, JJ. Date : 29th August 2011. Oral Judgment : ( Per: A.H.Joshi, J.) 01. This is a State appeal against the acquittal rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 269 of 1992, on 30.6.1993. 2. The accused Deelipsingh was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing death of Shashikala w/o Kaduba Navgire, by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze. 3. The prosecution has examined in all eleven witnesses. However, the case is based on sole testimony of PW-1 Raju s/o Raghuji Bavaskar, to prove oral dying declaration given to him by deceased Shashikala. 4. After hearing learned A.P.P. for the appellant and learned Advocate for the respondent, and on perusal of testimony of PW-1, only inferences which are required to be drawn, are summarized as follows:- 2 criapl-338.93 (i) PW-1 Raju did not have any prior acquaintance, either with the accused, or with the victim. (ii) It is not proved as to what was the occasion for PW-1 Raju to come in contact with the victim for her to be in a position to reveal to him circumstances-or cause of her death i.e. give dying declaration to him. (iii) One "boy" is said to have told about the incident to PW-1 Raju. (iv) The prosecution has not disclosed the name of the said boy nor his availability had been explored by the prosecution. (v) PW-1 Raju has seen accused only once i.e. after he came to the hospital. (vi) Testimony of PW-1 Raju is not trustworthy. (vii) Raju did not report the incident to police. 5. In the result, learned Sessions Judge was left with no other option, but to pass an order of acquittal. 6. We are in total agreement with the view taken by learned Sessions Judge, as no other view than the one taken by learned Sessions Judge is possible. 7. The appeal has no merits. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.H. JOSHI, J.) pnd/criapl-338.93