1 (APPLN888.11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.888 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant. V/s Parashram Krishna Chavan & Anr. .... Respondents. Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ DATE : 11th October, 2011 P.C.:- 1. This application for leave to file appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 31/3/2011 by which order the Trial Court was pleased to acquit Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2 (APPLN888.11) 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the Respondent No.1 was married to deceased Archana about 11 years prior to the incident. Respondent No.2 is her mother-in-law. Prosecution case is that the accused were ill-treating Archana and were demanding dowry continuously. According to the prosecution, initially, demand of Rs 7,000/- was made and the said amount was paid to Respondent No. 1. However, thereafter, the said demand kept increasing and, on account of inability of the deceased Archana to pay the said amount, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 used to ill-treat her. On 06/1/2008, Archana was admitted in the hospital at Belgaum as she had suffered burn injuries. Initially, Archana made a statement that while she was cooking food, she accidently received burn injuries and a statement to that effect was recorded. However, after about 3 days, she gave a different version and she stated that the accused persons had poured kerosene on her and had set her on fire. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that Respondents were responsible for death of Archana. Trial Court also observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty. Trial Court has given cogent reasons while arriving at this conclusion. Trial Court has also noticed that demand of dowry was not established and, further, Trial Court relied on the written dying declaration which was recorded before the Executive Magistrate and not the oral dying declaration which was given by the deceased to her mother. Trial Court 3 (APPLN888.11) has observed that in the dying declaration recorded before the Magistrate and also in the Report of the Head Constable Rama Patil, it was stated that the deceased had received burn injuries on account of the accident while she was cooking food and, therefore, the Trial Court discarded the oral dying declaration which was given to her mother. 4. In our view, reasons which are given by the Trial Court are cogent reasons and there is no infirmity committed by the Trial Court. We have also gone through the notes of evidence which are annexed to the application for leave to file appeal. In our view, no case is made out for grant of leave to file appeal. Leave is refused. Appeal does not survive. 5. Application is disposed of accordingly. (A.M.THIPSAY, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (APPLN888.11)