1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3509/2007 The State of Maharashtra vs. Shri Anis Ahemad Gafur Ahemad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P. Lavande & A.B.Chaudhari,JJ DATE : 29.1.2008 Heard Mr. Ahirkar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mardikar, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application the appellant seeks leave to appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.8.2007 passed by the IInd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 110/2006. 3. The respondent who is the husband of P.W.1 Rani Parveen was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498- A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the respondent had set ablaze Rani Parveen on 7.2.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. by pouring kerosene and lighting match stick. The prosecution relied upon two dying declarations. In the first dying declaration Rani Parveen has stated that she sustained burn injuries on account of catching fire by her 'odni' while she was cooking on the stove whereas in the second dying declaration she implicated the respondent as the person who set her ablaze by pouring kerosene. 2` The trial Court upon scrutiny of evidence led before it refused to place reliance upon the testimony of P.W. 1 Rani Parveen and her parents. Having perused the impugned Judgment and order and having heard the learned A.P.P. and Mr. Mardikar for the respondent we find that the approach of the trial court in acquitting the respondent cannot be said to be perverse. It is pertinent to note that in the first dying declaration Rani Parveen did not implicate the accused but she implicated the accused in the second dying declaration. Moreover, perusal of the spot panchanama which was conducted within about 5 hours of the incident discloses that no kerosene was found on the spot. This is an important aspect which raises serious doubt to second dying declaration which implicates the respondent. Moreover the burn injuries were not found on any part of the body of Rani Parveen below abdom. This fact also creates serious doubt about the story putforth by Rani Parveen. Thus, upon perusal of the entire prosecution evidence we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the trial court is probable view. Hence, we find no ground to entertain this application and the application is dismissed. Judge Judge patle