1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4503 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) Sidhheshwar Balu Kamble and Another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SD Kaldate,APP for Applicant; Mr.RB Deshmukh,Advoate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J. DATE : 12 August, 2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard Mr.Kaldate, learned APP for Applicant-State and Mr.Deshmukh, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2) I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the trial Judge and the Record and proceedings with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties and 2 given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the both the learned counsel for the parties. 3) This is an application preferred by the applicant/State, seeking leave to file appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 11th September, 2009 rendered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in S.C.No.51 of 2008, acquitting the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (original accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4) The Respondents/original accused faced the trial in Sessions Case No.51/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC for the charges that the accused No.1, i.e. husband of the deceased Latabai and accused no.2, i.e. mother-in-law of the victim Latabai, in furtherance of their common intention, subjected the victim Latabai to 3 cruelty of such nature which drove her to commit suicide and accordingly she committed suicide on 5.1.2008 and thereby the accused nos. 1 and 2 allegedly abetted the victim in commission of the suicide, in furtherance of their common intention. 5) To substantiate the said charges levelled against the respondents/accused, the prosecution has examined inasmuch as ten witnesses. Admittedly, two dying declarations of the victim – Latabai were recorded, i.e. dying declaration (Exhibit-38), recorded between 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on 5.1.2008 , by PW-2 ASI Chandrakant Suryawanshi; and the second dying declaration (Exhibit-64) recorded between 8.20 p.m. to 8.40 p.m. on 5.1.2008, by PW-10 Special Executive Magistrate - Vikrant Nagnathrao Gaikwad. However, there are variances, infirmities and deformities in both the said dying declarations and contents thereof as well as endorsements of the doctor thereon and same 4 have been narrated by the learned Trial Judge in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment. 6) Pertinently, the medical papers (Exhibit-81) disclose that the victim Latabai sustained accidental burns and it also appears that she was in semi-conscious condition and her brother – Pramod Waghmare was apprised about her condition. Moreover it also appears that there is interpolation in the subsequent dying declaration (Exhibit-64 recorded by Special Executive Magistrate – Vikrant Gaikwad (PW-10) and same has been commented upon by the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment. Accordingly, it further appears that the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that due to the infirmities, deformities and variances in both the said dying declarations, it is not safe to place reliance upon those dying declarations to convict the respondents and the said reasoning cannot be faulted with. Moreover it also appears that the medical papers 5 (Exhibit-81) indicate contradictory theory as accidental burns, which also creates suspicion about the prosecution case and, therefore, the learned trial Judge rightly observed that, considering the overall evidence on record, the accused/respondents cannot be connected with the alleged crime. 7) After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial Judge appears to be possible view to be adopted and same does not appear to be perverse. Moreover, the reasoning given by the learned Trial Judge, while acquitting the Respondents/accused, also appears to be proper and logical and same cannot be faulted with and, therefore, no interference therein is warranted and the present criminal application bears no substance and, therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 8) In the result, the present application, 6 being sans merits, stands dismissed. Consequently, leave to file appeal stands refused. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE) JUDGE bdv/