1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3091 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Tamalwadi, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad .. Applicant (Orig.Complainant) Versus Kalidas Kisan Raut, Age 55 years, R/o Kati, Taluka Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad .. Respondents (Orig.Accused) Shri V.D.Godbharle, Asstt.Public Prosecutor for applicant-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 3rd November 2009 PER COURT 1. This is an application at the behest of the applicant-State questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dated 16.6.2009, in Sessions Case No.88 of 2008, acquitting the respondent accused of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that deceased Meena who was the daughter-in-law of the original accused died as a result of burns. During the course of 2 investigation, two dying declarations came to be recorded. The first dying declaration which is recorded at Exh.40 was recorded by DW-1 Abhimanyu Khose, Police Head Constable who was attached to Police Station, Osmanabad city. The subsequent dying declaration at Exh.15 came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate. In the first dying declaration at Exh.40, deceased Meena is alleged to have stated that she has sustained the burns on account of explosion of stove while at Exh.15, deceased Meena has stated that the accused, her father-in-law had poured kerosene on her and set her ablazed. The alleged motive ascribed in the dying declaration at Exh.15 is that the accused was suspecting the chastity of his daughter-in-law deceased Meena. 3. Upon considering the two dying declarations, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was nothing to indicate that dying declaration at Exh.40 was outcome of pressure or coercion by the in laws and consequently, there was no material to reject the said dying declaration at Exh.40. 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has urged before us that there is a conflict as far as the timing, particularly timing regarding the receipt of the intimation by the Medical Officer is concerned. However, that does not materially detract the evidentiary value of the said dying declaration. We do not find any grounds whatsoever for disbelieving the first dying declaration at Exh.40. 3 Upon perusal of the record, we find that deceased Meena had been examined by the Medical Officer at 10.40 a.m. on 15.2.2008 and she has also stated to him that she had sustained injuries on account of the explosion of stove. In that light of the matter, according to us, no prima facie case is made out to warrant any interference in the findings recorded by the trial Court. With the assistance of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and perused the record and proceedings. Upon such perusal, we do not find any perversity in the reasoning given by the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record and, therefore, there is no merit in the present application and the application is dismissed. Leave refused. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3091.09criappln)