cran3973.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3973 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3974 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Rahul Ramrao Joshi and others ...Respondents ..... Smt. S. D. Shelke, APP for the applicant-State. ..... CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH AND A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED : 12TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. (PER A.M. THIPSAY, J.) :- 1 Both these applications are conveniently being disposed of by this common order. 2 The respondents in both these applications were accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2009, in the Court of Sessions at Latur. After the trial, the learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Latur, by the judgment and order dated 11.5.2011, acquitted the respondents. By criminal application No. 3973 of 2011, the State of Maharashtra is seeking cran3973.11 -2- leave to file appeal against the said order of acquittal, as contemplated in Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Application No. 3974 of 2011 is filed for condonation of delay caused in filing the criminal application. 3. While hearing the application for condonation of delay, we thought it fit to hear the application for leave to file appeal under Sub- Section 3 of Section 378 of the Code, on merits. In that view of the matter, the learned APP had sought for time to file the notes of evidence alongwith the application for leave so as to enable the Court to consider the matter on merits. Accordingly, we granted time to the Additional Public Prosecutor, who has thereafter annexed the copies of notes of evidence to this application. 4. We have gone through the copy of notes of evidence. 5. The case against the respondents was that the respondent No.1 Rahul was studying with Amarja (deceased). That, the respondent No. 1 - Rahul developed one sided love with Amarja and wanted to marry her. But the said Amarja and her father were not ready for such marriage. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of respondent No.1. Since Amarja and her father were not ready for Amarja’s marriage with respondent No.1, the respondents used to cran3973.11 -3- harass Amarja and threaten to kill her. That, on 10.3.2009, at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased – said Amarja - was sleeping in one room in her house. Her parents and brothers were sleeping in other rooms in the house. That, at about 10.15 p.m. Amarja woke up by feeling kerosene on her person. All the respondents were there. The respondent No.3 Prashant caught hold of her hands. The respondent No.2 Pramod caught hold of her legs and the respondent No.1 Rahul ignited a matchstick and set her on fire. Amarja raised alarm, when her parents rushed there. The respondents ran away. The parents of Amarja poured water over her person and took her to hospital. That on 13.3.2009, statement of Amarja was recorded by the police, on the basis of which a case was registered against the respondents. Another statement of Amarja was also recorded on the same day by a Special Executive Officer. The respondents were apprehended. Investigation was carried out, pursuant to which the respondents were prosecuted and acquitted. 6. The learned Additonal Sessions Judge did not believe the case of the prosecution. He noted that the relations between the respondents on one hand and the father of Amarja were not good and cran3973.11 -4- that, admittedly, there was long standing enmity between them. He also observed that the father of Amarja was an accused in a case instituted at the instance of respondent No.1. The father of Amarja was examined as witness (P.W.3). The P.W.3 stated about the incident consistently with the prosecution case and also stated that when he saw his daughter in a burnt condition, he also saw, at the same time, that the respondents were running out of the gate. He also claimed that his daughter Amarja had stated to him that the respondents had set her on fire. 7. The learned Judge did not believe the evidence of the dying declarations made by Amarja to P.W.4 and P.W.5, who both claimed to have made a written record of the statements of Amarja, made before them. 8. The learned Judge observed that though Amarja was admitted in the hospital on 10.3.2009, the dying declarations were recorded only on 13.3.2009, He observed that medical case papers, which were bound to contain the history of the incident, were not produced during the trial. He also observed that though P.W.3, his wife and his son had allegedly seen the accused at the time of the incident, they did not report the matter to the police till 13.3.2009. The learned Judge also observed that the Medical Officer also did not report the cran3973.11 -5- matter to the duty constable. 9. The learned Judge further observed that on 13.3.2009, the respondent No.1 had given evidence against the P.W.3-father of the deceased - in the criminal case filed against him. The P.W.3 was present in that court, which was then pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Latur. The learned Judge held-rightly in our opinion - that if the accused were seen by the P.W.3 on 10.3.2009, it was not possible that he would not make a report in that regard to the police and further it was not possible that the accused would come to the Court of J.M.F.C. on 13.3.2009 to depose against the father of Amarja. 10. The reasonings of the learned Judge is reflected in paras 19, 20, 24, 26 and 28 of the impugned judgment. 11. In our opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence properly and has come to a correct conclusion. It could not be demonstrated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as to how the findings arrived at by the learned Additonal Sessions Judge are suffering from any infirmity or otherwise are perverse. 12. In any case, the view of the matter, as taken by the learned cran3973.11 -6- Judge, is certainly a possible view. 13. We find that the matter does not require any reconsideration by us. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant leave to appeal. 14. Leave is, therefore, refused. 15 Though we had formally not condoned the delay, we have examined and considered the application for leave to file appeal on merits. As such, both the applications stand disposed of, by this order. *****