drp {1} Cri. Application No.3142/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3142 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT Through MIDC Police Station, Latur VERSUS Satish s/o Tatyarao Pilgure RESPONDENT ....... Mr. K.G.Patil, APP for applicant State Mr. M.P.Gude, Advocate for respondent ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 13th January 2011 PER COURT: 1. This application has been filed by the applicant State, challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Latur, dated 15th April 2010, in Sessions Case No.106/2008, acquitting the respondent/accused for an offence punishable u/s 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the respondent / accused, who is the husband of PW-1 Varsha, was charged for an offence of attempt to drp {2} Cri. Application No.3142/2010 commit murder of PW-1 Varsha, on 02.04.2008 at about 10.00 p.m. by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze. According to the prosecution, PW-1 Varsha was admitted in the hospital where, disclosure statement came to be made by her to the Medical Officer in which she had stated that she had accidentally sustained the burns. The aforesaid memorandum of disclosure has been proved by PW-7 Dr.Mandumle. It appears that during the night, DW-1 Kisan had recorded statement of Varsha at Exhibit-60 in which Varsha had clearly stated that she had accidentally sustained the burns. It also appears that PW-8 recorded statement of Varsha at Exhibit-41, on 03.04.2008. In the statement at Exhibit-41, Varsha has stated that it was the respondent / accused, who had poured kerosene and set her ablaze. 3. Thus, the earliest version, which was put forth by Varsha, both to the Medical Officer PW-7 Dr.Mandumle and DW-1 Kisan, was that she had accidentally sustained the burns. It was on the next day that Varsha had made a disclosure to PW-8 that the respondent / accused had set her ablaze. On the basis of the statement at Exhibit-41, no offence came to be registered and it was ultimately on 14.04.2008 that Varsha had disclosed to the police the commission of the offence by the respondent / accused. Till 14th Varsha had declined to have her statement recorded by the police. 4. We have heard Mr.K.G.Patil, learned APP for the drp {3} Cri. Application No.3142/2010 applicant State and Mr.M.P.Gude, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties we have perused the findings recorded by the trial court. In the light of the earliest disclosure made to PW-7 Dr.Mandumle and DW-1 Kisan, that she had accidentally sustained burns, the trial court has declined to place any reliance on the statement of PW-1 Varsha. Apart from the evidence of PW-1, Varsha, there is no other corroborative evidence, which would establish the commission of the offence by the respondent / accused. The reasoning, therefore, given by the trial court for not placing reliance on the testimony of PW-1 Varsha appears to be a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court, to justify admission of this appeal. Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln3142-10