1 Cri.A.4366.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4366 OF 2011 Baburao Sriram Kadam R/o Sukhi Ta. Purna, District Parbhani. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. ... CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No. 04 of 2011 registered at Purna Police Station, District Parbhani under sections 307, 498-A, 494 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR is filed by Renuka, the victim, who happens to be wife of Dnyaneshwar. The present applicant is father-in-law of Renuka. The incident is said to have taken place on 13.01.2011 in the night. A statement of the victim in the nature of Dying Declaration was recorded at Civil Hospital, Parbhani on 14.01.2011. 2 Cri.A.4366.11 In the said statement, she narrates that present applicant poured kerosene on her person and put her to fire. She further states that Meena, second wife of her husband, came forward and tried to save her, and that she also suffered injuries in the said attempt. Meena has rendered a statement on 15.01.2011. Meena has stated that while she and her sister Renuka were sleeping on the floor, she felt she is burning and when she and Renuka got up, and she found that kerosene tin was lying near by and her father in-law i.e. applicant was standing nearby her and her husband Dnyaneshwar was sleeping outside . By way of answer to last question No. 5, Meena has stated that her in-law i.e. present applicant put her and her sister Renuka to fire. The father of Renuka and other nearest relatives of Renuka have rendered statements that when Renuka was admitted in the hospital at Parbhani, she narrated to them that father in law put her to fire and husband Dnyaneshwar was sleeping outside. Renuka died on account of 100% superficial deeper burn injures and that is how the present applicant is charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Jadhavar appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that there is material discrepancies in the dying declaration rendered by Renuka and statement made by Meena, when she was questioned about manner in which she suffered burn injuries. Learned 3 Cri.A.4366.11 advocate Mr. Jadhavar submitted that present applicant must get benefit of doubt on account of statement of Meena (Which is discussed above). 4. Learned APP Mr. Kale opposed the submissions and contended that role of the present applicant is well made out by the Dying Declaration rendered by Renuka as well as information given by her to her nearest relative in the hospital at Parbhani. He also pointed out that Renuka has died on account of 100% burn injuries. He, therefore, submitted that the Court should ignore the statement of Meena and he had also pointed out that even if statement of Meena with reference to manner in which Renuka and Meena suffered burn injuries, Meena still states while they got fire her and father in-law i.e. present applicant was standing nearby her and Renuka and kerosene tin was lying near him. According to him, the presence of the applicant nearby, Meena as claimed by her clearly indicates presence of the applicant and kerosene tin nearby both the ladies. 5. After having considered the aforesaid record I am inclined to observe that Renuka implicates present applicant for straight way otherwise manner. Meena does not specifically say that present applicant poured kerosene on her. She merely says that while both of them were sleeping, she sensed that she is burning. She equally alleges in the statement that the applicant was 4 Cri.A.4366.11 present nearby them and kerosene tin was lying. Incident is alleged to have taken place at late night at 11.30 p.m.. Hence, if one presumes that present applicant is not responsible for fire, the there appears no other explanation as to how the fire would occur, where Meena and Renuka were sleeping. . The presence of applicant is spelt out by Meena in no uncertain term. His presence nearby both daughter in-law and particularly in late night at 11.30 p.m is unusual. Presence of the tin containing kerosene nearby these two ladies ( as is depicted by the statement of Meena) is also unusual. Merely, because Meena does not attribute positive role of pouring kerosene and putting both of them to fire as has been done by Reunka does not mean that present applicant had nothing to do with alleged incident. 6. In my view, record clearly indicates involvement of present applicant in the matter of causing burning injuries to both these ladies. Since Renuka died on account of 100% burn injuries, death of Renuka is directly attributed to overtact of the applicant. In my view, the allegations are of serious in nature. The incident is of 18.01.2011. In my view the applicant is not entitled to the bail. Hence, this application is rejected. Sd/- [ R.Y.GANOO, J. ] MTK 5 Cri.A.4366.11