1 appa.1051.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1051 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.729 OF 2004 Tanaji Khandu Jadhav ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mr.D.G.Khamkar for Applicant. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 16, 2010. P.C. 1. Only two contentions have been raised before us. The first argument is that three dying declarations have been recorded and there is inconsistency in all the three dying declarations. In our opinion, prima facie, there is no inconsistency with regard to the factum of occurrence of incident and the fact that the Applicant poured the kerosene on Durgabai and put her on fire. 2. The second argument before us is that on the same evidence, the lower Court has acquitted the other accused though they were charged with 2 appa.1051.10.sxw Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the Applicant. This argument clearly overlooks the analysis done by the Trial Court and the finding recorded that there was no overt act and complicity of the said accused. Insofar as Applicant is concerned, there is not only dying declaration but PW 2 has also spoken about the involvement of the Applicant. 3. In the circumstances, this Application for bail ought to be dismissed. Hence, the same is dismissed. 4. At the same time, we direct the Registry to process the Appeal for hearing to be placed under caption `convicts in jail’ as per its turn which is already excepted category as per the present assignment. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)