1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4439 OF 2009 Shaikh Latif s/o Shaikh Abbas ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, APP for the respondent ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 5th February, 2010. ORAL ORDER 1 This application, at the behest of the applicants, seeks suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment recorded against them and their enlargement on bail pending the decision of this appeal. 2 The applicants stand convicted for an offence 2 punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegations that the applicants had poured kerosene on their aunt Malanbi and had set her ablaze. The conviction of the applicants rests upon two dying declarations at Exhs. 31 and 46 recorded by PW2-Digamber and PW5-Balaji, respectively, as well as the evidence of PW6-Laila as an eye witness. 3 Mrs. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicants has urged before us that the evidence in relation to the dying declarations renders the two dying declarations suspicious and no reliance could have been placed on the said two dying declarations. It is also urged before us that the evidence of PW6- Laila is replete with contradictions and omissions on both vital aspects of the prosecution case, and therefore, PW6-Laila could not have been relied upon by the Trial Court. Learned A.P.P. has urged for dismissal of the application on the ground that the evidence of eye witness PW6-Laila and the two dying declarations clearly implicate the present applicants. 4 With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Upon such perusal, we are of the opinion that prima facie there is material to indicate that the applicants have poured kerosene and 3 have set their aunt deceased Malanbi ablaze. The submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the applicants pertain to reappreciation of evidence, which cannot be done at this stage. In the light of the matter, therefore, there is no merit in the application and the application is dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) dbm/crap4439.09