{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1645 OF 2010 Pradip s/o Panditrao Solanke & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr. S.P.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicants Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 10th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.113/2009 registered with Aundha Nagnath police station, Dist-Hingoli for an offence punishable u/s 302, 498-A, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is informed that the applicants are arrested on 31st December 2009 and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 29th March 2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of {2} investigation. 3. Admittedly, deceased Sunita was wife of first applicant and daughter in law of applicants No.2 and 3. It is not disputed that marriage of applicant No.1 with deceased Sunita was performed on 29th April 2008 and the alleged incident took place on 30th December 2009 at about 4 to 6 p.m. Perusal of Inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem report indicates that the death of Sunita caused due to 100% burn injuries. This unnatural death of Sunita took place within a span of 7 years of her marriage that too when the deceased was in the custody of the applicants and hence the applicants have to explain as to how she sustained the burn injuries which has resulted into her death. 4. It appears that after the said incident was reported to the father of the deceased, he lodged the complaint on the next day and on the basis of the said complaint, the present offence came to be registered. It is alleged in the complaint that the deceased was being harassed by the applicants on the count of illegal demand of dowry. Whether these allegations are true or not is not necessary to consider at this stage. However, it is required to consider as to whether the applicants are prima facie responsible for the death of the deceased or not. 5. Inquest Panchanama clearly establishes that the front side of the body of Sunita was burnt while her back side was in {3} tact. The dead body was found on a wooden bed, which goes to show that after forcing her to lie on the bed, something is poured on her person and then she is set on fire. Had it been a suicidal or accidental death, the dead body could not have been found on the bed. 6. The PM report shows that the death of the deceased is caused instantaneously due to 100% burn injuries. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants tried to urge that at the time of the incident the applicants No.2 and 3 were in the field and were not present on the spot. It is also urged that at the time of the said incident, applicant No.1 also was not present in the house and he was outside. This submission of the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted, at this stage, as immediately after the incident, statement of the neighbours are recorded and one Sheshabai has disclosed that usually the applicants used to remain in the field during the day time, however on the day of the incident they were not gone to field. Even the said witness had inquired about the deceased and it was told that she had been to the field. At about 4.00 p.m. this witness saw deceased entering house and within hours dead body of Sunita was found in burnt condition inside the house where she has noticed presence of the present applicants. This clearly demonstrates that Sunita expired due to burn injuries while she was in the custody of the present applicants. In the premise, it prima facie appears that there is {4} nexus between the death of Sunita and the role alleged against the applicants. Therefore, the application which is sans merits, stands rejected. However, it is clarified that these observations are prima facie on the basis of the papers of investigation. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1645-10