1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4609 OF 2010 Mangesh S/o Dinkar Mate ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. D.S. Manorkar holding for Mr. S.G. Laddha, advocate for applicant. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 24 th November, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. 3. Perusal of the investigation papers, it prima facie shows that the alleged incident involving deceased wife of the applicant is the incident of her burning did occur in the morning of 27th July, 2010, somewhere around 6 a.m. in the matrimonial house of the deceased. The police statement of neighbour, by name, Ravindra Bodke, prima facie shows that the applicant was present in the house along with his mother when the wife of the applicant was found sitting in the house. She was rapped by 2 means of Chaddar. On enquiry, the applicant is said to have informed the P.W.-Ravindra Bodke that the wife had received burns due to bursting of stove. It appears further that the applicant informed the Police that while his wife was engaged in hitting of water, she received burn injuries due to bursting of stove. The wife of the applicant, however, gave Dying Declaration at the hospital. She narrated to the police and the Special Executive Magistrate in her two Dying Declarations that there were quarrels and earlier night the applicant had beaten up her as a result of the quarrel. She narrated that he used to suspect her credibility. She narrated further that he poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that the Dying Declarations can not be prima facie believed because the story narrated to the police and the Special Executive Magistrate was not immediately disclosed by injured wife of the applicant to the neighbour. He contended that the applicant is framed in the present case. 5. At this juncture, minute examination of evidence is not at all warranted and expected. The criteria to be applied is whether the applicant is able to demonstrate that he is not guilty of the offence punishable for death or imprisonment for life as it explicit 3 from sub-section (1) of Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. In the instant case, the spot panchanama reveals that there was no stove found at the place in the house of the applicant. It is not case of the applicant that the spot panchanama was drawn in his absence. The statement of P.W. Ravindra prima facie shows that the applicant was present in the house at the relevant time when his wife was found to have received burn injuries and was sitting with a Chaddar rapped around her. It is important to note that the applicant had not received any injury during the course of incident though he was present in the house. It does not stand to reason that he would not have heard the pathetic cries of burning wife. Ordinarily, he would have gone to help her and might have extinguished the fire. In such an attempt, he might have received few burn injuries while making frantic efforts to save the burning wife from severe burns. There is nothing on record to show that he tried to assist the victim at the relevant time. It is argued that he had taken her to the hospital. That conduct is, however, subsequent and after the neighbours had gathered in front of his house. His said act at subsequent stage does not show his innocence because at a times due to probable reaction of the public members, the assistance could be rendered and it can not 4 be regarded as benevolent act of the applicant. 7. One can not be oblivious of the fact that the deceased was hardly about 19 years age and marriage was performed on 24th May, 2010. The incident occurred hardly after two months of marriage. The young woman was under clouds of suspicion because the applicant used to quarrel with her because of his obsession that she was having some extra marital relations. It is most unlikely that such young woman, who had entered house of the applicant with normal dreams of happy married life, could have ended her life by committing suicide. Nor there is prima facie evidence of probability of any accidental burns received by her. Needless to say that two Dying Declarations of the deceased and other attending circumstances, prima facie, clinch the applicant as author of the alleged crime and therefore, he does not deserve bail under the discretionary powers of this Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri4609.10