{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3513 OF 2009 Ganesh s/o Kishanrao Bedre Age-26 years, Occ-Agri R/o Bori (Bk.), Tq-Kandhar Dist-Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police station officer Police Station Kandhar, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.R.Shelke, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 20th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.51/2009 registered with Kandhar police station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. {2} 3. It is not disputed that the death of the victim occurred within two years of the date of marriage and hence the case falls within the ambit of presumption about death within 7 years of marriage of the victim. Probable cause of death is shown in the postmortem report that asphyxia due to hanging. It is clear that the death of the victim is not a natural death. However it would require to consider as to whether it is a suicidal or homicidal death. The facts, which are disclosed in the spot Panchanama and the photograph of the dead body which was taken while drawing the spot Panchanama, indicate position of the body that the legs were folded at knee and there are ligature marks at the left side of the neck. If the position of the body as seen in the photograph coupled with the recitals of the spot Panchanama are considered it is highly probable that the death can be said to be a suicidal, however, possibility of homicidal death cannot be ruled out. The death occurred in the premises occupied by the applicant and hence presumption u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, lies with the applicant and he has to explain as to how she has died. Apart from it plea of alibi is taken. However, at the relevant time where the applicant was, is not known and hence it is rightly pointed out by the learned APP that whether in fact the applicant was there or not can be considered at the time of trial. 4. An offence even if treated u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code it is also punishable with the life imprisonment. {3} Considering the gravity of the offence it is doubtful that whether the death is suicidal or homicidal and considering the fact that in the supplementary statement of the witnesses they have changed their versions and hence as rightly pointed out by the learned APP that if during the course of investigation the witnesses are changing their versions then the possibility of tempering of evidence at the hands of applicant cannot be ruled out. In the premise, no case is made out to exercise discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. 5. In the result, the application stands rejected. 6. It is, however, made clear that the above observations are prima facie observations on the basis of papers of investigation and the learned trial court not to influence by the same while recording evidence during the trial. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3513-09