cra391.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.391 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.490 OF 2010 Narsing s/o Shankarrao Talnikar, Age-28 years, Occu:Labour, R/o-Mathura Nagar, Nilanga, District-Latur. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri. V.N. Damle Advocate with Shri. H.P. Pawar Advocate for Applicant. Smt.R.K. Laddha, A.P.P. for Respondent State. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 8TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. cra391.11 2 2. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The Applicant was charged along with four persons, who were acquitted by trial Court in Sessions Case No.10 of 2010, by Judgment and Order delivered on 20th November, 2010. 3. The Applicant preferred Appeal against the said Judgment, which came to be admitted by this Court on 10th January, 2011. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Applicant submits that 4 to 5 witnesses were declared hostile, there is no eye witness in the case. The Applicant was working as clerk of the Advocate. He was not in the house when said incident occurred. In support of Applicant’s defence, Advocate Mr. cra391.11 3 Salunke was examined as defence witness, who was not disbelieved by the Court. The spot panchnama was drawn at 4.15 p.m. on 15th December, 2009, when according to investigation officer, he reached the spot at about 11.00 a.m. The allegations of demand raised by Applicant were not established and Applicant denies that he had raised any demand and that for not fulfilling the same, was torturing and ill-treating the deceased. The counsel further submitted that informant Shri. Kshirsagar was not examined by Police on whose information police claims to have registered the crime. The evidence of PW1 - father of deceased and PW8 - mother of deceased, is not reliable. The deceased had exhibited suicidal tendency earlier, which showed that this is not a case of committing murder of deceased by the Applicant by pouring kerosene. As the Applicant was with his employer Advocate at the relevant time, busy in dealing with Court matters, he had reasonably established his absence at the residence at cra391.11 4 crucial time. 5. The learned A.P.P. submits that Applicant was in jail during trial. After recording of evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the Applicant for serious offence. The marriage of the Applicant with the deceased was merely five years old. Deceased was blessed with two children and there was no reason for her to commit suicide. It was further submitted that evidence on record suggests that it must be Applicant alone who have committed the crime. 6. We have perused the record, medical evidence, post-mortem report, chemical analyser’s report, evidence of parents of the deceased and other relevant evidence for the purposes of consideration of this bail Application. We have even scrutinized the Judgment of the trial Court, for the said purpose. cra391.11 5 7. The Applicant was in jail during trial. Marriage of the Applicant was of five years old. Incident occurred on 15th December, 2009. Deceased was blessed with two children. According to the medical evidence, the deceased suffered 100% burns. Dr. Sheshrao Shankarrao Shinde opined that injuries were ante-mortem. Semi-digested food was found. Post-mortem report Exhibit 49 mentions opinion in respect of cause of death, according to medical officer, to be "cardio respiratory arrest due to hypo volumic shock due to 100% burns". The chemical analyzer's report shows that kerosene was detected in the exhibits forwarded to the expert. 8. During recording of statement of the accused under Section- 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a question was put to the Applicant, which reads thus: “Question: Do you want to say anything more? cra391.11 6 Answer: I do not want to say anything.” 9. The Applicant was in jail during the trial. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, we are not inclined to release the Applicant on bail. The Application stands rejected. Hearing of the Appeal is expedited. [A.V. POTDAR,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/MAR11/cra391.11