1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.96/2011 (Jagdish Mohan Beniwal .vrs. State of Maharashtra) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. P.V. Navlani, Advocate for applicant, Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, APP for non-applicant/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J DATED : MARCH 10, 2011 Heard. The prayer for bail made by the applicant/accused charge sheeted along with his mother by Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati in connection with Crime No.300/2010 for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is vehemently objected by the learned APP, by stating that the said offence was registered in respect of the death of Nita Antresh, who was set on fire by the applicant on the day of incident after a quarrel had ensued in between mother of the applicant and the said Nita. It is urged that the offence was registered upon the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the police on the same day at about 10.30 pm showing involvement of the applicant in committing the murder of the deceased by pouring 2 kerosene on her and setting her on fire. It is urged that the said material is further found corroborated by further dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate on the same day. It is urged that in addition to the material in the shape of the said dying declarations, there is a material in the shape of statements of two eye witnesses i.e. father and mother of the deceased regarding applicant being responsible for committing acts stated in said dying declarations and so also the statement of sister of the deceased, who had also seen the part of incident regarding presence of applicant at spot at relevant time. It is urged that all the said material in terms reveal the involvement of the applicant in commission of offence punishable with death and imprisonment for life. It is urged that considering the attitude/conduct of the applicant in relevant episode, discretion does not deserve to be exercised in favour of grant of bail. With regard to the first submission of learned counsel for the applicant in support of prayer for bail that the material in the chargesheet and particularly statement of sister of deceased itself reveals that herself and deceased were the ladies of quarrelsome nature and furthermore same also reveals that said sister, who had immediately arrived at the spot of incident, had not seen the applicant committing the act as stated in dying declaration and thus same creates doubt about reliability of dying declaration; since said statement and other material in the charge sheet reveals that said sister cooking food had come out lateron after the incident was over and hence merely because she has 3 not narrated events occurred earlier i.e. the one which she had not seen, prima facie cannot be said to be a circumstance for doubting dying declarations or account given by eye witnesses, as canvassed. With regard to the next submission canvassed that there is variance of sequence of occurring of events in the matters stated in the dying declaration and the statement of eye witnesses and hence the prosecution material is even prima facie incredible and accused should be enlarged on bail also does not appear to be prima facie correct. It needs no say that every piece of evidence is to be independently judged. The submission presupposes that while giving the dying declarations the deceased had narrated the events in chronological sequence in which same had occurred. Apart from the same, all the said submissions are more so of in the nature of appreciation of evidence which is impermissible at the present stage at which the Court is supposed to make prima facie examination of the prosecution material and is not supposed to weigh the same meticulously. The learned counsel for the applicant has also tried to canvass that the account of incident as reflected from the statement of witnesses reveals that deceased had not shouted also signifies the prosecution material being that of artificial nature. The said submission also being not based upon any direct material supporting such conclusion and being wild inference upon matters not stated in statement drawn, it is difficult to accept the same. In the premises aforesaid and considering the 4 manner in which the crime has taken place and particularly attitude of the applicant towards the woman/deceased at such a young age, discretion does not deserve to be exercised in favour of grant of bail to the applicant. The application stands rejected. JUDGE Gulande