cra1342.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1342 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.160 OF 2011 Arun Bhikaram Jadhav, R/o-Gosavi Pangri, Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.Joydeep Chatterji Advocate for Applicant. Shri.K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent - State. ... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1343 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.161 OF 2011 Sunita w/o Arjun Adhe, R/o-Ghansawangi, Tq-Ghansawangi Dist-Jalna. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT. cra1342.11 2 ... Shri.R.M. Deshmukh Advocate for Applicant. Shri.K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent - State. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011. ORAL ORDER [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.] : 1. Both the Applicants are convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna in Sessions Case No.147 of 2010, by Judgment and Order dated 23rd March, 2011. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The record of Sessions case was called and this Court has perused the record. The evidence given in the trial Court shows that deceased Babita was the wife of original Accused cra1342.11 3 No.1 Arun. Allegations are made against original Accused No.2 Sunita, that she had kept illicit relations with Accused No.1 Arun. The evidence is given to the effect that due to illicit relations, there used to be quarrels between the deceased on one side and the two accused on other side. The incident took place on the night between 15th July, 2008 and 16th July, 2008. The deceased has given dying declarations that on that night, the husband of deceased returned home in drunken condition and he picked up quarrel with deceased. The deceased disclosed that her husband assaulted her and then accused No.2 came there. The deceased disclosed that accused No.2 poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire by using match stick. Babita was shifted to hospital by the neighbour (PW-8). 4. The evidence given before the trial Court shows that one dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and second was recorded cra1342.11 4 by the Police Officer, on the basis of which, crime came to be registered. Evidence is given by the parents of the deceased and also the neighbour - PW-8, that in the hospital, Babita made dying declarations to them also. Babita survived for about thirteen days and then she succumbed to the burn injuries, which were more than 60%. 5. It was submitted for Applicant No.1 that there is no evidence against Applicant No.1 that he poured kerosene on the person of deceased or he set on fire to the deceased. It was submitted that husband also sustained burn injuries, which were to the extent of 50% and there is evidence to show that husband made an attempt to extinguish the fire. For Applicant No.2, it was submitted that there is no evidence to show that Applicant No.2 had visited the house of the deceased at the relevant time. Some inconsistencies in two dying declarations were pointed out. It was pointed out that in the bed head ticket, history was given by cra1342.11 5 the deceased of an attempt to commit suicide and such evidence of Doctor is brought on record who prepared bed head ticket. 6. The trial Court has believed the two recorded dying declarations and the trial Court has discarded the so-called history given in the bed head ticket on the ground that there is support of medical evidence to the two recorded dying declarations. One letter allegedly sent by the Police Officer to Executive Magistrate, in which similar history was mentioned, is also not believed by the trial Court. Two recorded dying declarations and the dying declarations made to the parents and the neighbour, are believed by the trial Court. The trial Court has believed the evidence of motive viz. the illicit relations between Applicant Nos.1 and No.2. Thus, at this stage, there is sufficient material in support of the decision given by the trial Court. cra1342.11 6 7. It was submitted for both the accused that this Court had granted bail to both the accused in the past, during the course of trial and so the bail can be granted to them at present also. At the time of granting bail in the past, the circumstances appearing from the police papers were considered and now there is evidence given before the trial Court. So on that ground, bail cannot be granted to the Applicants. The other evidence like evidence of spot panchnama, C.A. report, is consistent with the evidence which was believed by the trial Court. In view of these circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to grant bail to both the Applicants. Hearing of the Appeals can be expedited, provided that the Applicants submit private paper books. Both the Applications stand rejected. [T.V. NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/APR11/cra1342.11