1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.658 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.247 OF 2007 Shri.Bhaskar Yashwant Jadhav .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Pratap Patil for the Applicant. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. Applicant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No.9 of 2006 for the offences punishable u/s.498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment and order dted 20.1.2007, learned Sessions Judge convicted the applicant u/s.302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I.for life. The applicant was acquitted of the offence u/s. 498A IPC. Appeal preferred by the applicant is admitted. This is his application for bail. According to the prosecution the applicant poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant at some length. He submitted that there is inconsistency between two dying declarations made by the deceased. The first dying declaration was made by the deceased on 2 10.5.2003 i.e.day after the incident dated 9.5.2003. In that dying declaration the deceased has stated that kerosene lamp fell on her and that is how she sustained burn injuries. In the second dying declaration recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate on 11.5.2003, the deceased has stated that her husband i.e.the applicant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Learned counsel submitted that in view of this inconsistency between two dying declarations, learned Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the applicant. He submitted that in any case, this is sufficient to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3. We are not impressed by this submission. The first dying declaration was made by the deceased in the presence of the applicant. It is the applicant who took her to the hospital. Prima-facie therefore she might have made this dying declartion out of fear. The second dying declaration is recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate. The Special Executive Magistrate has no reasons to falsely implicate the applicant. The second dying declaration, in which the deceased has implicated the applicant, prima- facie inspires confidence. Moreover, the incident has taken place in the residential house of the applicant at 11.30 p.m.. The deceased sustained 53% burn injuries. Prima-facie the presence of the applicant in his house is natural. In the circumstances, bail application is rejected. ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)