1 APPA 500/11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 500 OF 2011 IN APPEAL NO.385 OF 2011 Ruksana Ali Ahmed Khan : Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. Mr. Ashok Yadav for the Applicant. Mr. J P Yagnik, APP, for the State. CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR, JJ DATE : 28th JUNE 2011 P.C. 1 This is an application for bail pending appeal wherein the applicant- accused along with her husband has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine. 2 The victim lady was burnt by the applicant-accused and her husband by pouring kerosene on 27th March 2008. The applicant-accused and co-accused had suspicion that victim along with one lady had taken their teenage daughter for the purpose of immoral trafficking and therefore they both set her the victim on fire. 3 On merits the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused submits that there is no evidence against the applicant-accused except two dying declarations. He points out that P.W.3 - the Special Executive Officer has admitted 2 APPA 500/11 that the dying declaration was in fact written by police officer and therefore the credibility of the dying declaration (Exhibit 15) is doubtful. He submits that in fact the victim has committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person because she had some quarrel with landlady residing in the vicinity. He lastly submits that the applicant-accused is falsely implicated. On humanitarian ground, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-accused submits that the applicant-accused is a lady, she has six children and there is nobody in their house to look after the children. 4 The learned APP opposed the application and submission that the prosecution has brought the motive on record and the conviction is based on two consistent dying declaration. He pointed out that though the Special Executive Officer has given admission in his cross examination that the police officer has written the dying declaration (Exhibit 15), but in his chief he has specifically stated that it was in fact recorded by him and the police officer who wrote it was a scribe. He lastly submitted that the victim had three years old child. 5 Perused the evidence and the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The dying declarations before us are consistent. Considering the gravity of offence and the role played by the applicant-accused i.e. igniting match stick and throwing it on the victim lady with a view to set the victim on fire, we are not inclined to grant bail. The bail application is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)