IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 938 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2010 VINAYAK ARJUN SATPUTE .. APPELLANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. RESPONDENT Smt. Sarojini Upadhyay for the appellant Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 28/7/2010 P.C. The applicant was tried along with his mother in Sessions Case No. 79/2009 for offences punishable under Section 302, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short). 2. The applicant is original accused 1. His mother is accused 2. Accused 2 was acquitted but the applicant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 3. We have heard learned counsel Smt. Upadhyay in support of the bail application. She submitted that when the applicant was admitted in the hospital she stated to the doctor that she poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. Learned counsel drew our attention to the evidence of DW 1 Dr. Vrushali in support of this submission. Learned counsel submitted that, therefore, grave doubt is cast on the dying declaration recorded by PW 6 Vishnu Patil, the S.E.M.. Learned counsel submitted that, therefore, the applicant ought to be released on bail. 4. It is not possible for us to release the applicant on bail. It is true that the applicant has examined DW 1 Dr. Vrushali who has stated that on 28/2/09 the deceased was admitted in the hospital and when she made inquiry with her the deceased told her that she poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. However, it is pertinent to note that the deceased was admitted in the hospital by the applicant. Prima facie, we concur with learned Sessions Judge that there is possibility of the applicant pressurizing the deceased into giving such a history because to PW 6 S.E.M. Vishnu Patil the deceased has clearly stated that the applicant used to illtreat her, suspect her character and used to demand divorce from her. The deceased has also stated that the applicant used to beat her. The deceased has further stated that it is the applicant who poured kerosene on her and set her on fire because she told him that she will not give divorce to him. PW 5 Dr. Bipin who had examined the deceased has stated that the deceased was in a conscious condition and in fit state of mind to give the dying declaration. Dr. Bipin Palghadmal has put his endorsement below the signature of the deceased and the signature of PW 6 Vishnu Patil. PW 6 Vishnu Patil and PW 5 Dr. Bipin Palghadmal are independent witnesses. We have no reason to disbelieve them. Besides PW 2 Tulsabai Kamble, the mother of the deceased has corroborated the dying declaration of the deceased that the applicant used to beat her and suspect her character. 5. In our prima facie opinion, therefore, the applicant has rightly been convicted as evidence of all the witnesses clearly proves involvement of the applicant. In the circumstances bail application is rejected. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)