:1: 20.appa.1104.11 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1104 OF 2011 ALONG WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2011 Sangappa M. Patil and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, for Applicant. Dr. F. R. Shaikh,APP for Respondent. CORAM :- V. M. KANADE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 13, 2011. P. C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants and the learned APP for the Respondent-State. The Applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 The Applicant No.1 is 60 years old and Applicant No.2 is 55 years old. The Applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The prosecution case is that the son of the Applicants had a affair with the deceased- Jayashree. He was already married and had promised the deceased that he would marry her. As a result of the said :2: 20.appa.1104.11 relationship, she became pregnant and when the son of the Applicants refused to marry her, she filed a complaint under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicants’ son-Ramesh was arrested. The father of the deceased made an application for bail, after Ramesh agreed to marry the deceased. Accordingly, after he was released on bail, he married deceased-Jayshree, and they were residing in a separate hut. According to the prosecution, after sometime, Ramesh went to Karnatka, where his first legally wedded wife was residing and did not come back. The prosecution case is that on the date of the incident, the present Applicants and their minor daughter entered the hut of the deceased. Initially, minor daughter of the Applicants entered the hut, through the window and opened the door, and then the Applicants came in and the mouth of the deceased was gagged. They poured kerosene and set her on fire. 3 After the deceased raised hue and cry, neighbours, mother and sister of the deceased entered the hut. Accused also came there and thereafter, she was taken to the hospital. Her dying declaration was recorded and, prior to that, her statement was recorded by the Police. In that statement, she has stated that her sister-in law entered the hut through the window and opened the main door of the hut and then the Applicants came there and set her on fire. :3: 20.appa.1104.11 4 In the dying declaration, however, she does not state that the Applicants entered in the hut in the manner in which the statement was made by her before the Police. Apart from the dying declaration, there is oral dying declaration made by her to some of the witnesses. It is difficult to accept the prosecution case, particularly, since the deceased had stated that she was sleeping at the time when said incident took place, and there was no motive for the Applicants to commit the said offence. 5 In any case, that is the question of appreciating evidence. However, the Applicants, in our view, have a good case and secondly Applicant No.1 is 60 years old and Applicant No.2 is more than 55 years of age. Under these circumstances and taking an over all view of the mater, in our view, the Applicants are entitled to be released on bail. i) The Applicants be released on bail on execution of P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, each with one or two sureties in the like amount. ii) The Applicants shall, however, report to the concerned Police- station once in three months. iii)Hearing of the Appeal is expedited. ( A. M. THIPSAY, J ) ( V. M. KANADE, J.)