1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 57 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2011 (Umesh Dudharam Vanjari .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri H.P. Lingayat, Advocate for the applicant. Smt. B.P. Maldhure, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 15TH MARCH, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent/State. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Chhaya by pouring kerosene on her and setting her on fire. The applicant is now seeking bail. There are three dying declarations on record which are recorded by SEO Kamble (PW-7); Police Constable Bute (PW-8); and PSI Nanda (PW-10). All the dying declarations are consistent. In all the dying declarations, Chhaya had stated that it was the applicant who had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the dying declaration recorded by SEO Kamble (PW-7), he had obtained left toe impression of Chhaya; whereas Police Constable Bute (PW-8) and PSI Nanda (PW-10) have obtained the thumb impressions of Chhaya on the dying declarations recorded by them. Learned Counsel further submitted that this throws grave doubt on the prosecution case. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is noticed that the incident had occurred at around 03:00 p.m. and PW-8 and PW-10 had recorded the dying declarations at around 05:00 p.m. and SEO Kamble (PW-7) had recorded the dying declaration at about 08:00 p.m. At that time, the position of the thumb might have been 2 different on account of passage of time. Burns lead to blisters, thus by 8 p.m. the blisters may have been such that it was not possible to take the thumb impression, hence, prima facie we see no merit in this submission. Thereafter, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is the prosecution case that the applicant was the paramour of deceased Chhaya and he suspected the character of Chhaya hence, this incident took place. He submitted that however the mother and son of Chhaya who have been examined have not supported the prosecution case so also the landlord (PW-2) has also not supported the prosecution case on this aspect. Even assuming that these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case it is noticed that they are not eye witnesses. There are three dying declarations on record given by deceased Chhaya which are all cogent, consistent and reliable. In this view of the matter, we do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.