1 Cri.A.4841.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4841 OF 2011 Vishnu Sahebrao Davle, Antarwali Rathi, Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist.Jalna. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, ..RESPONDENT. ... Shri.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for Applicant. Shri.D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. ... CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 15.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. 2. The applicant is arrested, in Crime No. 78 of 2011, registered with Police Station Ambad, District Jalna, under sections 302, 307, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant and his wife Satyabhamabai were 2 Cri.A.4841.11 staying together. On 03.05.2011, according to the prosecution, present applicant poured kerosene on the person of Satyabhamabai and put her to fire. The said Satyabhamabai died on the same day at 6.20 p.m.. Post mortem is conducted and cause of death due to burn injures suffered by Satyabhamabai. FIR is filed by Satyabhamabai, when she was alive, and the said FIR is in the nature of dying declaration. The said dying declaration is in the nature of statement to the Police. It was recorded between 2.35 p. to 2.50 p.m. A regular dying declaration came to be recorded on the same day between 4.20. p.m. to 4.40 p.m. in presence of Naib Tahsildar Jalna. In both these dying declarations, it is alleged that present applicant poured kerosene and put her on fire. 4. In first dying declaration it is clearly mentioned that her husband poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. The argument advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant that as lady died in the evening on account of 100 % burn 3 Cri.A.4841.11 injuries, the dying declaration should be rejected and cannot be accepted. In both dying declarations the Doctor has passed the endorsement and certified that the deceased was capable to making statement. 5. It was argued by the learned advocate the applicant that statement rendered by the neighbourers, who gathered at the spot after hearing shout had rendered statements. and had stated that they saw both applicant and deceased Satyabhamabai coming out of the house. According to the learned advocate for the applicant, first dying declaration mentions that applicant poured kerosene on her person, set her on fire and ran away from the house. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, this difference is significant and would support the case of the applicant. I am not inclined to accept this submission. This difference in the two versions pointed out is minor and cannot be used to discard the dying declarations. The core of the 4 Cri.A.4841.11 prosecution case is not disturbed on account of statements of neighbours. 4. It was argued by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant himself extinguished the fire by pouring water on the body of deceased, coming out of the house. According the learned advocate for the applicant this overtact on the part of the applicant would clearly go to show that he had no intention to kill the deceased. According to the applicant, the deceased herself had poured kerosene and set her on fire. It is possible that the applicant has made efforts to extinguish the fire. That by itself would not absolve the applicant from the act alleged against him viz pouring kerosene on his wife and putting her on fire. 5. The material placed before the Court directly implicates the present applicant in the case. The incident is of May 2011. The allegations against the present applicant are serious. 5 Cri.A.4841.11 6. It is also pertinent to note that parents of the deceased rendered statements indicating that the applicant used to ill-treat the deceased. This is against the present applicant, and in my view, at this juncture, if present applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he would pressurize the various persons to revoke the statements made by them. In view of the above, application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the following order is passed. . The application stands rejected. . It is clarified that the observations made in this order were made to decide the present application and the learned Additional Sessions Judge trying the case will not use them against the applicant at the time of trial. [ R.Y.GANOO, J. ] MTK 6 Cri.A.4841.11