{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3993 OF 2009 Rohidas Narayan Kadam Age-28 years, Occ-Agri R/o Bramhangaon, Tq-Basmat Dist-Hingoli APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Hatta Dist-Hingoli RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.N.Chitlange, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 24th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.70/2009 registered with Hatta Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 307, 498-A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the {2} submissions of the learned APP appearing for the state. 3. It is urged across the bar that the deceased Suvarna had sustained 91% burn injuries and she must not be in a position to give any statement before the police. By pointing out the contents of the FIR as well as the statements of the relatives, it is tried to be urged that an impression had been given to the deceased that the applicant, who is husband of the deceased, is holding handsome landed property in his name, however after her marriage she realized that he was not holding that much property. It is also contended on behalf of the applicant that though it is alleged that there is demand of dowry, yet there is no basis for the said allegation as due to frustration she might have committed suicide, however just to implicate the applicant and his relatives, an offence of demand of dowry and murder is registered. Therefore, it is urged that the alleged incident occurred in the month of June 2009 and now the investigation is over and charge sheet is also filed and also by taking into consideration the inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses and contents of the complaint, the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned APP opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. Before considering the rival submissions, it is to be bear in mind that the alleged incident occurred in the matrimonial {3} residential premises of the deceased where she was residing along with her husband and in laws and hence presumption u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of explanation of injuries, which are found on the person of the deceased, lies on the applicant and his family members and not on the witnesses. Most important aspect of the matter is that it is urged that considering the nature of the burn injuries, it is not possible that the complainant be in a position to give statement on the basis of which the complaint is registered. However, on careful perusal of the complaint it is found that there is an endorsement of the Doctor that the patient is fit to give statement. In the premise, it is clear that when the police recorded the FIR the victim was in a position to give statement and considering this aspect, the submission that the victim had sustained 91% burn injuries and hence she might not have in a position to give statement, cannot be accepted. There is specific allegation in the compliant that the applicant poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire. The medical report shows the cause of death is due to burn injuries and hence the death of the victim is a homicidal death. It is also to bear in mind that the deceased had one year old child and considering this fact, the psychological condition of the victim also requires to be taken into consideration as it is urged that due to frustration she had committed suicide. If it is to be believed, then the offence will be u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code for which also the punishment is life imprisonment and in exceptional cases the same can be converted into capital punishment. However the fact that whether {4} it was a suicidal death or homicidal death can be decided after the trial is over. At the time of hearing bail application it cannot be decided as to whether it was a suicide or murder. In my view, it prima facie appears that there is nexus between the death of the victim and the role played by the applicant and also in view of the fact that the incident occurred in the premises where the deceased used to reside with her in laws and hence, this is a case where applicant does not deserve liberty. 6. In the result, the application, which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3993-09