-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CR. APPLN. NO. 1183 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2008 ( Prabhakar Paikuji Vairale & Anr. vs. 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 A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.B. Mandpe, APP for the respondent. ...... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE & B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. JULY 24, 2008. 1. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2. The appellants are the in-laws of the deceased Sangita. It is alleged that the mother-in-law of Sangita poured kerosene on her person and her father-in-law set her ablaze on 1.12.2005 at 8.00 P.M. After the incident, she was removed to hospital. First dying declaration (Exh. 21) was recorded by PW-4 ASI Ramgopal in which Sangita narrated the above incident. The second dying declaration (Exh. 36) was recorded by PW-2 Shri Jayant Deshpande, Executive Magistrate at 11.05 P.M. in which Sangita reiterated the same version. Thus, both the dying declarations are consistent. 3. It was urged by the learned counsel for the -2- appellants that the record would reveal that the door of the room in which Sangita was burnt was latched from inside which indicates that Sangita must have committed suicide. Our attention was also invited in this respect to the testimony of the defence witness who is a neighbour and who stated that he with the help of husband of Sangita broke open the door of the room where Sangita was burnt. However, the learned counsel could not point out as to whether the said defence witness narrated the said incident to the police immediately after the occurrence and whether his statement was recored by the police during investigation. It, therefore, appears that the said defence witness may be a got up witness. 4. We find that there is a strong case supporting conviction of the appellants. Hence, we are not inclined to release them on bail. The application is therefeore, rejected. 5. The appellants are permitted to file private paper book for early hearing of the appeal. JUDGE JUDGE *GS