IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRI APPA NO.448 OF 2010 IN CRI APPEAL NO.319 OF 2010. (AMOL SANTOSH TIJARE...VS... STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PSO PARWA.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.P.Palshikar, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. K.S.Joshi, A.P.P. for respondents. CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 03, 2010. Heard Mr. Palshikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Joshi, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. By this application the applicant, who has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.27 of 2009 for having committed murder of his wife Kalpana by pouring kerosene on her person and by setting her ablaze, seeks suspension of sentence and bail. Mr. Palshikar learned counsel for the applicant submits that dying declaration Exh.40 recorded by P.W. 6 Sau. Pushpalata Bharti, Executive Magistrate does not inspire confidence inasmuch as she has admitted that there are certain insertions in the dying declaration made by the deceased to her. He further submitted that there is absolutely no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Mrs. Joshi, learned A.P.P. submits that in addition to the written dying declaration there are three oral dying declarations made to Sudhakar Jadhav (P.W.1), Digambar Burade (P.W.2) and Dnyaneshwar Bondre (P.W.4) and the learned trial Judge has wrongly discarded the dying declarations. According to Mrs.Joshi, the incident has taken place in the house of the accused at 11.00 p.m. and there is absolutely no evidence that at the relevant time accused was at some other place. She further submitted that the accused was not on bail pending trial and therefore, this is not a fit case to grant bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for granting suspension of sentence and bail to the applicant who was not admittedly on bail during the trial. The applicable being the husband of the deceased is bound to explain the circumstances in which his wife met with unnatural death. The Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2006) 10 SCC 681 has held that if death had occurred within the four corners of his dwelling house the husband is under obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of the death of his wife. In absence of any plausible explanation by the applicant as to where he was at the time of the incident, his presence in the house and non-explanation about the injuries suffered by his wife is prima-facie sufficient to hold that the applicant was author of the crime. In addition to this the accused/ applicant was not on bail during trial. Having regard to the nature of the crime committed we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The application is therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE RR.