( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4251 OF 2010 Sherkhan Mirbujkhan Pathan APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. G.R. Syed, advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.P. More, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th November, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail. 2. The applicant is husband of deceased Hasina Begum. It appears that the applicant used to reside with deceased Hasina Begum in the house of her parents and used to run an autorickshaw on rental basis. She was a house wife. The alleged incident occurred on 27th April, 2010 at about 3.30 p.m. Allegedly, the applicant suspected character of the wife and abused her. He also assaulted her as she was unable to procure money from her parents. All of a sudden, he took a canister containing kerosene and doused the wife with ( 2 ) kerosene, immediately set her ablaze and fled away. Their young daughter aged about 15 years extinguished the fire. Hasina Begum was admitted in the hospital in the same noon. Her police statement was recorded. She had received 97% burn injuries. She succumbed to the burn injuries on 1st May, 2010. The applicant is chargesheeted for offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P. Code. 3. Heard learned advocate and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers. It is stated by learned A.P.P. that the charge is already framed and the trial is being conducted. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the important circumstance regarding burn injuries found on person of the applicant is not considered by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application and, therefore, the applicant deserves liberty. He would submit that when the applicant was residing in the house of his in- laws, there was no question of demanding any amount from the wife. He contended that the delay caused in recording statements of the witnesses shows that there was subsequent development which added rather spice to the real story. ( 3 ) 5. In the present case, there are following aspects which would require consideration : (i) There is prima facie evidence appearing from the immediate statement recorded by the police and the dying declaration which was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate on 29th April, 2010. The deceased wife of the applicant categorically named him as the author of the burn injuries. (ii) The incident occurred within the four (4) walls of the house of the parents of deceased - Hasina Begum when she alone was in the house besides her daughter i.e. Reshma. It was around 3.30 p.m. when ordinarily, there was no possibility of accidental fire as it was neither cooking time nor the tea-time in the rural area. (iii) The police statement of Reshma, aged about 15 years, goes to show that there was quarrel and the applicant had beaten up her mother i.e. Hasina Begum in the relevant noon. It appears that the only eye witness available is said Reshma and, ( 4 ) therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, then probably, she is likely to be under his influence. 6. The post-mortem report reveals that the death was due to 97% burns and Hasina Begum had received burns from head to toe. The copy of the report submitted by Assistant Chemical Analyser prima facie shows that the clothes of deceased Hasina Begum i.e. the pieces of burnt saree bore kerosene residues. In other words, use of kerosene to put her on fire is prima facie corroborated by the report of Chemical Analyser. 7. It is true that the applicant seems to have received some burn injuries during course of the incident. However, in view of the foregoing strong circumstances and prima facie evidence about culpability of the applicant, at this juncture, mere fact that he too had received certain burn injuries will not enure to his benefit. No good case is made out to say that the applicant is not guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, the application is dismissed. ( 5 ) 8. The observations made in this order be not considered while deciding the Sessions Case and it may be decided on the merits of the matter, as expeditiously as possible. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4251-10