1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.132/2008 In Criminal Appeal No.13/2008 [Raju Rambhau Patile and another .vrs. The State of Maharashtra] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, APP for the respondent/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JUNE 25, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Arun (the deceased) was the younger brother of appellant no.1 Raju. Appellant no.2 Manda is the wife of appellant no.1 Raju. It is alleged that on 23.2.2006 around 5.00 p.m. Arun came to the house of Raju for demanding a sum of Rs.200/- on account of the work done by Arun. At that time, Raju and Manda quarreled with Arun. Manda held Arun, Raju poured kerosene on his person and threw a burning stick from the oven on his person, because of which Arun was burnt. This was disclosed by Arun on the same day 2 at about 8.45 p.m. when PW 5 Satish Shinde, Special Executive Magistrate recorded his dying declaration. Arun died of 55 % burn injuries. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Raju has only one arm. It is improbable that he would pour kerosene on the person of Arun and would set him on fire. At this stage, we are not inclined to accept this submission. We do not find force in this submission. 4. The learned trial Judge relying on the said dying declaration, convicted the appellants. We find that there are strong circumstances justifying the conviction of both the appellants. However, considering the fact that appellant no.2 Manda is a house wife, we think it expedient to release her on bail. We are, however, not inclined to release appellant no.1 Raju on bail. We make it clear that appellant no.1 Raju will not claim parity. We, therefore, pass the following order : 5. The application is partly allowed. Appellant no.2 Manda w/o Raju Patile be released on her furnishing personal recognizance in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande