1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.164 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.60 OF 2008 Santosh Pandharinath Dhatrak. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Z.M. Avhad, Advocate for the applicant. Ms.P.H. Kantharia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND MR.R.G.KETKAR, JJ. MR.R.G.KETKAR, JJ. MR.R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH APRIL,2009. DATED : 17TH APRIL,2009. DATED : 17TH APRIL,2009. P.C.:- 1. The applicant was convicted by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Nashik for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal has been admitted by this Court. This is his application for bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused poured kerosene on his wife Kavita and set her on fire on 14.9.2005 at about 5:00 p.m. in their residential house. 3. Before we deal with the submissions of learned Counsel, it needs to be stated that, one application 2 for bail filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn, second application filed by the applicant for bail was dismissed for non-prosecution and the third application filed by the applicant was withdrawn today i.e. 17th April, 2009 because of the pendency of the present application. 4. We have heard Mr.Avhad learned Counsel for the applicant at some length. Mr.Avhad submitted that according to the prosecution the incident took place at 5 O’clock in the house of the accused. He submitted that two grown up children of the applicant were present in the house. However, their statements were not recorded. He further submitted that soon after the incident, the deceased informed Dr.Pingle that the stove had burst and she received burn injuries. Learned Counsel submitted that however after the police came on the scene, her dying declarations came to be recorded in which she put the blame on her husband i.e. applicant. Learned Counsel submitted that the dying declarations of the deceased are shrouded in suspicion and should not be taken into account. Learned Counsel further submitted that the doctor has not signed on the top of the dying declaration, but, he has signed at the bottom of the dying declaration. He submitted that 3 the dying declarations are not truthful. They are result of tutoring and hence no reliance should be placed on them. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme court in Nallapati Sivaiah vs. Nallapati Sivaiah vs. Nallapati Sivaiah vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P. AIR 2008 Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P. AIR 2008 Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P. AIR 2008 Supreme Court 19 Supreme Court 19 Supreme Court 19 in support of the submission that inconsistent dying declarations cannot be relied upon and benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. 5. We are not impressed by any of the submissions of learned Counsel. Two dying declarations made by the deceased prima facie appear to be consistent. The fact that the doctor did not sign at the top of the dying declaration but signed at the bottom appears to us to be an inconsequential circumstance. The doctor has opined that the deceased was conscious and oriented. Since there is no conflict between the dying declarations of the deceased, Nallapati Sivaiah’s case does not help the applicant. The defence version that the deceased received injuries because the stove burst appears to us to be inherently improbable. In our opinion, no case is made out for bail. Application for bail is rejected. [SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J.] 4 [MR.R.G.KETKAR,J.]