1 APPA.1392-2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1392 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2010 Avinash Baburao Rayate ...Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra . ...Respondent. ---- Mr. S. K. Shinde, for the Applicant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. --- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 04, 2011. P.C.:- We have heard Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Deshmukh, the learned APP for the State. 2 The applicant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in Sessions Case No.192 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, District- Nasik. 2 APPA.1392-2010 3 The applicant and his wife Sarika had a love marriage sometime in the year 2000 and from the said wedlock they begot two children. As per the prosecution case, on 3.11.2008 around 8.00 a.m. there was some quarrel between the husband and wife and in that quarrel the applicant-husband got annoyed and poured an inflammable liquid thinner or kerosene from a plastic can on her person and set her ablaze. She was immediately shifted to the Life Care Hospital with 47% injuries. Her brother PW-2-Nitin Mahale reached the hospital immediately and he was advised by the Doctor to shift her either to Shatabdi Hospital or at Mumbai, and therefore, he shifted her to Shatabdi Hospital. While under treatment Sarika died on 3011.2008. The offence initially registered on 4.11.2008 under Section 307 of IPC was converted to Section 302 of IPC on the demise of Sarika. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses and based on its case against the applicant-accused on three dying declarations. The first dying declaration was orally made to PW-2Nitin Mahale and remaining two dying declarations were recorded on 4.11.2008 by PW-3 Shrikant Gholap, Special Judicial Magistrate and PW-5 -A.S.I. Shaikh. The defence examined PW-1 Dr. Sandeep Sutar in support of its case that 3 APPA.1392-2010 Sarika died on account of burn injuries sustained accidentally while she was at her matrimonial home. 4 The trial court had accepted the dying declarations but discarded the testimony of PW-1 Dr. Sandeep Sutar. As per the trial court there was no contradiction of material circumstances in all three dying declarations and the CA report at Exh.42 also corroborated the prosecution evidence. 5 Having regard to the arguments advanced before us by Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the applicant-accused and the reasoning set out by the trial court in support of the order of conviction of the accused, we are satisfied that there is no case made out to suspend the order of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.PC and release the applicant on bail. 6 Hence, this application is rejected. Paper book copies expedited. 7 Applicant-accused is at liberty to file proper paper book which could be certified by the Registry. (U. D. SALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)