( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2916 OF 2010 Bharat s/o. Manaji Kale .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 25.08.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for bail filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant is husband of deceased Bayjabai. He is charged for offence of her homicidal death. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. I have also perused investigation papers, which were temporarily made available during hearing of the application. ( 2 ) 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicant married with deceased Bayjabai in or about 1991. Out of the marriage, she delivered a female child, by name, Sangita and two sons, by name, Ashok and Ganesh. The applicant and deceased Bayjabai were moving from place to place in the course of their occupation as shepherd. 5. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant was in a habit of beating said Bayjabai under influence of liquor. Therefore, relatives of the spouses had obtained a writing from the applicant on 07.10.2009. He had agreed that he will change his behaviour with the wife. He had also agreed that he will discontinue to beat her. On 20th July, 2010, cousin of Bayjabai was informed by one Rambhaji Ghugse that Bayjabai and the applicant had quarreled in the earlier night and thereafter Bayjabai had fallen in the well and had died due to drowning. He enquired with his nephew i.e. son of Bayjabai about the incident. The son of the applicant and Bayjabai, namely, Ganesh informed that in the relevant night the applicant had assaulted Bayjabai by means of stick and thereafter she was lifted and was dropped in the well. ( 3 ) 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the statement of Ganesh is inconsistent with his subsequent statement. He would submit that the material gathered against the applicant is insufficient to reach the conclusion that the applicant has been guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He, therefore, seeks bail for the applicant. 7. The statement of Ganesh was recorded by the Police and subsequently his statement was also recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. It appears prima facie that the fact that the applicant assaulted deceased Bayjabai is consistently stated by him. So called inconsistency is only in respect of alleged further act which is said to have occurred before throwing Bayjabai in the well. It cannot be predetermined that Ganesh has given any inconsistent or contradictory version about the incident. The post-mortem report reveals that there were three abrasions on lateral aspect of left knee of Bayjabai. There was one reddish abrasion. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. It is difficult, therefore, to believe that Bayjabai ( 4 ) committed suicide by jumping herself in the well. On the other hand, the presence of such injuries prima facie lend corroboration to the eye witness account given by son of the applicant and deceased Bayjabai i.e. Ganesh. Moreover, the past conduct of the applicant shows that he had agreed to give her proper treatment. There is prima facie material to infer complicity of the applicant in the commission of alleged crime. In this view of the matter, the application for bail is dismissed. The Trial shall be expedited in the Trial Court. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/cra2916.10