1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.2994/2008 In Criminal Appeal No.258/2008 [Sau. Leelabai w/o Bapurao Lohakare 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. R.M. Daga, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. D.M. Kale, APP for the respondent. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED : AUGUST 22, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent/State. 2. According to the prosecution, during the night intervening between 20.10.2001 and 21.10.2001, Raju s/o Bapurao Lohakare (DW 1) had gone to the house of Sunita Jamkar with whom he had love affair. Appellant No.1 Lilabai (mother of Raju) and Appellant No.2 Veena (sister of Raju) went to the house of Sunita Jamkar to bring him back. There was quarrel between Lilabai and Veena on one hand and Sunita on the other. During the quarrel Lilabai poured 2 kerosene on the person of Sunita and she was set on fire. With the result, Sunita sustained burn injuries. Raju (DW 1) tried to save her and in that attempt he was also burnt. Both of them were admitted in the Hospital. As many as three dying declarations of Sunita were recorded, two by ASI Kadu (PW 5) and one by Executive Magistrate Raut (PW 4). In all those dying declarations Sunita narrated the role of Lilabai and Veena in setting her on fire. All those dying declarations are consistent. 3. DW 1 Raju has, however, another story to tell. His presence is not disputed by either side. According to him at the relevant time he had gone to Sunita, Sushilabai was in a drunken state and there was quarrel between Sunita and Sushilabai. During the course of quarrel Sushilabai set Sunita on fire. Raju (DW 1) and his mother Lilabai (A 1) lodged report (Exh.77) of the said incident. The trial court disbelieved the testimony of DW 1 Raju (the only eyewitness to the incident) on the ground that he is the close relative of the appellants. We find that there is strong case against Appellant No.1 Lilabai. Hence, we are not inclined to grant her bail. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande