1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1159 OF 2002 Sayeeda Begum w/o Mohd. Akbar .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the Respondent-State Ms. Rajshree Gudgilla, Advocate h/f. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 16th JUNE, 2009 COURT’S ORDER:- 1] The applicant takes exception to the order passed by the learned 7th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad dated 13.5.2002, dismissing the applicant’s complaint which was registered as RCC no.786 of 2001. The complainant is the grand mother 2 of deceased Gajala Parveen, who was wife of the accused no.1 Saleem Khan. The other accused are the relatives of the accused no.1. 2] On 17.4.2001, i.e. within four months of the marriage, Gajala Parveen was found burnt with 100% burns at her matrimonial house. On the same day, she died, despite taken to hospital. Before her death, her dying declaration was recorded by the Police and the Executive Magistrate. In both these statements, Gajala Parveen stated that she tried to commit suicide, because she was harassed and tortured by the accused. The Police registered offences under section 498(A), 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. However, the complainant-grand mother of the deceased Gajala was not satisfied with the steps taken by the Investigation Officer. She asserted and she believed that Gajala Parveen was murdered by the accused here. It is her case in her complaint, that deceased Gajala Parveen, before her death while she was being taken to hospital, and while she was 3 admitted in the hospital disclosed to her mother and the complainant also that while she was sleeping on a cot, the accused poured kerosene on her person and the mosquito net fixed to the cot. They then set the mosquito net on fire. She asserted that the accused then closed the door from outside, so as to prevent her exit from the room. She further stated that although she raised alarm, the accused did not open the door and did not come to help her. The learned Magistrate however, dismissed the complaint. He noticed that during the investigation, the Police had recorded statements of the complainant, as well as Gajala’s mother under section 162 Cr.P.C. In such statements, they did not disclose what the complainant is now asserting in the complaint. They did not disclose that deceased Gajala had made certain statement to them, in respect of the events that took place prior to her getting injured. 3] Taking exception to this order, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-original complainant asserted that the learned Magistrate did 4 not take into account the inquest panchanama, as well as the scene of offence panchanama. I went through these two panchanama. The inquest panchanama mentions that Gajala had suffered 100% burns. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant asserted that if the prosecution case, which shows that the witnesses had rushed to the help of the deceased and tried to extinguish the fire, is believed, then Gajala would not have suffered 100% burns. This assertion is not acceptable. A person, who is set on fire, despite rescue operation, might suffer 100% burns. 4] As regards the scene of offence panchanama, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant asserted that as it was the prosecution case, the incident appears to have occurred on the ground floor kitchen room, but the scene of offence panchanama makes it clear that the incident of arson took place on first floor in a room which looked as if it was a bed-room. I went through the prosecution material, and realised that the 5 prosecution case nowhere indicated that the incident took place in the kitchen which is situated at the ground floor. It appears that the learned Advocate drew his conclusion that the incident took place in kitchen, probably because there is reference in the complaint and the dying declaration that the deceased poured kerosene on her person from a stove. The learned Advocate, probably thought that the stove would be placed in the kitchen and therefore, the incident must have taken place in the kitchen. But this doubt is made clear through the contents of the scene of offence panchanama. As said above, the scene of offence panchanama is of the first floor- bed room. In this bed-room, bed was noticed and a stove was also seen. The Police recorded that they smelt kerosene in the room and also found lumps of burnt saree in the said room. They, even recorded that portion of mattress and bed-sheet was found burnt. It is thus obvious that the incident took place in the bed-room on the first floor. There was a stove and the kerosene from the stove was utilised for causing fire. 6 5] The impugned order is not incorrect and cannot be disturbed. The application stands dismissed. Rule discharged. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/16june9/cr1159.02