1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.1512 Of 2009 In Criminal Appeal No.262 of 2009 Faruk Abdul Khatik ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. Rahul A Tambe, Advocate appointed for the applicant. Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 26th AUGUST 2009 ORAL ORDER: 1) Heard. 2) The applicant was convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer 2 imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated 16th January 2009 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner in Sessions Case No.57 of 2007. 3) The prosecution case is that the applicant was married to deceased Rahisabee and was blessed with two children – son Sahil aged one year and daughter Muskan aged 3 years. The deceased wife was insisting that the applicant should do some work and look after the family. As the applicant was not discharging his duties and looking after family, the wife blamed the husband for inactiveness. 4) On the date of incident i.e. 14-9-2007 the wife and children were sleeping. The applicant poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set them ablaze. Wife of the applicant deceased Rahisabee suffered 100% burns. Sahil suffered 100% and Muskan suferred around 82% burns. The Executive Magistrate and the 3 police recorded dying declarations of deceased wife, Exhibits 33 and 41. We have perused the dying declarations. They are consistent. 5) The wife had clearly blamed the husband - applicant for causing harm to her and the children by pouring kerosene of their person and setting them on fire. We have perused the statement of the applicant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The applicant has not given any explanation regarding the circumstances resulting in death of the family members of the applicant. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. Prima facie we find that for justifiable reasons the wife raised voice that husband should do some work to earn for livelihood for himself and family. Unfortunately, the result was that they had to loose their precious lives for raising voice by the wife of the applicant. The manner in which the applicant has committed offence is heinous, cruel and inhuman in nature. During trial, it is informed 4 to us that, the applicant was not granted bail. 6) The applicant does not deserve any sympathy even from this Court by granting bail to him pending hearing of his appeal. 7) The criminal application is rejected. Shri. Tambe, Advocate appointed for the applicant be paid his fees quantified at Rs.2000/-. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crapln.1512.09