AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1094 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.796 OF 2009 Sachin Kerbhau Padir & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. M. Deshmukh i/b Mr. Hindurao Borge for the applicants. Ms. Usha Kejriwal, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The applicants are original accused 2 to 4. The applicants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune along with original accused 1 in Sessions Case No. 349 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code AJN 2 (for short, “the IPC”). Applicant 1 is the son of applicants 2 and 3. By judgment and order dated 15/6/2009, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the applicants for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment. 2. The appeal filed by the applicants is admitted. This is their bail application. 3. At the outset, we must state that learned counsel for the applicants submitted that, at this stage, he is not pressing the application of applicant 3. Hence, we have considered only the case of applicants 1 and 2. 4. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Vaishali was married to original accused 1 – Gopal, son of original accused 3 and 4. It appears that accused 1 was residing at Manchar, Pune. He was not present at the time of incident and, hence, he has been acquitted. The case of AJN 3 the prosecution is that accused 2 to 4 started ill-treating and harassing the deceased because she was unable to satisfy their demand of Rs.20,000/-. Accused 2 used to tease her. He had an evil eye on her. In our prima facie opinion, offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC is rightly held proved against applicants 1 and 2 on the basis of evidence of PW-5 Manohar Dumbre who had arranged the marriage of the deceased and PW-1 Shantaram, uncle of the deceased. 5. Dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well. It was taken out in the presence of PW-1 and PW-5. Her sari-petticoat was tied at the chest instead of the waist. It was not burnt but the blouse inside the petticoat was in a burnt condition. There were burn injuries on the dead body. There were nail marks at the neck. That the death was homicidal is prima facie apparent. Cause of death was given by PW-6 Dr. Survase as throttling or dry drowning. It is significant to note that in the kitchen of the applicants, one empty kerosene can was found lying. AJN 4 One half burnt quilt was smelling of kerosene. Powder was spread on the floor and ota. 6. There can be no dispute about the fact that the deceased was staying in the matrimonial home with the applicants. She was, therefore, in the custody of the applicants. After considering the evidence on record, trial court has rightly observed that the deceased was in the custody of the applicants when the death occurred and, therefore, they should have at least offered a probable explanation as to how the deceased died in such suspicious circumstances. The presence of applicants 1 and 2 at the scene of offence is admitted. It is pertinent to note that applicant 2 went to the police and gave information that on account of the deceased's negligence, the gas pipe of cylinder had caught fire and, therefore, the deceased must have committed suicide by jumping in the well fearing that the applicants might scold her. After examining the evidence on record, the trial court has rightly held that the explanation offered by the applicants AJN 5 is false and that forms an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Trial court has rightly observed that the act of dragging the deceased to the well from the house cannot be done by one person. 7. In our prima facie opinion, the prosecution has proved it's case against applicants 1 and 2. They cannot be granted bail. Hence, their prayer for bail is rejected. Nothing said by us in this order should be treated as our prima facie opinion about the involvement of applicant 3, because her case was not pressed at this stage by learned counsel for the applicants. 8. Application is disposed of. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]