1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 204 OF 2011 (Pramod Balkrishna Vaidya vs. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Yogesh V. Nayyar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Nandita Tripathi, APP for the respondent. ….. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. APRIL 08, 2011. Heard Shri Nayyar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Tripathi, learned APP for the respondent. Sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal against conviction. Hence, delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011 Admit. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2011 Heard both sides. The applicant has been convicted under Section 302 for causing the death of his wife – Sushma, by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her on fire. The applicant is now seeking bail. 2 According to the prosecution the incident has taken place at about 4.30 P.M., thereafter Sushma was shifted to Primary Health Centre at Narkhed. P.I. Kankale – P.W. 11 of Narkhed Police Station recorded the Dying declaration of Sushma vide Exh. 44. Her dying declaration was also recorded by the Tahsildar P.W. 10 vide Exh. 40. The learned counsel for the applicant states that both the dying declarations were recorded at PHC, Narkhed at about 5.00 to 5.30 P.M. whereas Exh. 25 shows that the deceased was in fact admitted in Ward No. 3 of Indira Gandhi Government Medical College (I.G.G.M.C.), Nagpur, on 28.09.2009 at about 16.30 hrs. and she was declared dead on 29.09.2009 at about 1.30 P.M. next day in the same hospital. The learned counsel pointed out that the distance between Narkhed and I.G.G.M.C., Nagpur is about 80 – 100 kms., therefore, it could not have been possible when Sushma was at Hospital at Nagpur at about 4.30 P.M., her dying declarations were recorded at Narkhed between 5.00 to 5.30 P.M., as contended by P.W. 10 and P.W. 11. In order to buttress this contention, he has drawn our attention to column No. 6 in Exh. 25 which is Post Mortem report. Column No. 6 of post mortem report reads as under : “Deceased was admitted in Ward No. 3, IGGMC, Nagpur, with history of burns on 28.09.2009 at 16.30 hours and was declared dead on 29.09.2009 at 3 13.30 hours during the course of treatment.” On going through the contents of column No. 6, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant. The contents of column No. 6 show that Sushma was admitted in Ward No. 3 of IGGMC, Nagpur, with history of burns on 29.09.2009 at 16.30 hours and was declared dead on 29.09.2009 at 13.30 hours during the course of treatment. To our mind, it does not indicate that she was admitted on 28.09.2009 at 16.30 hours but it shows that the incident took place on 28.09.2009 at 16.30 hours. Thus, we find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the dying declaration could not have been recorded at Narkhed when at the relevant time she was admitted to IGGMC, Nagpur. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as far as second dying declaration at Exh. 40 recorded by P.W. 10 – Tahsildar, is concerned, Tahsildar has noted in the printed column that the patient is unable to sign or give thumb impression whereas the dying declaration actually bears her thumb impression. As far as this aspect is concerned, Tahsildar has clearly stated in the evidence that he has taken thumb impression of the patient. Thus, we find that this aspect is not such as to raise suspicion in relation to this dying declaration. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the 4 applicant submitted that the Investigating Officer has stated that at about 6.25 P.M. he left to search for the accused and accused came to be arrested at about 09.30 to 10.00 P.M. He submitted that evidence of P.W. 3 – Dr. Solanki shows that in fact accused was produced for examination before the Doctor at 5.45 P.M. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this evidence of Doctor clearly belies the Station diary which shows that the accused was arrested at 9.10 P.M. Even assuming it is so, that is on the aspect of time of arrest, as far as the involvement of the accused in the crime is concerned, his involvement can be clearly seen from the two dying declarations. We find that these dying declarations can be safely relied upon. In the dying declarations, Sushma has stated that her husband suspected her character and hence he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. In view of the two dying declarations, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.