/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 954 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.861 OF 2008 Nitin Gangurde & Ors. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri M.S. Karnik for Applicants Shri D.P. Adsule APP for Respondents ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 21ST OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. The Applicants have convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 304 (b) r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for eight years. The Applicants have also been convicted for the offence under section 498A r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Yogita @ Nikita got married with Applicant No.1 on 27.5.2005 and within a period of one year from the date of marriage, she committed suicide. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 poured kerosene on deceased and set her on fire and / 2 / in order to save her, she went to well, which was near the house and jumped inside to douse the flame. However, she died suspiciously as result of dowry. The prosecution examined the brother of the deceased PW-3 and PW-5 viz. Samadhan Balasaheb Jadhav and Ramdas Balasaheb Jadhav. The prosecution also examined the Doctor Mahesh Shankarao Mahale, who had conducted the post-mortem. Police also examined the Police Patil Shri Jagannath Murlidhar Gholap and Panch witness PW-1 Gautam Narayan Nikale who have put the inquest Panchnama and also the Investigating Officer. 3. On the other hand, the defence examined Doctor Priya Rajhans and D.W. -2 Kashinath Basappa Nagarkar. The brother of the deceased has stated in his evidence that the Applicant No.1 used to ill-treat Yogita. He used to assault her and used to demand money for the purpose of converting the agricultural land from jirayan land to bagayat land. He stated that at the time of Diwali, the accused had brought the deceased to her parental house on motor cycle and through out the journey he was beating her. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the prosecution had deliberately suppressed the fact that the deceased was given treatment of Psychiatrist. He submitted that this facts has been denied by the brother of the deceased, when the question was put to / 3 / him in a cross examination. Although he has stated in his cross examination that their father did not take Yogita to the Psychiatrist. But it is possible that she may have be taken to the Psychiatrist for her ailment. He submitted that the defence had examined Doctor Priya Rajhans, who stated in her cross examination that on 9.11.2005, 18.11.2005 and 26.11.2005 she was treated by her and she is prescribed the medicines for her ailment. In her evidence, she had stated that, inter alia, deceased had suicide because she had afraid to go to her in-laws' house. She submitted that even the brother of the deceased in their evidence it is stated that for the three months the deceased was treated properly by her in-laws and thereafter for a period of one month she was staying with her parents and the incident took place on 20.4.2006. He further submitted that the statement of the brother that the Accused had demanded money from the parents of the deceased for laying down a pipeline also was falsified by the evidence of the Panch witness, who has in his cross examination stated that the Applicants already had a bagayat land. 4. The learned APP for State invited my attention to the questions asked by the Court to the Defence witness Dr. Priya Rajhans, wherein she had admitted that she had no history of past psychiatric illness and that the said witness had also stated that she was afraid to go back to the matrimonial home. The leared APP has also invited my attention to the evidence of PW-3, / 4 / who has deposed about the ill-treatment given by the Applicants to the deceased. 5. In my view, at this stage, firstly it has to be seen that whether prima facie case is made out by the Applicants for grant of bail. Secondly, it has to be seen that whether the Applicants are likely to abscond, if bail is granted. 6. From the evidence of PW-3, it is seen that he had admitted several statements made in the cross examination. He had not made the statement of ill-treatement before the police. For the first time he made statement of ill- treatment befor the Court. It is, therefore, evident that the PW-3 made lot of improvements in his statement before the Court. Secondly the prosecution also has suppressed the fact that the deceased was taking treatment of Psychiatrist. The Trial Court has disbelieved the story of the Applicants that the deceased setting on fire. 7. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Applicants have made out a case for grant of bail, though they have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicants, therefore, be released on bail in a sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicant No.1 however, shall report to Lasalgaon Police Station at Niphad. The Applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall report to the same police station as and when they called. / 5 / V.M. KANADE J.