IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICTION NO.909 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.816 OF 2008 Mahadeo Prabhu Londhe .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.Shivarkar for the Applicant. Ms.P.H.Kantharia, APP for the State. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2009. P.C.: 1. The applicant was tried by the Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.396 of 2007 for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the IPC on the allegations of committing murder of his wife Banabai by setting her ablaze. Appeal preferred by the applicant has been admitted. This is his application for bail. 2. We have heard at some length learned counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that the incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 26.2.2007 in the residential house of the accused. Learned counsel pointed out that the first dying declaration of the deceased came to be recorded at 9.00 am on 27.2.2007. In that dying declaration, the deceased has stated that she received burn injuries because the stove burst. Learned counsel pointed out that the second dying declaration of the deceased was recorded at 3.00 pm on 28.2.2007. In that dying declaration the deceased has stated that it is her husband who set her ablaze. According to learned counsel the second dying declaration is a tutored dying declaration because it was made by the deceased after her mother met her and therefore no reliance can be placed on it. . He submitted that in any event, because of discrepancy between the two dying declarations, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the applicant has three minor children. Their school record shows that their studies are badly affected. They are working as child labour. He submitted that therefore this is a fit case where the applicant should be released on bail. 3. We are not impressed by any of the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. In the first dying declaration the deceased has stated that she received burn injuries because the stove burst. It is not disputed that it is the applicant who took her to the hospital. Therefore the possibility of the deceased being pressurised into making this statement cannot be ruled out. It is true that the second dying declaration is recorded after the deceased met her mother. It is sought to be argued that the mother tutored the deceased. We are unable to accept this submission. It is reasonable to assume that after the deceased met her mother, the deceased must have got courage to speak the truth. Besides the panchanama shows that the tank of the stove was intact. Prima-facie therefore, the story of bursting of stove is unacceptable. The deceased received 95% burn injuries. Under these circumstances, the applicant cannot be released on bail. Application is rejected. 4. We have been shown the marklists of the children of the applicant. Undoubtedly they are not doing well in school, however, we are not aware whether they are working as child labour. We make it clear that the applicant is entitled to make an application on humanitarian grounds. Needless to say that if such an application is made, the court concerned will decide it independently and in accordance with law. ( SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)