FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1655 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.190 OF 2010. ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ We heard learned Counsel Mr. Kandharkar for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. Mr. Jadhav for the State. 2 By this application, the applicant seeks suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal. The appeal has been admitted by this Court. 3 We heard learned Counsel for the parties. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have seen the record and proceedings of the case. The date of incident in the case in hand is 9th August, 2006. Nouvelle of the prosecution case is alleged murder of wife by the applicant – appellant. The crime, according to the prosecution, has been committed by the applicant by putting her on fire with kerosene lamp. The prosecution claims that the deceased had made three oral dying declarations and two written dying declarations. We have seen the evidence of prosecution witnesses before whom oral dying declarations were allegedly made by the deceased. We have also seen the judgment of the trial Court. Two dying declarations are at Exh.30 and 38. The trial Court has considered all the dying declarations and discussion thereof appears from paragraph 20 onwards. Discussing the entire material brought on record in relation to the oral dying declarations at the end of paragraph 32, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the evidence comprises of three oral dying declarations as well as one dying declaration made before the Magistrate (Executive Magistrate) and they are consistent with each other. Satisfaction has been recorded by the trial Court in the next sentence that all these four dying declarations were/are true, voluntary and not influenced by extraneous considerations. We have also seen the observations made by the trial Court in paragraphs 33 and 34. 4 We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel Mr. Kandharkar that there are two children to the applicant and deceased and old mother to be looked after by the applicant. 5 After giving due considerations to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, considering the material on record, judgment of the trial Court, in our view, it is not a fit case to consider the request made by the applicant for suspension of sentence and releasing him on bail. We have also noticed that indisputably the applicant was not on bail during the trial before the Sessions Judge. 6 Criminal Application stands rejected. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (S.B. DESHMUKH,J) 18.06.2010. kadam/*