{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3920 OF 2009 Satwaji Nagnath Pakhalwad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.57/2009 registered with Moujpuri police station, Dist-Jalna. Initially, an offence punishable u/s 307, 498-A and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. However, subsequently, as the victim succumbed to death, the offence is converted into u/s 302 of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of {2} investigation. In this case, it appears, charge sheet is also filed. 3. It appears that an offence came to be registered in respect of an incident which had taken place on 21st July 2009 at about 5 p.m. As per the initial statement of the victim recorded on 21st July 2009 itself, it appears that while the victim was preparing food the applicant came there in drunken condition and some quarrel took place between them. It is alleged that the applicant had demanded Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as her brother had received difference of 6th Pay Commission and on that count he was harassing her. It is further alleged that she got annoyed due to the said harassment and hence she herself sprinkled kerosene on her person and lighted with a matchstick and set herself on fire. It is contended in the statement by the victim that the applicant tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water and admitted the victim in the hospital. It appears that on 22nd a dying declaration of the deceased came to be recorded where she had narrated that in the last evening the applicant has poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire and at that time he was in drunken condition. It also appears that one more dying declaration is recorded by the Executive Magistrate on the same day wherein the victim has corroborated her earlier version recorded before the police on 22nd July 2009. During the investigation statements of small children of the applicant and deceased came to be recorded. The children, aged about 4 years and 5 years, have also corroborated the dying declarations given by the deceased before the Executive Magistrate. {3} 4. In this backdrop, it is the submission of the learned counsel for applicant that there is variance between the statements of the deceased that the burn injuries sustained by her due to her act of committing suicide, however her statement of 21.07.2009 is inconsistent with her further statements recorded by the police or Executive Magistrate. It is contended that so far as statements of the children are concerned, the same are recorded after a gap of one month and hence not to be believed. In the premise it is contended that there is variance in the dying declarations and in the dying declaration, which is recorded first in point of time, the deceased has stated that she has tried to commit suicide. In the premise it is urged that considering the contradictions, in the statements, the applicant be enlarged on bail. It is also urged that now as the investigation is over and there is no question of applicant’s tampering with the prosecution witnesses and hence he be enlarged on bail. 5. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned APP. It is urged that the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased require to be considered while dealing with the different stands taken by the deceased. My attention is drawn by the learned APP towards the medical certificate and Postmortem notes, which indicate that the deceased had sustained 67% burn injuries and hence it is urged that there was hope in the mind of the deceased to survive and if she survives then she might have {4} though that she will have to face further harassment at the hands of the applicant and hence she might have stated so in her first dying declaration. It is also urged that the clothes of the applicants, which were worn by him at the time of incident, were seized and it is opined that traces of kerosene are found on the same. According to learned APP if it is a case of suicide then how the traces of kerosene are found on the clothes of the applicant and hence inference can be drawn that the applicant had sprinkled the kerosene on the person of the victim and set her on fire and hence it is urged that he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. In view of the submissions, it has to be noted that cause of death, as opined by the medical officer is septicemia due to burn injuries. In the premise, it can be said that looking to the percentage of burn injuries i.e. 67% there was ray of hope in the mind of the deceased that she might survive and hence she had given such statement on 21.07.2009. In the premise, it prima facie appears that due to said reason there is variance in the statements of the deceased. 7. In the premise, the applicant does not deserve liberty. In the result, the application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3920-09