1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3653 OF 2009 Kashibai Srimant Bansode APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Halkunde, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for the State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 11/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present applicant, the applicant is praying to release her on bail in connection with crime registered vide CR No.78/2009 by Ausa Police Station in connection with an offence registered u/s. 302, 498-A, 504, r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. This application is moved on behalf of the applicant after filing of the charge sheet and also the trial is committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri.Halkunde appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP Mr.N.R.Shaikh appearing for State. As the notice of this application is already given 2 to the State, State has produced the papers which are submitted alongwith the charge sheet before the Committal Court. 4. Considering the submissions across the bar, this case is an exception where like in other cases all the family members from the husband side were not arrayed as an accused, even though it is also a case of bride burning on the demand of dowry. Considering the papers of investigation, particularly the FIR, which discloses that this incident occurred on 21/06/2009. As per the contents of the FIR which were recorded on the basis of the statement of the victim herself that on the early morning, when she was washing the utensils in the washing room, quarrel took place between the victim and her mother in law and sister in law/the sister of the husband. During that quarrel, kerosene was poured by the applicant on the victim/the daughter in law and while she was running outside the house, she was chessed by her mother in law and while chessing the matchstick was thrown which got fire to the clothes of the victim. Later on victim was admitted to the Rural Hospital Ausa, from where she was taken to Civil Hospital, Latur. The postmortem notes indicate that the victim has sustained 58% burned injuries on her person. Some injuries were found on the backside where some injuries were found on front side also. Considering the nature of injuries, which can be very well considered that because of these burn injuries, there was no possibility of instant death of the victim but as the victim succumbed to death on 26/06/2009, and within meantime a statement was recorded on 23/06/2009, wherein she has disclosed 3 the scenario as to how she sustained the burnt injuries. 5. It is vehemently urged across the bar that the complaint is vague. It is also tried to urge across the bar that the alleged incident occured on 21/06/2009 and the statement of deceased, which is styled as Dying Declaration, on which basis the complaint was lodged, was recorded on 23/06/2009 while the victim succumbed to death on 26/06/2009. It is tried to urge that even though the victim was admitted in the hospital, at the time of recording of her statement, no assistance was taken by the Medical Officer, who was attending the patient in the hospital. This statement was falsified from the endorsement on the statement dated 23/06/2009 below the statement dated 23/06/2009 because there is an endorsement put by the Medical Officer who is attending the patient that the patient is conscious and is in a position to give her statement. It indicates that the statement of the victim was recorded in presence of the Medical Officer, who is attending the victim. Moreover, the husband of the victim who is the son of applicant has given the statement that it is his mother/the applicant who causes these burn injuries to the victim/his wife. It was urged across the bar about the variance between statement of the witnesses during the investigation of which benefit to be given to the applicant considering her age. 6. The bail application was vehemently opposed by learned APP appearing for the State. 4 7. Considering the present scenario of the Society where the tendancy of the bride burning is increasing day by day. Now this is the right time for this Court to take serious views while enlarging the accused in such crimes. As there is direct evidence about pouring of kerosene on the person of the victim and the son of the applicant himself has given the statement during the investigation that it is his mother who is the person who has set the victim on fire. In the premise, there are no merits in the application, even though the applicant is a female and having some advanced age. While considering the rights of the accused, the Court is also required to consider the rights of the victim. In the premise, the application deserves the only order : O R D E R 1. Application stands rejected. 2. After the order is dictated, it is requested on behalf of learned advocate appearing for the applicant that it may be ordered that the trial may be expedited. Request considered. The Sessions Court is hereby directed to hear and dispose of the trial within the period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3653-09