1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1849 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. Versus Sunil s/o Narsing Patil & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri.B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant – State. Shri. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P DAVARE,JJ. DATE: 23rd SEPTEMBER 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) We have perused the record and proceedings. The deceased was married to accused No.1 – Sunil on 12-6-2005. The incident is dated 2 22-10-2006. The accused include husband, mother- in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and cousin mother-in-law. There is no eye witness in the case, neither any dying declaration of the deceased. The deceased died due to 100% burn injuries. But we find certain circumstances emerging out of the prosecution case. The defence of the accused was that the deceased was taking treating of psychiatric and she might have committed suicide. 3) It is curious to note that from the deposition of DW Suresh Rameshwar Sandale (Exhibit 64) who was examined by the defence to prove the plea of alibi stated that original accused No.3 Shalinibai, mother-in-law of the deceased, was present in the house when he reached the house and found the deceased in burnt condition. He stated that within 5 minutes original accused No.2 and 4 reached the spot. It has come on record that the husband of the deceased was working in a sugar factory. 3 4) The prosecution alleges that there was demand of money for purchasing motor cycle. There is discrepancy as to the amount of demand. The deceased was badly burnt. We have seen the photographs of the deceased in burnt condition which are on record. 5) The case mainly rests on circumstantial evidence and certain inferences to be drawn. In the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused No.3 – Shalini, stated that parents of the deceased demanded Rs. two lakhs from the accused and as the same was denied a false case was lodged. The accused No.1 - husband in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated the same thing. Whereas accused No.2, the father-in-law, as well as accused No.1 - husband stated that deceased was under treatment of a psychiatrist and she was not taken to her parental house at the time of Diwali, therefore, she was under 4 mental stress and while preparing tea due to bursting of stove, according to the husband and father-in-law, the deceased died. Prima facie, we are not convinced with these explanations given by the accused persons. The accused No.3 – mother-in-law was present in the house, according to the defence witness. She ought to have been in a position to explain the circumstances resulting in death of the deceased. 6) Considering the submissions advanced, perusal of the record and the reasonings adopted by the trial Court, we pass following order. 7) Leave is granted to the State to file appeal against original accused No.1 – Sunil Narsing Patil, accused No.2 – Narsing s/o Vitthalrao Patil and accused No.3 – Shalinibai w/o Narsing Patil. Leave is refused as regards original accused No.4 – Madhav s/o Narsing Patil and accused No.5 Mirabai w/o Pratap Patil. 5 8) Appeal is admitted. Action under section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken against the accused 1, 2 and 3. After arresting the accused they be released on bail on furnishing PR of Rs.15000/- each with one surety in the like amount. The accused shall attend the trial Court once in a quarter until further orders. The record and proceedings be sent back. 9) The Criminal Application No.1849 of 2009 stands disposed of. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crapln.1849.2009