IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 186 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1348 OF 2008 Pradeep Pandurang Shelar ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.R..Bansode for Applicant Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SHRI. R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. The applicant is convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.163 of 2000 for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to life imprisonment. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire. The prosecution case rests on 2 dying declarations. One dying declaration is recorded by the police, it is dated 17th March, 2000. The second dying declaration is also of the same date, which is recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate. The Special Executive Magistrate has been examined. 2. We have carefully perused the dying declarations. On the incident of pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire the dying declarations are consistent. There is absolutely no contradiction on this aspect. In our opinion dying declarations primafacie inspire confidence. The Special Executive Magistrate has no reason to falsely implicate the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant tried to save the deceased. He received 11% burn injuries. Moreover he rushed to call parents of the deceased. His conduct is inconsistent with the conduct of a guilty person. Learned counsel contended that whereas in one dying declaration the deceased has stated that the applicant went to call her parents in other dying declaration she has not stated so. We have been shown judgment in Mohamed Hanif Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009(1) B.C.R (Cri.) 693. Learned counsel contended that ratio of this judgment is attracted to the facts of this case. 4. We are not impressed by this submission. In that case this Court came to the conclusion that there were inconsistent and contradictory statements made in different dying declarations recorded by different persons during a short span of time. Such are not the facts here. Judgment in Mohamed Hanif Ansari (supra) is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of this case. In this case the alleged variation is inconsequential. It is well settled that conviction can rest on a dying declaration which inspires confidence. Prima facie we are of the opinion that reliance can be placed on the dying declaration of the deceased. 5. In the corcumstances bail application is rejected. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant is a handicapped person. On merits the applicant cannot be granted bail. However, if on account of any physical ailment the applicant wants to file any bail application he may do so. Needless to say at that time that aspect will be considered by the Court independently. 7. This application is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SHRI. R.G. KETKAR, J.)