1 923APPLN2951.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 923 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2951 OF 2025 IN APEAL/584/2025 1] Rasulkha Gulabkha Pathan 2] Shakeelabee Rasulkha Pathan ...Applicants VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent ... Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar - Advocate for Applicant Mr. C.V. Bhadane - APP for State ... CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATED : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 PER COURT : - 1. Heard Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, learned Advocate for the Applicants, and Mr. C. V. Bhadane, learned APP for the State. Perused the papers on record. 2. This is an Application for suspension of substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicants by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, vide the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 147 of 2016, convicting and sentencing the Applicants as follows : “1. Accused nos.1 to 6 are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 923APPLN2951.2025.odt 2. Accused nos.5 and 6 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498- A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Accused no.1 to 4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 4. Accused no.1 to 4 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. 5 to 12. .................” 3. The Applicants [Accused Nos. 2 and 3] are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the Deceased. The deceased died within a period of sixteen [16] months of her marriage due to burn injuries at her matrimonial house. It is the case of the Prosecution that, the victim was harassed by the Convicts for dowry and was burnt. Initially, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 323, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. To establish the case, the Prosecution examined in all sixteen [16] witnesses. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the Applicants as above. 3 923APPLN2951.2025.odt 4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicants that, the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of oral dying declaration. The learned Trial Court passed the conviction on the basis of the evidence of witnesses which was hearsay in nature. The evidence of the sister of the Deceased, which is heavily relied upon by the learned Trial Court, is not corroborated by the witnesses, as she was not residing with the Applicants. The Applicants are Senior Citizens and were on bail during the trial. He submits that the Appeal will take its own time and, therefore, the Application be allowed. 5. The Application is opposed by the learned APP. He submits that, the evidence on record goes to show that the Deceased died of burn injuries. The matchstick and cylinders were found on the spot of the incident. He submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and, therefore, the Application be rejected. 6. As seen from the papers on record, the learned Trial Court has not believed the evidence of the Oral Dying Declaration. The father and brother-in-law of the Victim did not support the case of the prosecution. Though the evidence of PW7 sister of Deceased, and PW5 the Uncle of Deceased, shows that the villagers and the Chairman of the Tantamukti Samittee i.e. PW6, tried to settle the dispute, the evidence of PW6 shows that, though he was the Chairman of the Tantamukti 4 923APPLN2951.2025.odt Samittee, he admits in his cross-examination that, he did not know the in-laws of the Deceased, nor had he conversed with them and he was not in a position to identify the in-laws of the Deceased. The evidence of PW7 that, the Deceased informed telephonically that her in-laws were troubling her for money is an improvement. The evidence of PW5 regarding ill-treatment is not specific. The Applicants are Senior Citizens and they were on Bail during the Trial. The punishment is in the nature of term sentence. The Appeal will take some time to come up for final hearing. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the Application. Hence, the following order. ORDER [i] Application is allowed. [ii] The substantive sentence imposed upon the Applicants by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 147 of 2006 by Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2025, is hereby suspended till the final disposal of Criminal Appeal. [iii] The applicants be released on P.R. of Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand] each, with one surety in the like amount each. [iv] Bail before the Trial Court. [v] Application stands disposed off. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE] JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 13/09/2025 17:50:22