DURGA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim.

(2.) The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.64 of 2023 registered with Police Station Manwat, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 498A and 504 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the applicants were not residing with the deceased. The learned counsel for the applicants would point out that the statements of the witnesses as regards the oral dying declaration is a concocted story. The first informant has specifically stated before the police that the deceased was not in a condition to speak. Similarly, the witnesses who went in the hospital have also stated to the police that the she was not in a condition to speak. However, after around twelve days, the statement of witnesses under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded. That time, they stated that the deceased narrated the incident. He would submit that it was a material improvement. The statement of the witnesses reveal that at the time of the alleged incident, except husband nobody was in the house.