SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Guj) 303

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.Bhatt, S.K.BHATT
JOGSINGH BHANVARSINGH RAJPUT - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 761 of 1987
Decided On : 10/21/1994

Advocates Appeared: K.P.RAVAL, Y.U.MALIK

Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872 - Sec. 32(1) - Statement by person who can not be called as witness - Dying declaration - No requirement of recording in a particular mode - Preferable to record in qustion & answer form but then not so recorded can not be held as unacceptable if found truthful, voluntary & natural otherwise.

       The mode of recording dying declaration is not statutorily prescribed though it is grave and solemn proceeding. A contention is raised on behalf of the accused-appellant that the dying declaration was not recorded in question and answer form and, therefore, the efficacy of the dying declaration is lost resulting into benefit to the accused. This contention ought to be thrown overboard. The mode of recording dying declaration is not prescribed. It would be advisable and preferable to record dying declaration in question and answer form. However, non recording of dying declaration in question and answer form does not operate as a hindrance or hurdle in accepting the dying declaration if otherwise, it is found quite truthful, voluntary and natural.

       [Para 27]

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) A young woman of 25 years Bai Laxmi unfortunately met with a gruesome and ghastly death in Dhundhiawadi in Palanpur. Deceased Laxmi succumbed to the injuries caused by first degree burns sustained by her around midnight of 2nd July 1986. The incident occurred in her matrimonial house which was rented by the accused two days prior to the unfortunate incident. She had two sons at the relevant time aged about 7 and 5 years.

( 2 ) ON hearing shouts and screams, the neighbours got collected near the house in which Bai Laxmi received serious burn injuries. Smokes and flames were coming out of the house. Therefore, neighbours collected there, broke open the doors of the house. At that time, they found that unfortunate Bai Laxmi was burning. Neighbours tried to extinguish fire on her body by pouring water on her body. At that time, the appellant, who is the original accused Jogsingh-husband of the deceased Bai Laxmi was standing alongwith the two sons in the adjoining room.

( 3 ) ONE Dr. Ramkrishna Joshi informed the police about the incident. The police came to spot and also helped the local people in extinguishing fire. The accused and the two sons came out after the police came. The room in which laxmi sustained serious burn injuries was smelling of kerosene. Laxmi was taken into police van immediately for medical aids at the dispensary of Dr. Sutaria. Since the physical condition of Laxmi was serious and deteriorating, the executive magistrate was summoned for statement of Bai Laxmi.

( 4 ) THE executive Magistrate came to the venue of the offence and recorded the statement as narrated by Bai Laxmi. In her statement, she positively stated that her husband (accused) had burnt her after pouring kerosene on her body. She also stated before the executive Magistrate that she was severely beaten by her husband and thereafter she was set on fire and subsequently also, he had inflicted injuries with hand on her body. The accused was working as a salesman in Novino company (manufacturing batteries ). In her statement, it was also clearly mentioned that her husband is an extravagant and indulging in alcoholism and in beating her. This statement came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate Mr. Joshi within few minutes after the unfortunate incident.

( 5 ) DECEASED Bai Laxmi was sinking and ultimately succumbed to the burn injuries at about 2 a. m. on 3rd July 1986. Thus, the survival after the burn injuries was only for two hours and during that period, she made one dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate and two oral dying declarations. In vieof the dying declarations, an offence was registered against the accused under Sec. 302 of the i. P. Code. The accused was tried before the Sessions Court of Banaskantha at palanpur in Sessions Case No. 74 of 1986 wherein he was charged that he had intentionally committed murder of his wife by pouring kerosene and putting her on fire on 2nd July 1986 at 12 midnight. It was thus alleged by the prosecution that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the i. P. Code and accordingly he was charged by the learned Sessions Judge on 14th May 1987 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

( 6 ) IN order to substantiate the charge of gruesome killing of wife, against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. The accused also led evidence of four defence witnesses. Reliance was also placed on the documentary evidence to which a reference will be made by us as and when required, at an appropriate stage.

( 7 ) ON appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge reached the conclusion that the accused has committed murder of his wife, rejecting the plea of suicidal death. It was held by the trial Court that the deceased Bai laxmi was done away with by the accused after pouring kerosene on her body and putting her on fire. Therefore, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top