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

2016 Supreme(Guj) 2033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
AKIL KURESHI, BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ.
JANAKBHAI RAMJIBHAI PARMAR & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1872 of 2012
Decided on : 11-11-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP

Important Point- An uncorroborated dying declaration can be relied upon to form the sole basis of conviction if it is truthful and reliable.

Headnote:(A)Indian Evidence Act,1872-Section 32-Dying Declaration-The two dying declarations can be relied upon and can form the sole basis of conviction if made out of free volition and without any tutoring of the declarant-Being an exception to the normal rule of hearsay evidence not being admissible in evidence, dying declaration is subjected to minute scrutiny before it can form the sole basis for conviction-If the statement was truthful and reliable, the conviction can surely be based on such dying declaration.

        (B)There can be no settlement/compromise in a case of murder-The tendency of long adjournments after chief-examination of an important witness is deprecated as it gives unlimited scope for pressure or winning over the witness by unfair or foul means.

       Result-Conviction confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

1. This appeal is filed by the original accused challenging the judgment of learned Sessions Judge dated 26.7.2012.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that deceased Rupali was residing with her husband and three children at Anjar. They lived in a joint family with the younger and elder brothers of the husband. On 9.4.2008, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. The brothers of husband were also instigating the husband. Accused no.1 Janakbhai Ramjibhai, husband of the deceased, poured kerosene over Rupali when the other two accused caught her. Accused no.3 then lit a matchstick and set her on fire. She was rushed to the hospital where she died at about 8:30 the next morning. The husband and other inlaws had also in the past harassed and troubled the woman. Charge was framed at exh.2 against all the accused for having committed offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC as well section 498A of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case relies mainly on two dying declarations, one oral and another written, made by the deceased. First one was orally made to Dr. Abhishek Kiritbhai Shah, PW1, exh.6/C. Second dying declaration was made to the Executive Magistrate Shri Pranshankar Amrutlal Raval, PW16, exh. 97/C, which was reduced in writing and on which the thumb impression of the deceased was also obtained. This dying declaration was produced at exh.99. The prosecution relies on various corroborative pieces of evidence, which we would notice as we go along recording the summary of evidence. However, it may be noted that this case relies primarily on the genuineness and reliability of the said dying declarations.

4. Dr. Abhishek Kiritbhai Shah, PW1, exh.6/C, was on emergency duty at the Community Health Centre, Anjar. According to him, at about quarter to 11 on 9.4.2008, Rupali was brought to the hospital with 90% burns. She told him that she had been burnt by her husband and two brothers-in-law. The husband poured kerosene on her and his elder brother set her on fire with a matchstick. Doctor thereupon informed the police and started the treatment. When the Deputy Mamlatdar came for recording the dying declaration, he had given a certificate that Rupali was conscious and was able to give her statement. He also identified his signature on the bottom of the dying declaration. He was also present when Rupali had given her version in presence of senior doctor Shri Hitesh Thakkar. This statement made by Rupali to Dr. Hitesh Thakkar was recorded on a mobile video. In this statement also, Rupali had implicated her husband and his brothers. This doctor had also treated Pradeep, minor son of Rupali who had received minor injuries on the shoulder. He had also participated in the postmortem. The postmortem note was produced at exh.22 in which the cause of death was shown as neurological shock and vascular shock following extensive burns (90%). This witness was subjected to lengthy cross examination, principally, on three aspects of the matter namely, whether the patient was conscious and in a position to give a statement before the Executive Magistrate, whether there was any negligence in treating the patient and whether the alleged dying declarations were actually and voluntarily made by the deceased. He denied all suggestions of the defence. In particular, he denied the suggestion to the effect that the patient was not given proper medical treatment. He was also questioned on an endorsement made by him on the police Yadi exh.10 in which he had certified that the patient was not conscious and was not in a state to make any statement. He clarified that this endorsement was made at 1 O' clock.

5. Dr. Leenaben Kantibhai Chauhan, PW2, exh.30, was the medical officer at CHC, Medarda. She had treated accused no.1 on 10.4.2008 at night for minor burns on his palm and left knee. She was also part of panel of two doctors who had carried out the postmortem.

11.11.2016

She gave the detailed procedure carr






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top