Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vipul M. Pancholi, A.P. Thaker, JJ.
Jayesh Dinesh Gohel (Vanker) – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2013
Decided On : 06-10-2022
In an appeal against a conviction for murder, the court found inconsistencies between the FIR and the dying declaration, raising doubts about their reliability. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. Additionally, the court found that the accused was not given an opportunity to controvert evidence that was introduced after the closure of the prosecution's case, violating his right to a fair trial. The court allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case relied heavily on two dying declarations, one in the form of an FIR and the other recorded by an Executive Magistrate. The accused denied the charges and pleaded for trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were inconsistencies between the FIR and the dying declaration, raising doubts about their reliability. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. Additionally, the court found that the accused was not given an opportunity to controvert evidence that was introduced after the closure of the prosecution's case, violating his right to a fair trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the dying declarations were reliable. 2. Whether the prosecution proved the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. 3. Whether the accused was given an opportunity to controvert evidence that was introduced after the closure of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the dying declarations were not reliable due to inconsistencies between them and the lack of medical evidence to support the deceased's fitness to make the statements. 2. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime at the relevant time, as there were no eyewitnesses and the evidence of the investigating officer was contradictory. 3. The court held that the accused was not given an opportunity to controvert evidence that was introduced after the closure of the prosecution's case, violating his right to a fair trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and sentence.
JUDGMENT :
A.P. THAKER, J.
1. Present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by the accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.05.2013 passed by learned 5th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No.72 of 2009, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo sentence of life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The facts, as emerge from record, are that the complaint came to be filed by the deceased Neelamben stating that her marriage was solemnized with the appellant before one and a half year and, after marriage for about four months, they stayed together at matrimonial home and, thereafter, she came at Surat along with her husband. It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant and her husband were residing with her mother in a rented premises and husband was doing embroidery work. It is stated in the complaint that on 26.11.2008, at about 9 O’ clock, accused came home and had a heated exchange of words with the owner of the house for leakage of water connection. It is also stated that he, thereafter, informed the complainant to change the house, however, the complainant refused to do so, therefore, the accused again got angry and as the complainant was residing with her mother most of the times, anger of the accused increased and he threatened her of her life. According to the prosecution, on 27.11.2008, in the morning at about 9 O’ clock, husband of the complainant informed her to vacate the house as the husband was suspecting her character, he decided to shift his house. There is also averment in the complaint to the effect that, on the same day, after about 12 O’ clock, accused suddenly got angry and poured kerosene upon the complainant and set her on fire and ran away. Said complaint was filed against present appellant as well as his mother and the same came to be recorded as C.R.No.506 of 2008 in Varaccha Police Station.
2.1. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation commenced and during such investigation, Executive Magistrate has recorded the statement of the complainant in the form of dying declaration. During the course of investigation, necessary panchnama of place of incident, recovery of clothes of the accused, arrest of the accused were also prepared and necessary statements of the witnesses came to be recorded by the investigating officer. The investigating officer has also send muddamal to FSL. Since there was sufficient evidence against both the accused, concerned police officer filed chargesheet before concerned Magistrate Court, wherein it was registered as a Criminal Case. After verifying that the accused have received police papers and as the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Magistrate which was registered as Sessions Case No.72 of 2009.
2.2. The concerned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code at Exh.9 against both the accused. Both the accused have denied having committed any offence and pleaded for trial. Pursuant to that, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and produced 19 documents, as reflected in paragraph 7 of the judgment. After closure of evidence of prosecution, further statements of both the accused came to be recorded by the trial Court. The accused have contended that they have not committed any offence. It is the specific defence of the present accused that the deceased was his wife and she liked to reside with her mother at Surat, which was not liked by the accused and, therefore, there was divorce between the parties. He has also stated that thereafter she told the accused to reside at Surat, separately from her mother, and therefore they have started residing in
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if corroborated by reliable evidence, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on dying declarations as admissible and reliable evidence, guided by the principles of voluntariness, trustworthiness, and the need....
The reliability and consistency of dying declarations and the need for corroborative evidence to establish crucial elements of the crime.
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if deemed credible and voluntary, without requiring corroboration.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
