Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, D. M. VYAS, JJ.
State Of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Manojbhai Madhubhai Surti - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 1095 Of 2013
Decided On : 24-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms Krina Calla, APP
For the Respondent: Rule Served

Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if found trustworthy; the accused must explain circumstances leading to the victim's death.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 504 - Acquittal of accused in trial court for murder of wife - Court found that the dying declaration of the deceased was reliable and admissible without corroboration - The accused failed to explain circumstances leading to wife's burn injuries which contributed to presumption of guilt - Appeal allowed, and judgment of acquittal set aside. (Paras 2.1, 12, 21, 24)

(B) Dying Declaration - Importance of dying declaration as credible evidence even without corroboration - Court emphasized that if the dying declaration inspires full confidence, it can form the sole basis for conviction. (Paras 19-20)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused set his wife ablaze due to suspicion over her fidelity. She succumbed to her injuries after making a dying declaration identifying him as the assailant. (Paras 2.2-2.3)

Findings of Court:
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the dying declaration, which was found to be voluntary and coherent, hence serving as the sole basis for conviction. (Paras 18-22)

Issues: Whether the dying declaration of the deceased could be relied upon as evidence despite the hostility of other witnesses and failure of the accused to provide a plausible explanation. (Paras 8, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that where the dying declaration is credible and made under a fit state of mind, it is sufficient for conviction without needing corroboration. The onus is on the husband to explain the death of his wife under such circumstances. (Paras 10, 21)

Result: The appeal is allowed, the judgment of acquittal is set aside, and the accused is found guilty under Section 302. (Paras 24-26)

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29.10.2012 rendered in Sessions Case No.150 of 2011 on the file of the learned 5^th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, whereby the sole accused, who is respondent no.1 herein was acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short “the IPC”)

2. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:-

2.1 The deceased by name Chandrikaben Manojbhai Maadhubhai Surti (hereinafter referred as “the deceased”) is the legally wedded wife of the accused. They got a son and a daughter during their lawful wedlock. The accused has got a doubt on the character of the deceased and he has been suspecting her fidelity. The accused has been suffering from a partial paralysis, therefore, on the fateful day i.e. on 26.06.2011 afternoon, the accused along with his minor daughter went to purchase medicines for him. They returned home at about 1:15 p.m. in the afternoon on that day. After his return, a quarrel took place between the accused and his wife in his house as he got doubt over her character. During the said quarrel, the accused went into the kitchen of his house and brought a kerosene stove and has poured the kerosene on the deceased in the second room of the house and lit the matchstick and set her ablaze. She sustained burn injuries in the said attack. The accused tried to extinguish the fire on her body with a blanket available in the room. After hearing her shouts, the elder brother of the accused, who is also residing in the same street nearby the house of the accused, came to the house of the accused along with his wife and children and they all took her to the hospital. On the medical intimation given by the hospital authorities, the Executive Magistrate visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured at about 9:44 p.m. on that night. She has stated before the Executive Magistrate in her statement that the accused got doubt on her and he has poured kerosene on her and lit the matchstick and set her ablaze and she also stated that she has given the said statement without any pressure on her own volition.

2.2 Thereafter, the Police Sub Inspector of the concerned police station visited the hospital on the same day and he recorded the statement of the injured at about 11:15 p.m. on that night. In her statement given to the police also, she stated that the accused got doubt over her character and on the afternoon of that day, that the accused poured kerosene on her and lit the matchstick and set her ablaze and she sustained burn injuries in the said attack. The said statement was initially recorded by the police as an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

2.3 Thereafter, the injured succumbed to the burn injuries sustained by her on the night of 29.06.2011. On the intimation given about her death, police have altered the FIR to Sections 302 and 504 of the IPC. Inquest was held over her dead body on 30.06.2011 and thereafter, autopsy was held over her dead body on 30.06.2011. The doctor, who held autopsy over her body, opined that she died on account of 80% to 85% burn injuries sustained by her due to shock. Post-mortem certificate to that effect was also issued.

2.4 After completion of investigation, eventually, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of the IPC. As the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned committal court has committed the said case to the sessions division for trial. Thereafter, it was made over to learned 5^th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat for trial.

2.5 In the Trial Court, charges under Sections 302 and 504 of the IPC were framed against the accused and the same were read over and explained to him. He denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.

2.6 During t