Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 2296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.C. Doshi, JJ.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Kanubhai Mafatlal Parmar & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 1995
Decided On : 03-06-2024
For the Appellant : Ms Divyangana Zala, App
For the Respondent: HCLS Committee, Mr Kaivan K Patel
Inconsistent and contradictory dying declarations, without any corroborative evidence, are not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Dying Declaration - Murder - Sections 302, 34 of Indian Penal Code - Multiple inconsistent dying declarations not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Banumatiben lodged a complaint alleging that her husband (accused no. 1) poured kerosene on her and set her on fire, with her in-laws (accused nos. 2 and 3) holding her. She succumbed to the burn injuries. The prosecution relied on multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, which were found to be inconsistent with each other.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the multiple dying declarations were inconsistent and contradictory, and the prosecution failed to produce any other corroborative evidence. The deceased was under the influence of medicines and had 95-100% burn injuries, which cast doubt on her mental fitness to make the statements. The court held that the inconsistencies in the dying declarations paralyzed the prosecution's case, and there was no patent illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Issues: Whether the prosecution has made out the case, allowing the court to interfere with the trial court's judgment of acquittal; and whether the trial court committed any patent illegality in appreciating the evidentiary value of the multiple dying declarations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principles regarding the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, especially when there are multiple and inconsistent dying declarations. The court held that in such cases, the dying declaration recorded by a higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided there are no circumstances giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness. However, in the present case, the inconsistencies in the dying declarations and the lack of corroborative evidence did not allow the court to interfere with the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal against the acquittal of the accused is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.1994 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.103 of 1994, whereby the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State has preferred present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).
2. Accused No.3 Mafatlal Parmar since expired, case against him stood abated as per order of this court dated 16.9.2022.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Banumatiben wife of Kanubhai Mafatlal lodged a complaint before the Constable of Civil Hospital at Mehsana on 12.12.1993 inter alia contending that on the day prior to the incident her husband under suspicion had beaten the complainant and thereafter in the morning on 12.12.93 at about 10 A.M. accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and as a result of which complainant received burns injury at that time her mother-in-law Lakhiben and father-in-law fatlal were also present. On receiving fire on her body, she shouted for help. Uncle-in-law Ishwardardas came running and he saved her from fire and thereafter father-in-law and other family members took her to Civil Hospital at Mehsana. On the basis of complaint, other statement of the lady also came to be recorded and the offence was registered. Dying declaratiion of the lady was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and statements of other witresses were also recorded and chargesheet came to be filed on completion of offence.
4. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant with the Vijapur Police Station for the offence under sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, the investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn panchnama of scene of offence, discovery and recovery of weapons and obtained FSL report for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Vijapur. Trial of the offence u/s 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. Hence, learned JMFC, Vijapur committed the offence to the court of Sessions at Vijapur in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 209 of the Code.
5. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Vijapur, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.10against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offences.The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 6 of the impugned judgment and order.
7. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against them.
8. We have heard learned APP for the appellant – State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court.
9. None remained present for the respondents accused.
10. Learned APP while assailing the impugned judgment and order, would submit that the learned Sessions Court has failed to consider the evedentiary value of the dying declaration of the deceased recorded at multiple times, which are consistent in nature. She would further submit that the learned Sessions Court instead of applying determinative evidentiary value to multiple dying declaration, resorted to contradiction and inconsistency alleged to have appeared in the multiple dying declaration, which does not go into the root of the case. She would further submit that the "dying declarat
