SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.
Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval, Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1981, D/-14-8-1992.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. B.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate and Mr. S. C. Patel, Advocate with him, for Appellant; Mr. R.N. Sachthey, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anip Sachthey and Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Advocates with him, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302- Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 379 - SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 - Section 2 - Appellant submitted that deceased had serious burns on her and it would not have been possible for her to make dying declarations and that P.W. 2 Doctor who recorded first dying declaration has not truly recorded the same in words of the deceased and that his evidence itself shows that deceased would not have been in a position to make the declaration - It is also his submission that P.W. 3 Executive Magistrate who recorded second dying declaration did not record the same in the form of questions and answers and the statement recorded by him cannot be taken to be true version alleged to have been given by the deceased - Held, Sessions Judge has also doubted the evidence of P.W. 3 Executive Magistrate - learned Judge found fault with procedure adopted by Executive Magistrate namely that he did not record statement in the form of questions and answers - learned Judge in our view without any basis reached the conclusion that the Executive Magistrate did not record the dying declaration exactly in words stated by deceased - There is third dying declaration recorded by the police but we need not consider the same - It must be noted that P.W. 2recorded the statement within five minutes and noted time also in the statement - High Court has rightly pointed out that both the dying declarations are true and voluntary - It is not the case of the defence that she gave tutored version - Entire attack of the defence was on the mode of recording the dying declarations and on the ground that the condition of the deceased was serious and she could not have made the statements - On these aspects as noted above the evidence of the Doctor is relevant and important - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.: - This is an appeal under Section 379, Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. The sole accused is the appellant before us. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The gravamen of the charge was that on the night of 9-7-78 at mid night he poured kerosene oil on Bai Gauri the deceased in this case and set fire as a result of which she died on the next day. The case rested mainly on the dying declarations recorded by the Doctor and the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge was not prepared to act upon the dying declarations and accordingly acquitted the appellant. The State preferred an appeal. The High Court allowed the appeal and convicted the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased had serious burns on her and it would not have been possible for her to make dying declarations and that P.W. 2 the Doctor who recorded the first dying declaration has not truly recorded the same in the words of the deceased and that his evidence itself shows that the deceased would not have been in a position to make the declaration. It is also his submission that P.W. 3 the Executive Magistrate who recorded the second dying declaration did not record the same in the form of questions and answers and the statement recorded by him cannot be taken to be the true version alleged to have been given by the deceased.
3. The deceased aged about 40 years was the widow of one Savaji and was living in a wooden cabin near the maternity hospital in Harij and she was maintaining herself by doing casual work in the maternity hospital. She developed illicit intimacy with the accused. Her grown-up children were dissatisfied with her character and other members of her community were also dissatisfied. Since then she was living alone in the wooden cabin near the maternity hospital. There was some quarrel between the accused and the deceased. At about midnight on 9-7-78 the accused went to her cabin and sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set fire to her clothes and then fled. The deceased ran from her cabin inside the compound of the maternity hospital raising cries. One Patavala Motibhai came there and put a quilt on her body. The said Patavala Motibhai went and informed the Medical Officer, P.W. 2 of the Government Hospital who immediately ran to the spot and separated the burnt clothes from her body and gave first aid. He questioned as to who had set fire and the deceased replied that the accused was the culprit. P.W. 2 recorded her statement which is the first dying declaration in the case. P. W. 2 shifted her to the hospital and he himself went to the police station and gave a report. The police Jamadar also recorded her statement in the hospital which is yet another dying declaration in the case. By that time information was sent to the Taluka Magistrate with a request to record the dying declaration. P.W. 3 the Taluka Magistrate went to the spot and he also recorded the dying declaration. The deceased died in the early morning of 10-7-78. Inquest was held over the dead body and post-mortem was conducted by P.W. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, in our view, has unnecessarily doubted the veracity of P.W. 2, the Doctor. He observed that the moment the flames had been seen by the deceased on her person she must have received a severe shock and the same must have become "graver and graver" and in that state of mind it is not believable at all that the deceased could keep balance of her mind and full consciousness so as to make the statement. With this initial doubt the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to examine the evidence of the Doctor. The Doctor stated that in some cases mental shock immediately does not develop and that in the instant case the deceased developed the mental shock for the first time at 4 a.m. Th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.