Gujarat High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Citing Consistent Police Testimony and Victim 's Dying Declaration

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – The Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling dated June 16, 2025, has dismissed an appeal filed by Hussain Ishaq Masalawala , upholding his conviction and life sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The division bench, comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Honourable Mr. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt , found the consistent testimony of police witnesses and the dying declaration of the victim sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, despite certain discrepancies highlighted by the defence.

The appeal, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 956 of 2015, challenged the judgment of the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, dated June 18, 2015, in Sessions Case No.25 of 2006.

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case dates back to August 3, 2000, amidst a city-wide shutdown in Surat following the Amarnath pilgrimage terror attack. Complainant Ranchhodbhai Hamirbhai Hadiya , a Police Sub-Inspector (P.S.I.) with the D.C.B. Police Station, Surat, was on patrol when he received a message about a riot in the Nanavat area.

Upon arrival, police witnessed one person, later identified as 16-year-old Kiran Maheshbhai Kakadia , being attacked by three individuals – two armed with knives and one with a sword. As police intervened, the assailants attempted to flee. While two escaped, the appellant, Hussain Ishaq Masalawala , was apprehended with a knife. The injured victim, Kiran , reportedly identified the appellant as one of his attackers before succumbing to his injuries during treatment.

An FIR was registered under various sections of the IPC, including 302 (murder), and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The trial court convicted Masalawala but acquitted two other co-accused, against which the State did not file an appeal. By the time of this High Court judgment, the appellant had undergone approximately ten years of imprisonment.

Appellant's Contentions

Mr. A.V. Nair, representing the appellant, raised several grounds challenging the conviction: * The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicating no blood on the recovered knife was allegedly ignored. * The knife was not corroborated with the victim's injuries. * The appellant's conviction on evidence similar to that of the acquitted co-accused was unsustainable. * Doubts were cast on the time and place of arrest, suggesting possible false implication as the appellant resided and worked near the crime scene. * Police witness testimonies were deemed unreliable due to identification after over ten years, alleged study of case papers before deposing, and inconsistencies regarding arrest details and immediate aid to the victim. * The victim's dying declaration was argued to be unbelievable given the severity of his injuries.

State's Submissions

Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State, vehemently opposed the appeal, arguing: * Police witnessed the appellant attacking the victim and apprehended him on the spot with the weapon. * The victim identified the appellant. * Police witness testimonies were consistent and supported the prosecution's case. * The postmortem report, showing multiple stab injuries leading to death by haemorrhage, corroborated the charges. * The incident occurred during communal riots, and the appellant was part of a mob from the Muslim community.

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and arguments. Key observations by the bench included:

• Distinction from Acquitted Co-accused: The Court rejected the argument of similar evidence, stating, "If some evidence is against any person, such person should be punished...the trial Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant..." (Para 10.5). The acquittal of others did not automatically benefit the appellant against whom specific evidence existed.

• Reliability of Police Witnesses: The Court found the testimonies of police officials (Exh. 62, 64, 67, 70, 72, 77, 82, 83) to be consistent regarding the appellant being caught at the scene with a weapon after trying to escape, and the victim identifying him. "All the police witnesses have deposed before the learned trial Court the consistent version about the fact that the appellant was caught by the police with weapon from the place of offence...This tilts the balance against the appellant." (Para 10.7, 10.8). The Court referenced State of Uttar Pradesh versus Krishna Master on appreciating oral evidence, noting that minor discrepancies do not vitiate testimony.

• Dying Declaration: The Court upheld the validity of the victim's identification of the appellant. "All the police witnesses have specifically stated that when the appellant was caught on the spot with weapon and taken to the victim, the victim has clearly showed his finger towards the appellant and told that the appellant and along with other two persons have beaten him with deadly weapons." (Para 10.12). The Court referred to Irfan @ Naka versus the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the factors for accepting a dying declaration.

• No Blood on Knife and Panchnama Timing: The Court addressed the defence's contention about the FSL report showing no blood on the knife and the timing of the panchnama. It reasoned that given the riot situation and the appellant's arrest by a patrolling officer from a different station than the one where the panchnama was later conducted, timing differences were natural. Crucially, the Court noted, "It is not the story of the appellant that the appellant was not available at the place of offence...When the deceased himself has identified the appellant...the question of absence of blood stain on the knife, as reported by the FSL, does not tilt the balance in favour of the appellant looking to the other circumstances of the case." (Para 10.15).

• Corroborative Evidence: The testimony of Hasmukhbhai Bhikhabhai Rathod (Exh.53), who accompanied the deceased and was also beaten, and the medical officer Dr. Mahmad alias Isak Mahmad Shaikh (Exh.56) who conducted the postmortem (Exh.57), further supported the prosecution's case.

The Court cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State on the testimony of police officers, and Leela Ram v. State of Haryana on handling discrepancies in witness accounts.

Final Decision

Concluding its judgment, the High Court stated, "The learned trial Court has rightly evaluated all the documents as well as oral evidence of the witnesses in its judgment impugned and held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and punished the appellant for life imprisonment." (Para 13).

The appeal was consequently dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The decision underscores the judiciary's reliance on credible and consistent eyewitness testimony, particularly from law enforcement officials present at the scene, and the evidential value of a dying declaration made in proximity to the event.