SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammad Riyaz Mansuri Mohammad … vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2018

R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT


R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1080 of 2012




1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?


(MR KUNAL B DAVE)(3706) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR BC DAVE(245) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2

Date : 07/05/2018


1. By   way   of   this   appeal,   filed   under   section 
374(2)   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973 
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “Code”),   the 

Page 1 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

appellants – accused have challenged the judgment and 
order   of   conviction   dated   29.06.2012,   passed   by 
learned   4th  (ad­hoc)   Additional   Sessions   Judge, 
Surat,   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “trial 
court”),   rendered   in   Sessions   Case   No.228   of   2009, 
whereby   the   trial   court   convicted   the   appellants   – 
accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 
1860   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “IPC”)   and 
sentenced   to   suffer  imprisonment   for   life.   However, 
the   trial   court   acquitted   the   appellants   –   accused 
herein   of   the   charges   for   the   offence   punishable 
under section 498A of the IPC and sections 3, 5 and 7 
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  

2. On 03.08.2009, a complaint came to be lodged by 
deceased   –   Tarabegum   @   Shabana   Begum   w/o   Mohammad 
Riyaz   Masuri   Mohammad   Sirajuddin   Mansuri   before  the 
Limbayat Police Station, inter alia, stating that her 
marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 ­ Mohammad 
Riyaz Mansuri Mohammad Sirajuddin Mansuri of village 
Gajiyapur before five years in the year 2004. She was 
having four children. Out of them three children had 
died   due   to   miscarriage   and   presently,   her   son   ­ 
Mohammad   Varis   Mansuri,   aged   about   two   years,   is 
alive,   who   is   staying   with   her.   When   they   came   to 
Surat,   the   accused   caused   physical   and   mental 
harassment to her and pressurized her to bring color 
television and motorcycle from her parental home. On 
03.08.2009,     at   about   10.30   hours   in   the   morning, 
when she was doing cooking, at that time, her husband 
as well as her mother in law started tormenting her 

Page 2 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

by asking her to bring the television and motorcycle 
from her parental home. When she responded by saying 
that from where her parents would bring the same, at 
that time, both her husband and her mother­in­law got 
provoked;   her   husband   started   beating   her,   and   her 
mother­ in­law poured kerosene on her from the stove, 
while her husband caught hold of her. Thereafter, her 
husband ignited match stick and set her ablaze.  She 
has stated that as her body is entirely burnt in the 
said   incident,   a   108   ambulance   was   called;   she   was 
admitted at the Smimer Hospital. She has specifically 
stated that she is lodging the present complaint in 
presence   of   her   uncle   ­   Mohammad   Mumtaj   Ali   and 
presently,   her   condition   is   normal.   Accordingly,   a 
complaint   was   lodged   by   the   Limbaya   Police   Station 
and   the   same   was   registered   being   I­C.R.No.220   of 
2009   for   the   offence   under   sections   498A,   304B   and 
114 of the IPC and sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Dowry 
Prohibition Act. 

3. Upon   registering   the   offences   under   sections 
498A, 304B and 114 of the IPC and sections 3, 5 and 7 
of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused, the 
investigating   officer   has   carried   out   the 
investigation   and   after  following   the   due   procedure 
of   law,  a  charge­sheet   came   to  be  filed  before   the 
learned   9th  Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate, 
Surat. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the 
court   of   Sessions,   after   providing   papers   under 
section 207 of the Code to the accused, the same was 
committed to the Sessions Court under section 209 of 

Page 3 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

the   Code.   The   same   was   registered   as   Sessions   Case 
No.228 of 2009. The charges vide Exh.4 under sections 
498A, 304B and 114 of the IPC and sections 3, 4 and 7 
of   the   Dowry   Prohibition   Act   were   framed.   The 
statements   of   the   accused   were   recorded   vide   Exh.5 
and   6.   Thereafter,   the  learned   Additional   Public 
Prosecutor,  filed   an   application   vide   Exh.8   to   add 
section 302 of the IPC in the charges. Accordingly, 
the charge was altered to section 302 of the IPC, as 
the   death   of   the   victim   –   Tarabegum   has   been 
occurred. The plea of the accused – appellants were 
recorded under section 313 of the Code. The accused – 
appellants   pleaded   not   guilty   to   the   charges   and 
claimed to be tried. 

4. At the time of trial, in order to bring home the 
charges   leveled   against   the   original   accused,   the 
prosecution examined 20 witnesses as well as produced 
26 documentary evidences. 

5. At the end of the trial and after recording the 
statements   of   the   accused   under   section   313   of   the 
Code   and   hearing   the   arguments   on   behalf   of   the 
prosecution and the defence, the trial court passed 
the judgment and order as above. 

6. Being   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the 
aforesaid   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   trial 
court,   the   appellants   ­   accused   have   preferred   the 
present Criminal Appeal. 

7. Mr.Dave,   learned   advocate   for   the   appellants   – 

Page 4 of 18

R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

accused   has   submitted   that   the   trial   court   has 
primarily   recorded   the   conviction   of   the   appellants 
by placing reliance on the dying declaration. He has 
contended that the same is doubtful since it does not 
reveal   the   language   in   which   the   questions   were 
asked. He has submitted that there is a long duration 
between the incident and the recording of the dying 
declaration   and   hence,   it   is   impossible   for   the 
deceased – complainant to be in a fit state of mind 
for giving the dying – declaration. He has submitted 
that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond 
reasonable doubt and if two opinions are possible in 
this   case,   then   benefit   should   be   given   to   the 
accused. He has submitted that since the deceased had 
died   due   to   burn   injuries,   the   conviction   of   the 
accused is required to be converted from section 302 
to Section 304 Part­I of the IPC. In support of his 
submissions,   learned   advocate   Mr.Dave   has   placed 
reliance on the judgment dated 23.06.2014, passed by 
this court in Criminal Appeal No.1409 of 2014. 

8. Learned   advocate   Mr.Dave   has   vehemently 
contended that it was not possible that the deceased 

– complainant was conscious enough for recording her 
dying   declaration   since   the   medical   case   papers 
indicate that she received 92% to 96% burns injuries. 
Looking   to   the   depositions   of   the   doctors   that   she 
was   half   conscious,   such   a   dying   declaration   could 
not have been recorded in the manner suggested by the 
executive   magistrate.   Mr.Dave   has   submitted  that   in 
any case the sentence or punishment is unjustified, 

Page 5 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

excessive,   too   harsh   or   severe   on   the   facts   and 
circumstances of the case. 

9. In the alternative, learned advocate Mr.Dave has 
submitted   that   looking   to   the   entire   evidence,   the 
appellants cannot be convicted under section 302 of 
the IPC but he has to be given benefit of section 304 
Part­I   of   the   IPC   and   may   be   convicted   for   the 
offence referred to therein.  

10. Mr.Mitesh   Amin,   learned   Public   Prosecutor   with 
Mr.L.B.Dabhi,   learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor 
have   supported   the   judgment   passed   by   the   trial 
court. He has submitted that the span of marriage is 
less   than   seven   years   and   the   demand   of   dowry   is 
established.   He   has   submitted   that   the   dying 
declaration   remains   intact   in   which   the   deceased   – 
complainant has categorically implicated the accused. 
He   has   submitted   that   initially,   the   history,   was 
recorded by the accused – PW­5 as per the say of the 
accused   –   husband,   who   admitted   the   deceased   –   his 
wife in the hospital. Hence, in order to misguide the 
prosecution,   he   had   given   such   history.   He   has 
submitted   that   there   are   two   dying   declarations   in 
the present case,  one in the form of FIR lodged by 
the   deceased   –   complainant   and   the   second   is   the 
dying   declaration   recorded   by   the   executive 
magistrate and the same is produced Exh.26. Both the 
dying   declarations   implicate   the   accused.   Both   the 
dying   declarations   are   not   in   any   manner   blemished 
with, tutoring and the same are trustworthy. He has 

Page 6 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

submitted   that   Forensic   Science   Laboratory   (F.S.L.) 
Report mentions the presence of kerosene at the scene 
of   offence.   He   has   submitted   that   scene   of   offence 
also reveals the presence of the iron stove whose cap 
was unlocked. He has also submitted that there is not 
a whisper about tutoring. Hence, the voluntary dying 
declaration made by the wife implicating the husband 
and   her   mother­in­law   has   to   be   believed.   In   this 
view   of   the   matter,   he   has   submitted   that   the 
judgment and order passed by the trial court may not 
be   disturbed   and   the   sentence   imposed   by   the   trial 
court may be confirmed.     

11. In support of the judgment rendered by the trial 
court, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr.Mitesh Amin has 
contended   that   the   findings   of   the   trial   court   are 
well­founded   as   the   trial   court   has   carefully 
scrutinized the testimonies of the witnesses as well 
as the documentary evidence. He has stated that the 
accused have murdered the deceased by setting her on 
fire,   after   pouring   kerosene   on   her   body.   He   has 
submitted that the act of the accused to set on fire 
the   deceased   was   with   intention   and   knowledge   to 
cause   her   death   and   hence,   the   trial   court   is 
justified in convicting the accused for the offence 
under section 302 of the IPC.

12. Mr.Mitesh   Amin,   learned   Public   Prosecutor   for 
the respondent – State vehemently submitted that the 
judgment   and   order   recorded   by   the   trial   court 
deserves   to   be   confirmed,   as   there   are   relevant 

Page 7 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

statements   of   the   deceased   in   the   form   of   FIR   and 
dying   declaration,   relevant   depositions   of   medical 
witnesses and material available on the record have 
supported   the   case   of   the   prosecution.   Reliance   is 
placed   by   him   on   the   testimony   of   PW­6   (Executive 
Magistrate),   PW­7   (Doctor),   and   PW­3   (Scientific 
Officer   –   F.S.L)   of   the   deceased   for   proving 
harassment   and   cruelty   by   the   accused   on   the 
deceased. He has supported the judgment of the trial 
court by contending that the incident had taken place 
within a short span of marriage life of five years, 
and   it   is   established   on   record   that   husband   and 
mother­in­law of the deceased used to demand articles 
such as colour television and motor­cycle. Therefore, 
the trial court has rightly passed the judgment and 
order   of   conviction   against   present   appellants   – 

13. In   view   of   aforesaid   submissions,   Mr.Mitesh 
Amin, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent – 
State supported the judgment and order of the trial 
court   and   has   submitted   that   the   same   was   passed 
after appreciating the evidence adduced on record by 
the prosecution and hence, no interference is called 
for by this court. He has therefore, urged that the 
criminal appeal is required to be dismissed and the 
impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court 
is required to be confirmed.

14. We   have   heard   the   learned   advocate   for   the 
appellants   –   accused   and   the   learned   Public 

Page 8 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

Prosecutor for the respondent ­ State and perused the 
material on record with their assistance.

15. The   prosecution   case   entirely   hinges   on   the 
dying declarations made by the deceased complainant. 
In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it will 
be necessary to have a closer look at the testimonies 
of the witnesses in order to ascertain the sanctity 
of the dying declarations. PW­7, Dr. Kamal Amrutlal 
Aarkman is examined at Exh.28. In his deposition, he 
has stated that on 03.08.2009, when he was on duty, 
at   that   time,   at   about   11.30,   one   patient   viz. 
Tarabegum   Mohammad   Iliyas   was   admitted   in   Casualty 
ward. He has given primary treatment in the casualty 
ward   to   her.     Thereafter,   she   was   shifted   in   the 
burns   ward   where   he   and   his   colleague   Dr.   Upendra 
treated her. Her history was recorded by Sandip Gupta 
in the casualty ward. He has stated that the patient 
had died due to 92% to 96% burns at about 11:40 hours 
in the night. Upon showing Exh.25 – Police Yadi, he 
identified the endorsement of “Patient is Conscious” 
on   it   and   also   identified   the   signature   of   his 
assistant   Dr.   Upendrabhai   Patel.   In   his   cross­
examination, he has stated that the patient was very 
serious. It is also deposed that when the patient was 
under   his   treatment,   during   that   period,   no 
government   official   had   come   to   him   to   record   her 
statement. Thus, from his testimony, it emerges that 
the deceased had received 90% to 96% burn injuries. 

16. The next witness PW­5, Sandip Balkrushna Gupta, 

Page 9 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

is examined at Exh.22. In his evidence, he has stated 
on 03.08.2009, at about 11:35 hours in the morning, 
when   he   was   on   duty   at   the   Smimer   Hospital,   one 
patient   ­   Tarabegum   was   brought   by   her   husband   – 
Mohammad   Riyaz   Mohammad   Sirajuddin.   He   had   given 
history before him that on 03.08.2009, at about 10:30 
hours in the morning, at Ratanjinagar, Limbayat, the 
patient   accidentally   received   the   burns   injuries 
while she was cooking on stove. In his evidence, he 
has   stated   that   the   patient   was   semi­conscious   and 
had received 92% to 96% burns injury. Thus, from his 
evidence, it reflects that the history was given by 
the   husband  of   the  deceased   –  accused  no.1   that   on 
03.08.2009, at about 10:30 hours in the morning, at 
Ratanjinagar,   Limbayat,   the   patient   accidentally 
received   burns   injuries   while   she   was   cooking   on 
stove.   Thus,   it   is   evident   from   his   testimony   that 
the history was given by the husband of the deceased 
to the doctor. 

17. PW­6, Zarin Humayu Mirza, Executive Magistrate, 
Surat,   is   examined   at   Exh.24.   In   her   evidence,   she 
has   deposed   that   she   has   recorded   the   dying 
declaration   of   the   deceased   –   Tarabegum.   She   has 
received   the   Police   Yadi   from   the   Limbayat   Police 
Station and accordingly, she went to the hospital for 
recording   the   statement   of   Tarabegum.  In   her 
evidence,   she   has   emphatically   stated   that   on 
03.08.2009,   at   about   18:25   hours,   she   went   to 
the  Smimer   Hospital,   Shara   Darwaja,   Surat   for 
recording   the   statement   of   the   victim   ­ 

Page 10 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

Tarabegum.     On   being   asked   as   to   where   she 
resides,   she   stated   that   at   Ratanjinagar, 
Limbayat,   Surat.   On   being   asked   about   the 
incident,   she   stated   that   between   10.00   a.m. 
and   10.30   a.m.,   her   husband   and   her   mother­in­
law   set   her   on   fire   after   pouring   kerosene   on 
her   body.   Thereafter,   her   husband   and   her 
relatives   admitted   her   in   the   hospital   for 
treatment. In her evidence, she has stated that 
she   finished   the   recording   of   the   statement   of 
patient   ­   Tarabegum   at   about   18:50   hours.   In 
her   cross­examination,   it   is   elicited   that   in 
the yadi sent of Police Sub­Inspector (Exh.25), 
it   was   mentioned   in   it   that   on   03.08.2008,   at 
about   10:30   hours,   the   patient   received   the 
burns   injuries   for   unknown   reason.   It   is 
elicited   that   prior   to   recording   of   the   dying 
declaration,   she   has   not   taken   any   endorsement 
from   the   doctor   regarding   the   condition   of   the 
patient whether she is conscious and is able to 
give   answers   to   her   questions.   She   has   further 
stated   that   when   she   disclosed   her   identity, 
the   patient   had   accordingly   given   the   reply. 
Hence,   she   felt   that   the   patient   was   in 
conscious   condition.   It   is   further   elicited 
from   her   cross­examination   that   she   had   asked 
the   patient   in   both   the   languages   i.e.   Hindi 
and   gujrati   and   accordingly,   after   recording 
the   dying   declaration,   she   had   taken   the   thumb 
impression of the patient on it. Thus, from the 
deposition   of   the   executive   magistrate,   it   is 

Page 11 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

elicited that she has not taken the endorsement 
of   any   doctor   regarding   the   condition   of   the 
patient.   However,   her   deposition   reveals   that 
after   ascertaining   that   the   patient   was   in 
conscious   condition   and   was   fit   in   responding 
to   her   question,   the   dying   declaration   was 
recorded.   Accordingly,   the   deceased   – 
complainant   had   given   the   replies   to   her 
questions   implicating   the   present   appellants   – 

18. Another   witness   PW­16,   Nitinkumar   Dayaram 
Patel,   Scientific   Officer,   F.S.L.   Laboratory, 
Surat,   is   examined   at   Exh.44   on   behalf   of   the 
prosecution.   In   his   evidence,   he   has   stated 
that   he   visited   the   scene   of   occurrence   where 
he   found   one   iron   stove   with   the   cap   lying 
nearby it. It is also stated by him that beside 
the   stove,   there   was   charcoal­furnace   on   which 
rice cooker was kept. There was kerosene on the 
floor.   There   was   presence   of   burnt   match­stick 
and   the   match   box   at   the   scene   of   offence. 
Thus,   through   the   testimony   of   this   witness, 
the presence of uncapped kerosene iron stove is 
established   from   the   scene   of   offence.   Nothing 
adverse is elicited in his cross­examination. 

19. The   investigation   officer   (PW­20),   who   has 
recorded the F.I.R has been examined at Exh.55. 
He   has   deposed   that   on   03.08.2009,   he   was 
informed   by   the   Police   Sub­Inspector,   Padvina 

Page 12 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

at   16:00   hours   that   the   deceased   had   regained 
consciousness,   and   hence,   he   rushed   to   the 
Smimer Hospital to record her complaint and she 
had accordingly narrated the incident involving 
the accused, her husband and her mother in law. 
In   his   cross­examination,   it   is   elicited   that 
he   had   not   met   any   doctor   before   recording   the 
complaint.   He   has   stated   that   since   he   had 
received   the  vardhi  about   the   consciousness   of 
the   deceased   and,   on   the   instructions   of   his 
superior,   he   had   gone   to   record   the   complaint. 
He   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   the   deceased 
was   not   in   conscious   state.   He   has   also   denied 
the   suggestion   that   the   complaint   was   given   by 
her   nephew   ­   Mumtaz.   He   has   also   admitted   that 
he   had   not   made   an   endorsement   about   the   known 
language   of   the   complainant.   From   the   overall 
testimony   of   this   witness,   it   emerges   that 
though   the   same   is   blemished   with   minor   flaws, 
the same is trustworthy and credible. 


20. The prosecution has placed reliance on the dying 
declarations   in   the   form   of   complaint   –   Exh.56 
recorded on 03.08.2009 and another dying declaration 
(Exh.26)   recorded   by   the   executive   magistrate   for 
proving   the   charge   against   the   accused.   Both   the 
dying   declarations   implicate   the   accused.   Nothing 
adverse   suggesting   anything   contrary   which   affects 
the   sanctity   of   the   dying   declarations   has   been 
brought   out  by   the  defence.   It  is  also   not   alleged 
that the dying declarations suffer from any tutoring. 

Page 13 of 18

R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

The   dying   declarations   implicating   the   husband   and 
mother­in­law by the deceased – complainant are found 
to be voluntary without being influenced by anyone. 
The contention raised by the learned advocate for the 
appellant that the dying declaration recorded by the 
executive magistrate is liable to be ignored since as 
per the deposition of the executive magistrate (PW­

6), she has not ascertained the physical condition of 
the deceased – complainant from the doctors does not 
merit acceptance since it is settled law that, if the 
person, who is recording the dying declaration is of 
the   opinion  that   the   person,   who   is  deposing   is  in 
fit and conscious state to give the same, then such 
dying declaration cannot be discarded on the ground 
that it is not certified by the doctors.  

21. In the present case, the dying declaration does 
not suffer from any infirmity and the same is found 
worthy   of   being   relied   for   conviction.   Most   of   the 
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have 
turned   hostile   to   the   case   of   the   prosecution.   We 
have also examined the  yadi  produced at Exh.25. The 
same   is   sent   by   the   Police   Sub­Inspector,   Limbayat 
Police Station to the executive magistrate. The same 
bears   the   endorsement   of   the   doctor   “patient   is 
conscious:   and   the   time   recorded   is   04.00   p.m.   It 
also   bears   the   endorsement   that   “received   on 
03.08.2009,   18.00   p.m.”.   Accordingly,   the   executive 
magistrate,   after   receiving   the  yadi,   has   recorded 
the dying declaration (Exh.26). The time of recording 
the   dying   declaration   shows   that   it   is   recorded 

Page 14 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

between   18:25   to   18:50   hours.   Thus,   from   the 
aforesaid   documentary   evidence,  it   reveals   that  the 
deceased   –   complainant   was   conscious   at   04:00   p.m. 
and accordingly, the executive magistrate (PW­6) has 
recorded   the   dying   declaration   of   the   deceased   – 
complainant   at   “18.25   hours”.   Hence,   from   the 
deposition   of   the   executive   magistrate   as   well   as 
documentary evidence, it reveals that at the time of 
giving the dying declaration the deceased-complainant 
was in conscious state and accordingly, she was  in a 
fit state of mind to give answers to the question put 
by (PW­6) the executive magistrate. 

22. Reliance placed by the learned advocate for the 
appellants on the judgment dated 23.06.2014 passed in 
Criminal   Appeal   No.1409   of   2009   cannot   rescue   the 
appellants – accused since the deceased in that case 
survived   for   20   days   and   died   due   to   septicemia, 
whereas   in   the   present   case,   the   deceased   has   died 
within   12   hours   after   the   incident   took   place.   The 
span   of   marriage   undisputedly   is   less   than   seven 

23. The Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Lakhan   Vs. 
State   of   Madhyapradesh 
,   2010(8)   S.C.C.   514,   in 
which it was clearly mentioned that only on the 
basis of the dying declaration, the accused may 
be convicted. The Apex Court has observed thus:

“In view of the above, the law on the issue 
of   dying   declaration   can   be   summarized   to 
the effect that in case, the Court comes to 

Page 15 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

the conclusion that the dying declaration is 
true   and   reliable,   has   been   recorded   by   a 
person at a time when the deceased was fit 
physically   and   mentally   to   make   the 
declaration   and   it   has   not   been   made   under 
any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the 
sole basis for recording conviction. In such 
an eventuality no corroboration is required. 
In   case,   there   are   multiple   dying 
declarations   and   there   are   inconsistencies 
between   them,   generally,   the   dying 
declaration   recorded   by   the   higher   officer 
like   a   Magistrate   can   be   relied   upon, 
provided   that   there   is   no   circumstance 
giving   rise   to   any   suspicion   about   its 
truthfulness.   In   case,   there   are 
circumstances   wherein   the   declaration   had 
been   made,   not   voluntarily   and   even 
otherwise, it is not supported by the other 
evidence,   the   Court   has   to   scrutinize   the 
facts   of   an   individual   case   very   carefully 
and   take   a   decision   as   to   which   of   the 
declarations is worth reliance.”

24. Even   though   most   of   the   witnesses   examined 
on   behalf   of   the   prosecution   turned   hostile   to 
the   case   of   the   prosecution,   there   are  other 
documentary   as   well   as   oral   evidence   available 
on   the   record   of   the   case   in   the   form   the   of 
the   dying   declaration,  F.I.R.    evidence   of   the 
doctor and the investigating officer etc. which 

Page 16 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT

bring   home   the   charges   levelled   against   the 

25. We   are,   therefore,   of   the   considered   opinion 
that the prosecution has successfully established the 
authenticity of the dying declarations. The findings 
recorded by the trial court in convicting the accused 
of   the   charges   leveled   against   them   are   absolutely 
just and proper and in recording the said findings, 
no illegality or infirmity has been committed. We are 
in complete agreement with the reasonings given and 
the   findings   arrived   at   by   the   trial   court.   No 
interference is warranted with the judgment and order 
of the trial court.   

26. In view of the above discussions, we are of the 
opinion that the trial court has committed no error 
in   passing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order.   Hence, 
the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

27. In   the   result,   the   appeal   fails   and   is 
accordingly,  dismissed. The judgment and order dated 
29.06.2012  passed by learned 4th  (ad­hoc) Additional 
Sessions   Judge,   Surat,     rendered   in   Sessions   Case 
No.228 of 2009 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bonds 
of the accused, if any, stands discharged. Record and 
proceedings   be   sent   back   to   the   concerned   trial 
court, forthwith.



Page 17 of 18
R/CR.A/1080/2012 JUDGMENT


After   the   judgment   was   pronounced   and   signed, 
learned advocate Mr. Dave, while placing reliance on 
the   judgment   dated   19.04.2016   passed   in   Criminal 
Appeal No.1194 of 2011 has requested to make suitable 
observations  apro   pos  the   life  imprisonment   awarded 
to the appellant­accused and also for reviewing his 
case   by   the   appropriate   authority.   We   are   not 
inclined to make any observation since the issue is 
well   settled   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of 
Bhaikhon @ Bakul Borah Vs. State of Assam, reported 
in JT 2013 (10) SC 373, wherein the Apex Court has 
held   life   imprisonment   means   imprisonment   for   whole 
of life subject to the remission power granted under 
Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India, and 
it is left upon the discretion of the authorities to 
exercise such power in appropriate case.



Page 18 of 18

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation