CR.A/1921/2005 1/14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1921 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA ========================================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MUSTAQBHAI ABUBHAI PATHAN - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JM BUDDHBHATTI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR KC SHAH, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA Date : 24/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA) 1. The appellant Mustaqbhai Abubhai Pathan preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned CR.A/1921/2005 2/14 JUDGMENT judgment and order recording the conviction of the appellant accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) rendered by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.4, Morbi ('learned trial Judge', for short) on dated 13.6.2005 in Sessions Case No.48 of 2003. The learned trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.10000/-, in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:- 2.1 Deceased Hamidaben married the appellant – accused before about 4 years and 6 months from the date of the incident. The incident occurred on dated 25.8.2003 at about 23.45 hours. As per the prosecution case, deceased Hamidaben was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband, the accused. When the cruelty meted out to Hamidaben became beyond any tolerance, she set herself on fire and committed suicide. In connection with this incident, Zeenatben Yarmahmad, mother of deceased Hamidaben lodged the FIR before police and the police registered the offence and commenced the investigation. Statements of material witnesses were recorded and necessary panchnamas were prepared in presence of Panchas. After receiving the postmortem report of the deceased, the police filed CR.A/1921/2005 3/14 JUDGMENT chargesheet in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morbi against the accused. As the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Morbi. 2.2 The learned trial Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498 A of the IPC at Exh.1 to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. In the result, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his further statement, the accused generally denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, deceased Hamidaben sustained accidental burns. That before Police Officer, his wife deceased Hamidaben stated that accidentally she sustained burn injuries. Appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record and considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge delivered the impugned judgment and order and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498 A of the IPC and awarded sentence as hereinabove referred. 3. On behalf of the appellant – accused, learned advocate Mr.Buddhbhatti for the appellant stated that considering the deposition of Dr.Maganbhai Vasrambhai, Exh.47 and the case- CR.A/1921/2005 4/14 JUDGMENT paper, Exh.48, it is clearly reflected that Hamidaben, while preparing food on primus-stove, sustained accidental burn injury. It is further stated that upon the message conveyed from hospital to the police station, Head Constable Shamjibhai Rathod immediately went to the hospital and contacted Hamidaben, while she was under treatment, and Head Constable Shamjibhai recorded the statement of Hamidaben, which is the dying declaration of deceased Hamidaben, which is produced at Exh.53. As per the deposition of Head Constable Shamjibhai, Exh.50 and even as per the dying declaration, Exh.53, Hamidaben clearly stated that on dated 25.8.2003, at about 11.45 p.m., when her husband came to her house, at that time, she was preparing 'jinga'on primus-stove and accidentally she caught fire, due to the flame coming out from the stove and sustained burn injury. That she immediately cried and thereupon her husband – the accused came there and tried to extinguish fire and she was brought to the hospital by her husband. That thus, considering the evidence adduced by Dr.Maganbhai in form of history of the incident and the dying declaration before Head Constable Shamjibhai, it becomes clear that the wife of the accused Hamidaben sustained accidental burn injuries. While extinguishing the fire, the accused himself sustained burn injuries. This is reflected in the arrest panchnama drawn by the police in presence of Panchas, Exh.55. That even considering the FIR, Exh.18, it is stated that before about 12 months from the date of the incident, Hamidaben had come to her mother – Zeenatben's house and at that time, Hamidaben stated to her CR.A/1921/2005 5/14 JUDGMENT mother Zeenatben that the accused was in habit of taking intoxicants and he used to beat her and that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Thus, it is submitted that there was no proximity between the time of alleged cruelty and incident. That story regarding Hamidaben being meted out with cruelty by the accused, is only the afterthought by her mother Zeenatben. It is submitted that even considering the panchnama of the scene of offence, Exh.26, in the kitchen, there was a primus-stove and one vessel containing the food, and burnt pieces of cloth were scattered around the stove. That the panchnama of the scene of offence duly supports the dying declaration of Hamidaben, that she accidentally caught fire and sustained burn injuries. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order recording the conviction of the appellant – accused be set-aside and the accused be acquitted. 4. Learned APP Mr.Shah vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that so far as the history of the incident given before the Medical Officer Dr.Maganbhai Vasrambhai is concerned, considering the deposition of the Medical Officer at Exh.47, he clearly stated that the history of accidental burns was given by the accused himself. Even considering the deposition of Dr.Maganbhai, it further transpires that on dated 26.8.2003 at 00.30 a.m., accused brought Hamidaben to his hospital and at that time Hamidaben had sustained serious burn injuries. The burn injuries were sustained on her face, upper limb, chest, abdomen, private parts and inner sides of both thighs except CR.A/1921/2005 6/14 JUDGMENT both legs. It is further stated that her general condition was poor and she was drowsy and not able to give dying declaration. She died on 26.8.2003 at 12.10 p.m. That thus, the physical and mental condition of Hamidaben was such that she was drowsy and her condition was very poor and was not even able to speak. That therefore, the so-called dying declaration by the Head Constable Shamjibhai, Exh.53 can never be taken into consideration. On the contrary considering the deposition of witness Zeenatben, Exh.17 and the FIR, Exh.18, it clearly transpires that her daughter Hamidaben was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused. It is true that before 12 months back from the date of the incident, Hamidaben had gone to her mother's house and she had stated to her mother that the accused was taking intoxicants and he used to beat her, and the accused was not doing any job and used to play gambling, and she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. As Hamidaben had come to the house of her mother Zeenatben, leaving her minor son at the house of her husband, Hamidaben was sent back to her matrimonial home. However, thereafter Hamidaben used to contact her mother on telephone and used to tell her mother that she was subjected to the cruelty. It is submitted that as per the evidence on record, even Zeenatben filed application for search warrant under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Hamidaben. That it has come in evidence that before about 3 days from the date of the incident, Hamidaben had contacted her mother Zeenatben on telephone, stating that they should do something to save her from the cruelty meted out to her by her husband. CR.A/1921/2005 7/14 JUDGMENT It is further submitted that the prosecution has produced a letter, Exh.21, wherein Hamidaben has clearly made allegation against her husband regarding ill-treatment. It is further submitted that there is no dispute that at the time of incident, the marriage life of Hamidaben was of the duration of 4 years and 6 months i.e. within a period of 7 years. Thus, considering the provision regarding the presumption as to abatement of suicide by a married woman, contained under Section 113 A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the accused. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 5. We have perused the relevant evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court and we have given our thoughtful considerations to the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. It is true that deceased Hamidaben sustained serious burn injuries while she was in the house of her husband –accused. The incident occurred at about 23.45 hours on 25.8.2003. There is also no dispute that immediately the husband tried to extinguish the fire and during that course, he himself sustained burn injuries. There is also no dispute that Hamidaben was brought to the hospital by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that in the hospital before Dr.Maganbhai, the history of accidental burn was given, as well as it is the case of the prosecution that as soon as the police was informed by Dr.Maganbhai, Police Head Constable Shamjibhai Rathod immediately went to the hospital and it is CR.A/1921/2005 8/14 JUDGMENT the case of the prosecution that Shamjibhai recorded the dying declaration of Hamidaben, which is produced at Exh.53. Considering the deposition of Dr.Maganbhai, Exh.47 and the case-papers, Exh.48 and Exh.49, it transpires that Hamidaben was brought before him at 00.30 a.m. on 26.8.2003 by her husband – accused, it was the accused who gave history to Dr.Maganbhai that while preparing food on the primus-stove, accidentally his wife Hamidaben sustained burn injuries by fire. Thus, the history was not given by Hamidaben herself, but the history of accidental fire was given by the accused. Perusing the deposition of Dr.Maganbhai, the reason why Hamidaben herself did not give history is apparent and clear because Dr.Maganbhai clearly stated that Hamidaben had sustained extensive burn injuries on her face, upper limb, chest, abdomen, private parts and inner sides of both thighs except both legs. It further becomes clear that she was drowsy and her general condition was poor. It is further clearly stated by Dr.Maganbhai in his deposition as well as noted in the case- papers, Exhs.48 and 49 that she was not able to speak and was not able to give dying declaration. On dated 26.8.2003 at 12.10 p.m., she expired. Considering the cross-examination of Dr.Maganbhai on behalf of the accused, nothing is emerging that her physical condition was good and that she was able to speak. Even Dr.Maganbhai deposed that he himself was failed in his attempt to talk with Hamidaben as she was unable to reply. When such is the situation, the history before Dr.Maganbhai was not given by Hamidaben herself, but was given by the accused. She was not able to speak, as her general CR.A/1921/2005 9/14 JUDGMENT condition was very poor, as she was drowsy and was not able to give dying declaration. 5.1 When such is the situation, we are of the considered view that no credibility should be given to the deposition of Head Constable Shamjibhai. He says that he recorded detailed dying declaration of Hamidaben on dated 26.8.2003 and in the dying declaration, Exh.53, Hamidaben stated that she sustained burn injuries accidentally cooking food. However, considering the deposition of Head Constable Shamjibhai, Exh.50, he admitted that before recording the dying declaration of Hamidaben, he did not consult any Doctor with a view to inquire about the physical and mental condition of Hamidaben. 5.2 Again considering the deposition of Dr.Maganbhai, Exh.47, when Hamidaben was brought before him, her general condition was very poor and she was drowsy and she was not able to speak. She was brought before him on dated 26.8.2003 at about 00.30 a.m. and she died on the same day at about 12.10 p.m. Thus, virtually she remained under treatment for 12 hours. Considering the entire deposition of Dr.Maganbhai, nothing emerges that during her treatment, her general condition was improved and that she was able to speak. Considering the case- paper, Exh.49, nothing is reflected that during the treatment, her general condition was improved. 5.3 On behalf of the appellant – accused, drawing our attention to the panchnama of scene of offence, Exh.26, it was submitted that in the kitchen, there was a stove and a vessel containing some CR.A/1921/2005 10/14 JUDGMENT food and the burnt pieces of cloth were scattered around the stove. However, considering the panchnama, Exh.26, it was the accused himself, who had shown the place of incident to the Panchas and the Investigating Police Officer. Even, otherwise the bare perusal of the panchnama, Exh.26, does not conclusively suggest that the incident occurred while deceased was cooking food on the stove and accidentally she caught fire. The incident occurred at about 23.45 p.m., during night hours, and usually it was not the time when food is to be cooked. No explanation is forthcoming as to how and why during night hours Hamidaben was cooking food on the stove. 5.4 Considering the deposition of Zeenatben, Exh.17, who is the mother of deceased Hamidaben, she stated that the information regarding the burn injuries sustained by Hamidaben was received on telephone and she herself, her sons Abdul Majid, Mohmmed Safi, Mohmmed Habib and Hanifbhai immediately went to Morbi from her residence which was at village Bharapar, Tal.Bhuj. That when they reached hospital they were informed that Hamidaben had died. She stated that Hamidaben was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused and the accused used to take intoxicants and was playing gambling and was not doing any job and he used to beat Hamidaben. She stated that before about 12 months from the date of the incident, Hamidaben had come to her house and at that time, Hamidaben told her mother about the physical and mental cruelty meted out to her by the accused. That at that time minor son of Hamidaben was at the house of the accused, and therefore, Hamidaben went CR.A/1921/2005 11/14 JUDGMENT to her matrimonial home. She further stated that thereafter Hamidaben used to tell her about the cruelty on telephone. She stated that before about 2 days from the date of incident, Hamidaben had telephoned her and at that time Hamidaben told that she was subjected to extreme physical and mental cruelty by her husband and they should do something to relieve her from such ill-treatment. Zeenatben stated that thereafter they were about to take some steps and in the meanwhile the information regarding Hamidaben sustaining the burn injuries was received and ultimately, she died. She lodged FIR before police, which is at Exh.18. Zeenatben was cross-examined at length by the defence. Considering the cross-examination, nothing emerges, which would make her deposition either doubtful or untrustworthy. 5.5 Almost similar is the deposition of witness Abdul Majid, examined at Exh.19, who is brother of Hamidaben. He stated that once he received a letter from Hamidaben, containing the grievance regarding the cruelty meted out to her by the accused, the letter is produced at Exh.21 along with the postal cover. He further stated that Hamidaben used to contact them on telephone and she used to tell them about the ill-treatment caused to her by the accused. He deposed that her mother Zeenatben had filed an application in Bhuj Court for obtaining search warrant of Hamidaben. The copy of the said application is produced at Exh.22. The application is dated 25.9.2001. Notice was issued against the present accused. It is further recorded below the petition, Exh.22 that the accused was served with the CR.A/1921/2005 12/14 JUDGMENT notice and he undertook to keep Hamidaben properly at his house, and therefore, said application was not pressed. Under such circumstances, considering the deposition of witness Abdul Majid, the testimony of complainant Zeenatben gets due corroboration. 6. Considering the overall evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that Hamidaben sustained burn injuries on account of suicide and not on account of any accident. The history before Doctor regarding accidental burns was given by none other than the accused himself. It has come in evidence that during her entire treatment, she was not able to speak. Under such circumstances, the deposition of Head Constable Shamjibhai, Exh.50 and the alleged dying declaration, Exh.53 becomes doubtful and no credibility should be given to such evidence. Even considering the deposition of Shamjibhai, he nowhere stated as to at what time he recorded the dying declaration, Exh.53. He clearly admitted in his deposition that before recording the dying declaration, he did not consult any Medical Officer on duty, so as to inquire about the physical and mental condition of Hamidaben. Medical evidence reveals that not only at the time when Hamidaben was admitted in the hospital, her general condition was poor and that she was drowsy and was not able to speak, but, during the course of her treatment, which continued approximately for 12 hours, her condition was deteriorated and ultimately she succumbed to the burn injuries. Under such circumstances, in the impugned judgment, while appreciating the evidence on record, the CR.A/1921/2005 13/14 JUDGMENT learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that Hamidaben had committed suicide by setting herself on fire and she did not sustain burn injuries by accident. 7. In light of the above discussions, considering Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act, it is duly provided that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by woman had been abated by her husband or any other relative and it is established that she had committed suicide within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abated by her husband. In the instant case, as stated above, appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that Hamidaben did not sustain burn injury by accident. The learned trial Judge rightly concluded that Hamidaben had committed suicide. Moreover, considering the overall evidence on record, as discussed above, the prosecution successfully proved that Hamidaben was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused. It is not in dispute that the marriage life of Hamidaben was about 4 years and 6 months. It has come in evidence that the ill-treatment and cruelties continued till Hamidaben committed suicide. Though before the incident, before about 12 months, she had gone to the house of her mother and thereafter, she came to her matrimonial house and during the period till her death, she did not personally meet her mother, but she was in contact with her mother and her brother on telephone, and before CR.A/1921/2005 14/14 JUDGMENT about 2 days from the date of the incident, Hamidaben had telephoned her mother and stated about the cruelty and ill- treatment. When such is the situation, considering the presumption provided under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved the offence of causing cruelty to Hamidaben and offence of abatement of suicide against the accused. 8. In light of the above discussions, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appeal stands dismissed. (A.L.DAVE, J.) (J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (binoy)