Maniben W/O Danabhai Tulshibai Maheria vs State Of Gujarat

1. Appellant is the mother in law of the deceased. They were living in the same premises. Whereas the deceased and her husband Dinesh Danabhai were occupying the first floor, appellants were occupying the ground floor. There was, however, a common wash room at the ground floor. The passage to the first floor of the house was also through the ground floor.

2. There was a dispute between the families in regard to the charges for consumption of electrical energy. The dispute between the parties led even to the appellant lodging a complaint against her son Dinesh resulting in his arrest. At the relevant point of time, the deceased was pregnant. At about 10.15 a.m. on 31.7.2002, when Dinesh was in his office and their daughter Dolly was asleep, the deceased came to the ground floor for answering the call of the nature.

3. As she was about to climb the staircase for going to the first floor, Girishbhai (Accused No. 1) is said to have caught her hair from behind and forcibly threw her on the floor, poured some kerosene over her body, and appellant is said to have lighted the match stick. Both the accused thereafter went outside the house. The deceased tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water on her person from a bucket. In the meanwhile, she received extensive burn injuries. She cried out for help whereupon the wives of her elder brothers-in-law, namely Pushpaben and Gitaben, came together with some neighborers. They took her to a hospital and her husband was informed. She disclosed the cause of her receiving burn injuries to the doctor. She was referred to the Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad in view of seriousness of her condition. She was immediately taken to Ahmedabad and was admitted in the V.S. Hospital in the burns ward.

4. Her statement was recorded by PSI Mr. N.J. Gohil and again she stated about the incident at some detail. Her dying declaration was also recorded by an Executive Magistrate, Metro Area Court at about 8.30 in the afternoon. She answered all the questions, the relevant part whereof is as under:-

7. The Special Leave Petition was filed by both of them. The Special Leave Petition of Girishbhai was however, dismissed.

11. The burn injuries were caused by kerosene as is also evident from the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. 73). It may be true that the deceased gave her statement about the cause of her suffering injuries at about 12.45 in the morning before Dr. Ashish, but she gave her statement also before the Magistrate. Admittedly, there is no discrepancy in regard to the involvement of the appellant vis-`-vis her son Girishbhai. The only discrepancy which has been pointed out by Mr. Raichura was that in some of her statements, she had not stated the actual overt act played by appellant herein. In these statements, she merely had answered the questions put to her by different persons. When questions are put differently, answers would also appear to be different. On a first glance, it may appear that the detailed description of the offence is missing, but in our opinion the statement of the decease must be construed reasonably. It is in dispute that she had involved both the accused in all her statements. Only because her husband had rushed to the hospital upon hearing the news, the same would not mean that the deceased was tutored by him. A son would not falsely implicate his mother, despite their bitter relationships. Furthermore first disclosure in regard to the cause of the incident having been attributed upon her brother-in-law and the appellant, it is unlikely that the same was tutored by her husband. She was an educated lady, she had studied upto the second year of graduation. The very fact that the appellant and her son had developed ill relations with the deceased and her husband is an indicator to show that why the incident had taken place. The presence of the appellant at the house at the relevant time is not disputed. Also, the involvement of Girishbhai has not been disputed.

13. Immediately, after the incident, she raised a hue and cry. Other relatives immediately came there. She was taken to the hospital and her husband was informed. Had the appellant not participated in the commission of the offence, she should have been the first person to raise a hue and cry and call her other daughter-in-laws and neighbours. Immediately after the occurrence, she was not found at her house. Both the accused were arrested at a much later stage.

15. The submission of Mr. Raichura that the 'degree of burn' was not disclosed by Dr. Ashish is, in our opinion, immaterial.

This case satisfies the legal requirements as noticed therein.

20. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.