Gujarat High Court
Prakashbhai Dipakbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9394/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9394 of 2024
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9394 of 2024
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FIXING DATE OF EARLY HEARING) NO.
2 of 2025
In CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9394 of 2024
==========================================================
PRAKASHBHAI DIPAKBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 19/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Petitioner (Original Accused) has filed this Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers:
"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside of the decision rendered by the learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot dated 12.07.2024 in Sessions Case no. 148/2018 (Annexure-A) while recording evidence of Prosecution Witness no.10 at Exh.55, and for exhibiting the document at Exh.56, further this Hon'ble Court may direct de-exhbition of the said document from the records of Sessions Case no. 148/2018, in the interest of justice;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Hon'ble Sessions Court dealing with Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:52:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9394/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined Sessions Case no. 148/2018 to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and to ensure that the evidence presented before the Court is properly verified before its admission into the evidence, in the interest of justice;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay further proceedings of Sessions Case no. 148/2018;
(D) Your Lordships be pleased to dispense with filing of the affidavit as the petitioner is in jail;
(E) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;"
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the petition are such that; an offence came to be registered against the Petitioner with Malaviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot City for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the said offence, the prosecution had examined one witness Ramnikbhai Karashbhai Vachhani vide Exh.55. During the course of his examination, he had produced the statement recorded by him under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act of one Minaben Bharatbhai Kanabar. It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the said statement be considered as Dying Declaration ("DD" for short) whereas the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner had objected to it contending that the said document was not admissible in evidence as DD as the same was not indicative of the reason for the death of the said Minaben Bharatbhai Kanabar and she had died natural death after recording of her above statement. The learned Sessions Court Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:52:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9394/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined passed an order that the issue whether the statement should be considered as DD or not will be decided at the stage of final disposal of the case and it was ordered that the document in question be exhibited. Against the said decision the present Petition is filed by the Petitioner.
3. Leaned Advocate Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Executive Magistrate had recorded the statement of Minaben Bharatbhai Kanabar when she was admitted in the hospital. However, she had survived thereafter and had died after some time in natural death. Hear death had nothing do do with the incident alleged in the FIR. Therefore, her statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate did not reflect the position / reason as regards her death, and therefore, in view of the provision of the Indian Evidence Act, the said statement cannot be considered as DD. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in case of Moti Singh & Anr. v. State of Utter Pradesh, reported in AIR 1964 Page 900 has held that; Clause (1) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act makes a statement of a person who has died relevant only when that statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question.
3.1 No such situation has arisen in the present case, and therefore, the said statement is not admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act as DD. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has further submitted that if the Sessions Court is allowed to decide the said issue at the stage of final disposal of the case, the Petitioner will have no opportunity to make any statement in that regard if the trial court considers it to be a DD and if the conviction is based on this material. He therefore submitted to allow the present Petition.
3.2 Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submission:
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:52:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9394/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/11/2025 undefined
(i) Hinaben Haribhai v. State of Gujarat reported in (1996) 2 GLH 421
(ii) Maqsoodan v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1982 (O) AIJEL-SC 17314
(iii) Parshottambhai Kadubhai Bhavaiya v. State of Gujarat reported in 1996 (O) AIJEL - HC 209118
(iv) Moti Singh & Anr. v. State of Utter Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 900
4. Learned APP has opposed the Petition.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. From the material available on record it appears that the issue as to whether the statement in question can be considered as DD or not has been kept open by the learned trial court and no conclusive finding in this regard is recorded by the learned Sessions Court till date. It appears that the matter is still at the stage of recording of evidence of prosecution. The stage of final arguments is yet to arrive before the trial court. During the course of final arguments it will always be open to the Petitioner to raise his objections as regards the admissibility of the document in question and the learned Sessions Court will take an appropriate decision in this regard keeping in mind the settled legal position in this regard. The present petition at this stage appears to be premature.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid aspect, no case is made out. The petition is dismissed.
7. Criminal Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W / 165 Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by J.N. WAGHELA(HC00178) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 21 23:52:44 IST 2025