Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Prakashkumar Revashankar ... on 16 October, 2023
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/348/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 348 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAKASHKUMAR REVASHANKAR TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
GAURAV VYAS(9855) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 16/10/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal emanates from the
judgement and order dated 25.08.1998 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal
at Godhra in Sessions Case No.190 of 1997,
wherein and whereby the accused is acquitted for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/348/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
the offences, for which he was charged i.e. under
Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC).
2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
submitted that the judgement and order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court is required
to be set aside since the same is passed without
appreciating the evidence, both oral as well as
documentary in its true perspective. He has
emphasized on the dying declaration of the
deceased (below Exh.14), wherein the deceased has
specifically stated that she was set ablaze by
the accused. He has further submitted that the
deposition of the complainant PW-2-Kiritkumar
Surendraprasad Joshi reveals that during the
short span of two years of marriage life, the
deceased was subjected to cruelty. He has also
referred to the deposition of the mother of the
deceased PW-3-Tarulata Girishkumar Joshi and has
submitted that her deposition also would reveal
that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and
ultimately, she was set ablaze by the accused. He
has thus, submitted that the trial Court should
have appreciated the evidence, more particularly
dying declaration of the deceased and the accused
was required to be convicted, for which he was
charged looking to the evidence, which are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/348/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
established on record. He has further submitted
that though PW-4-Anvarhussein Gulam Kothari has
referred to the presence of the other persons,
they are not examined and hence, the deposition
of PW-4 cannot be placed reliance upon, which
records the presence of the accused at home.
Thus, it is submitted that the present appeal may
be allowed and judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court may be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Vyas has
submitted that the judgement and order recording
the acquittal of the respondent-accused does not
require interference and the same is precisely
passed, after appreciation of the evidence. He
has submitted that in fact, present case is the
case of no evidence. He has submitted that the
dying declaration at Exh.14 cannot be placed
reliance upon for convicting the accused since
the same cannot be believed in view of the
history recorded by the PW-1-Dr.Jamila Maksud,
who has initially treated the deceased. It is
submitted that the history recorded therein is
proved by the PW-1, wherein the deceased has
narrated that she has suffered injuries due to
accident, while igniting the stove. He has also
submitted that in fact, the respondent-accused
was present at the scene of offence and
independent witnesses have supported him and it
is revealed that in fact, the accused was in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/348/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
bath room. He has thus, urged that the present
appeal may be rejected.
4. We have heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and scaled the evidence on
record. We have also perused the documents as
pointed out by them.
5. The case of the prosecution, as per the
charge at Exh.2, is that on 27.04.1997 at around
8 am, the accused had set her wife ablaze by
pouring kerosene on her, which ultimately
resulted into her death. She was mentally and
physically tortured and accordingly, the charge
of Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC was framed.
PW-2, the father of the deceased, who has
registered the complaint, is examined at Exh.8.
In his deposition, more particularly in cross-
examination, it is revealed that in fact, for the
first time in the Court, he has levelled charges
of mental and physical harassment meted out by
the accused to her daughter (deceased). On the
contrary, the same reveals that they had
celebrated birth day of the son of the deceased
i.e. on 13.03.1997 with great splendor, in which
the accused was also present.
6. In the examination-in-chief, the complainant
PW-2 has specifically stated that his daughter
(deceased) had stated before him that there was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/348/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
some scuffle with the accused and the accused had
poured kerosene on her and thereafter, he ran
away and did not save her.
7. Similarly, the mother of the deceased PW-3
has also for the first time stated about mental
and physical torture meted out to her daughter by
the accused. The depositions of both, father and
mother of the deceased i.e. PW-2 and PW-3
respectively do not in any manner indicate that
the deceased was being harassed by the accused.
PW-1-Dr.Jamil Maksud, who is examined at Exh.5
has specifically stated that the deceased was
brought to her hospital on 27.04.1997 and she has
recorded history of the deceased. She has
specifically stated that the deceased was
discharged on the request made by the complainant
i.e. father of the deceased. The history (below
Exh.6) reveals that the deceased has accidental
burns by gas stove. She has also emphasized that
the deceased was conscious enough to give such
declaration and accordingly, the doctor has
recorded the history. It appears that thereafter,
the dying declaration was recorded on 27.04.1997
of the deceased at Exh.14. Before the Executive
Magistrate, she has stated that kerosene was
poured on her by the accused and she was set
ablaze.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/348/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
to the evidence of PW-4-Anvarhussein Gulam
Kothari, who was examined at Exh.11. He is an
independent witness. He has specifically deposed
before the trial Court that on 27.04.1997, when
the incident has occurred, on hues and cry of the
deceased, he went to the house of the accused and
the deceased. He has specifically stated that he
got mattresses from the neighbour Dr.Khare and
tried to douse the fire by such mattresses. He
has further narrated that at that time, he heard
shouts of Dr.Prakash i.e. the accused from the
bath-room and accordingly, one Dr.Joshi went to
gallery of the room and opened a stopper of the
bath-room and accordingly, the accused came out
of the bath-room and thereafter, the deceased was
taken in his Jeep having registration No. GJ-17-
9525 to Lunawada Shifa Hospital, where she was
advised to go to Godhra Civil Hospital
immediately, as per the say of the doctor. He has
further asserted that the relationship between
the deceased and accused was very cordial and
they loved each other. He has further stated that
one month before the incident, they both had
celebrated their son's birth day along with staff
and other members. Thus, we do not find that the
deposition of the present PW is suffers from
vice of contradictions, omissions or
improvements.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/348/1999 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2023
undefined
9. From the deposition of PW-5 at Exh.12, who is
the Mamlatdar and who has recorded the dying
declaration of the deceased, it is manifest that
parents and other relatives of the deceased were
present at the time of recording the dying
declaration and in fact, when the Mamlatdar asked
them to go out however, they were adamant and did
not go out of the room. His deposition also
reveals that at that time, there was some
altercation with the relatives. In these
circumstances, the dying declaration recorded by
the Mamlatdar also does not inspire confidence
and the same becomes a tainted document.
10. In view of the above, we do not find any
infirmity or illegality in the judgement and
order of the trial Court neither the same is
tainted with perversity. Hence, looking to the
over all appreciation of the evidence, the trial
Court has precisely acquitted the accused in the
offence, for which he was charged.
11. The present appeal stands dismissed. Record
and proceedings to be sent back.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
NVMEWADA/38
