[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Jawanji @ Manabhai Valabhai Vaghela vs State Of Gujarat on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1446 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
==========================================================
✔️
No
JAWANJI @ MANABHAI VALABHAI VAGHELA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGER K MEHTA(7548) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA C SHAH APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 10/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned 4 th (Ad-
hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case
No.15 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, whereby the appellant-accused has been sentenced
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC to undergo
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to undergo one
month RI, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section
374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as
under:
2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, the present appellant - accused
on 14/08/2011 at about 12:00 hours in the noon since intended to get
marry deceased - Pushpaben with some other to which the deceased
denied to do so and therefore by keeping grudge over the said dispute,
went to the Saket Estate, Moraiya where the complainant - husband of
the deceased was present and made altercation with the deceased and
therefore deceased went to the second floor where after following her
informed the deceased that if she will not accompany him then he will
kill her and thereafter after pouring kerosene set her ablaze with match-
stick and ran away from the spot and thus the deceased was died due to
the said burn injuries on 18/08/2011.
2.2 Accordingly, FIR being CR No.109 of 2011 came to be registered
with Changodar Police Station. The Police after investigation charge-
sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences before the learned JMFC,
Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try offence under
Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. On
conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the learned
Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence to the respondent-accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as
provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the
respondents-accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing
against them as false and further stated that he is innocent and a false case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
has been filed against him. After examining the evidence, witness
testimonies and submissions from both sides, the learned Sessions Court
recorded the finding convicting the appellant-accused.
3. We have heard Mr.Jigar K Mehta, learned Advocate for the
appellant - convict and Ms.Vrunda Shah learned APP for the respondent-
State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced
and produced before the learned Sessions Court concerned.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for the appellant- accused
has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the
reasonable doubt and therefore, learned Sessions Court has erred in
convicting the appellant - accused. He would submit that recording of
dying declaration of the deceased suffers from grave procedural
irregularities and prima facie it is unreliable to believe the said piece of
evidence. He would submit that no such procedural aspect has been
properly followed while recording of the dying declaration to show that
whether the deceased was in fit state of mind or not to record her dying
declaration.
4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant would further submit that as
such no investigation has been conducted to prove the claim of the
complainant that appellant intended to get the divorce of the deceased
from the appellant and to get her married with someone while exchanging
some money. He would submit that the prosecution has not proved this
aspect beyond reasonable doubt however the learned Sessions Court has
not appreciated this fact and instead made the basis thereof to prove the
intention of the appellant behind committing the murder.
4.2 It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that if the place of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
the incident is seen, it was a room having dimension of 9 feet by 5 feet
with only 4 feet of open space where the appellant poured kerosene on
the deceased and ignited her with match-stick where the deceased
received the burn injuries while the appellant - accused did not receive
any such burn injuries and therefore this creates doubt as to veracity of
the incident and in his submission, learned Sessions Court has not
considered this fact and therefore he would submit to interfere with the
finding of the learned Sessions Court.
4.3 Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that key witness
including one Maganbhai who was accompanied the appellant to the
house of the deceased and left him after the alleged incident, the father of
the complainant who was also present at the scene of alleged incident and
other bystanders were not examined which also creates doubt on the
credence of the case of prosecution.
4.4 Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant - accused would
submit that considering the infirmities and contradictions in the evidence
so adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Court has committed
a grave error in recording the conviction of the appellant - accused. By
making the above submissions, learned advocate for the appellant -
accused would submit to allow this appeal and to quash and set aside the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
5. Ms.Vrunda Shah, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State
submits that the impugned order of conviction and sentence does not
require to be interfered with as the learned Sessions Court has after
thorough appreciation of evidence has come to the conclusion and
recorded the conviction of the appellant - accused on the basis of the
evidence adduced before the Court. It is further submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
evidence produced on record proves the involvement of the accused in
the commission of crime in question. She has further submitted that
evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court has supported the
case of prosecution and narrated the incident as it had happened. It was
submitted that no such omission or contradiction in the evidence of the
said witnesses have come on record to discard their evidence. She has
further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have deposed before the
Court narrating the entire chain of sequence whereby the involvement of
the accused is proved which corroborates with the scientific evidence
produced and proved by the prosecution and therefore, the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence may not be interfered with.
6. Heard Mr.Mehta, learned Advocate for the appellant - convict and
Ms.Vrunda Shah, learned APP for the respondent-State and perused the
deposition of witnesses as also documentary evidence placed on record as
well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
7. At the outset, if the facts of the case on hand is examined, it would
appear that case of the prosecution is that appellant - accused went to the
place of complainant where he was residing with his deceased wife and
asked her to give divorce to the complainant as he intended to get marry
her with someone by exchanging some money transaction to which she
denied and she was beaten up and therefore she went to the second floor;
followed by the accused who poured kerosene on her and ignited with
match-stick and thus the deceased was succumbed to the burn injuries.
8. In background of the above facts, if the evidence adduced by the
prosecution is examined, PW No.1 -Dr. Bhavin S Shah, Medical Officer,
who has been examined at Exh.7 who conducted the postmortem on the
body of the deceased. Witness has examined the body of the deceased
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
after following due procedure and has stated the cause of death of the
deceased was septicemia due to burn over body. Witness has been cross-
examined by the defence; but nothing sort of any such material has come
on record to disbelieve the evidence of this witness.
9. PW No.3 - Danaji Bhuraji Rajput, Executive Magistrate, is
examined at Exh.13. Witness has deposed in his testimony that on
14/08/2011 he was discharging his duties and he received a yadi from the
Changodar Police Station to record dying declaration. This witness has
deposed that the yadi he received is containing the endorsement of the
Doctor that patient was in fit state of mind to give dying declaration. This
witness has further deposed that he went to the Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad where he started procedure for recording dying declaration at
7:20 p.m. and in the question-answer form the said dying declaration was
recorded as under:
"Question No.10
What did happen ?
My uncle Manaji Valaji Thakor set me on fire.
Question No.11
As to when and where did this incident happen ?
At my in-law's place on 14/08/2011 at about 1:00 p.m.
Question NO.12
Who was present at the time of incident ?
My husband and uncle were at the ground floor of the house.
Question No.13
Who brings you to the dispensary ?
My brother-in-law.
Question No.14
To state in brief the facts of the incident:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
That on 14/08/20111 at about 1:00 p.m., my real uncle Manaji
Valaji Thakor, resident of Gota, Kabutarkhanawala, came to my
home (paternal home), Changodar. I have two storied home and I
was alone at the top floor; whereas my father-in-law and husband
were at the ground floor. My uncle came and started beating me
and thereafter he was taking me away and on being denial, he took
me to the kitchen where from the primus containing full of
kerosene poured and ignited me with match-stick. Thereafter, my
uncle ran away in the rickshaw. I was saved by my father-in-law
and husband by pouring water on me. The cause of incident is that
though I was married, my real uncle wanted to sell me at
Rs.50,000/- and to get me married somewhere else."
This witness has further deposed that after recording her dying
declaration, he took right hand thumb impression mark and an
endorsement of the Doctor that patient was in fit state of mind was made
on this statement and this witness has verified the same. This witness has
also made an endorsement that while recording her statement, she was in
full state of mind. This witness has further deposed that when the
statement was recorded neither the Police nor the relatives of the patient
were present, as also the staff of the hospital was not present.
This witness has been cross-examined by the defence; however
nothing sort any such material to disbelieve the evidence of this witness
has come on record. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, the
prosecution has proved that declarant was conscious while giving her
dying declaration and the witness himself was satisfied that patient was
conscious to give her dying declaration. It was proved that patient was in
fit state of mind to record dying declaration as the Executive Magistrate,
who recorded the dying declaration was satisfied with the fact of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
declarant being conscious and in fit state of mind to record dying
declaration.
11. PW No.5-Kanubhai Kevalbhai Parmar, complainant, husband of
the deceased, is examined at Exh.21. This witness has deposed in his
testimony that incident took place prior to about one year and name of his
wife is Pushpa. This witness has further deposed that accused - Javanji
was residing at Gota Housing Board. The incident took place at about
12:00 O'clock in the noon at Saket Estate, Changodar and he was present
at that time while his wife Pushpa came there and asked him that her
uncle was asking to get marry somewhere else; however she was not
willing to do so and at that time accused - Javanji and Maganji came
there. This witness has deposed that Javanji came and started beating
Pushpa and asked her as to why did she come. This witness and Maganji
was saving Pushpa from beating by Javanji and this witness was also
scared. Thereafter, Javanji and Pushpa went on the top (second floor) of
the house where Pushpa went first followed by Javanji. After about five
minutes, Javanji came back and at that time Pushpa shouted and when he
went to up, he found Pushpa was set on ablaze and he therefore doused
the fire by throwing quilt on her and at that time Javanji and Maganji left
the spot. Pushpa set ablaze and she stated that her uncle Javanji set her
on fire by pouring kerosene on her. This witness has further deposed that
thereafter 108 Ambulance was called and taken Pushpa for treatment.
The treatment was continued for three days and thereafter Pushpa died.
Police came and took the complaint where this witness put his thumb
impression.
This witness has been cross-examined by the defence; however
nothing sort of any such material to discard his evidence has come on
record. The presence of this witness at the scene of incident is natural as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
he was the husband of the deceased and witness had himself seen the
accused running away from the spot after the occurrence of incident. The
prosecution has proved from the evidence of this witness the factum of
accused was present at the scene of offence at the time of commission of
crime and running away after committing a crime.
12. PW No. 7 - Dr. Jagdish Khodabhai Solanki is examined at Exh.26.
This witness has deposed in his testimony that since last four years he
was serving as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and on
14/08/2011 he was discharging his duty at Emergency Ward and at about
2:18 p.m. with a transfer Yadi one patient Pushpa was brought for
treatment of burns injuries at the Civil Hospital alongwith her husband
Kanubhai Kevalbhai. The case papers were prepared and patient was in
full state of mind and co-operative. A smell of kerosene from her body
was oozing out and upon being asked as to how such injuries were
caused, she stated before this witness that her uncle (Mana) poured
kerosene on her and set her ablaze at Sakariya Estate, Changodar. The
patient was given the treatment and it was second to third degree burn.
The original case papers were brought and produced at Exh.27.
13. PW No.8 - Dr.Abhisek Anant Goyal, has been examined at
Exh.29. This witness has deposed in his testimony that in the year
August, 2011 he was serving in the burns ward at Civil Hospital and on
14/08/2011 at about 2:30 p.m. patient viz., Pushpa was brought for burns
injuries and he gave treatment. She was admitted on 14/08/2011 and after
treatment she was died on 18/08/2011 at 7:30 p.m. Burns were to the
extend of 80% to 90% homicidal in nature. Having asked the history to
the patient, she has stated that her uncle Javanji at about 12:00 O'clock on
14/08/2011 set her ablaze after pouring kerosene on her. The patient was
earlier taken to Sola Civil Hospital where-from she was brought to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
Ahmedabad Civil Hospital and while treatment was initiated the patient
was in fit state of mind and it was second to third degree burn. The
original case papers were produced at Exh.30. Exh.14 yadi was seen to
him which was in regard to recording of dying declaration sent by the
Police wherein he has made endorsement that patient was in fit state of
mind to record statement and after making entry thereof he made his
signature with date and timing as 14/08/2011 at about 5:30 p.m. The
injuries found on the patient can be caused by pouring kerosene and
setting her ablaze and are sufficient to cause death in normal course.
14. In light of the above evidence re-appreciated by this Court, the
undisputed facts emerging from the record are that (i) there was a dispute
with regard to the appellant - accused asking the deceased wife of the
complainant to give him divorce and to get marry with someone else for
that he will get Rs.50,000/- (ii) explaining reluctance by the deceased,
the accused started beating the deceased and she therefore went on the
first floor followed by the accused where accused ignited the deceased
with match-stick after pouring kerosene on her (iii) after committing the
offence, the accused went away leaving the deceased and ultimately she
was taken to the hospital.
15. Thus, the entire sequence of incident is proved from the evidence
of the witnesses examined before the Court, more particularly, the cause
of incident, presence of accused at the spot and running away from the
spot after the incident is proved from the aforesaid evidence and learned
Sessions Judge has rightly believed the same while convicting the
appellant - accused.
16. Now, insofar as the credibility and trustworthiness of the dying
declaration is concerned, the argument of the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
appellant submitted that there said dying declaration suffers from grave
procedural irregularities, it was recorded by the Executive Magistrate
with a Police yadi after obtaining the endorsement of the Doctor that the
declarant was in fit state of mind. As discussed in the preceding
paragraphs in the form of evidence of the Executive Magistrate (PW
No.3) who recorded the dying declaration wherein he received a police
yadi containing endorsement that patient was in fit state of mind;
recorded the dying declaration wherein the deceased stated as to how and
in what manner the incident took place indicating the cause of incident.
Simultaneously, the evidence of two Doctors serving the Civil Hospital
where the deceased was brought for treatment PW 7 and PW 8 who have
given the treatment to the deceased before whom having asked the patient
about the cause of injuries, she has specifically and unequivocally stated
that her uncle (appellant) had ignited her with match-stick after pouring
kerosene on her which reduced into writing as history of the patient.
Furthermore, PW No.8 in his evidence has categorically stated that
having seen Exh.14 Yadi it was given to the Police for recording of dying
declaration wherein he has stated that patient was in fit state of mind to
record dying declaration. Thus, considering the aforesaid aspect, the
argument of the learned advocate of procedural irregularities in recording
of dying declaration does not leg to stand.
17. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam Bai vs. The State Of
Chhattisgarh rendered in Criminal Appeal No.903 of 2018, more
particularly, paragraph 10 thereof which is quoted as under:
"10. There cannot be any dispute that a dying declaration can be
the sole basis for convicting the accused. However, such a dying
declaration should be trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and
reliable. In case the person recording the dying declaration is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
satisfied that the declarant is in a fit medical condition to make the
statement and if there are no suspicious circumstances, the dying
declaration may not be invalid solely on the ground that it was not
certified by the doctor. Insistence for certification by the doctor is
only a rule of prudence, to be applied based on the facts and
circumstances of the case. The real test is as to whether the dying
declaration is truthful and voluntary. It is often said that man will
not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. However, since the
declarant who makes a dying declaration cannot be subjected to
cross-examination, in order for the dying declaration to be the sole
basis for conviction, it should be of such a nature that it inspires
the full confidence of the court. In the matter on hand, since Exh.
P2, the dying declaration is the only circumstance relied upon by
the prosecution, in order to satisfy our conscience, we have
considered the material on record keeping in mind the
wellestablished principles regarding the acceptability of dying
declarations."
(emphasis supplied)
18. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal position, if the evidence in
regards to dying declaration in the case on hand is seen, the dying
declaration was recorded by PW No.3, after following all due process as
stated by him in his evidence and that too after receiving an endorsement
to the effect that patient was in fit state of mind and therefore it cannot be
said to be any procedural lapse on the part of the witness while recording
the dying declaration.
19. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion made in consonance with the
re-appreciation of the evidence, the factum of the events took place prior
to and post the incident as narrated by the deceased while she was
admitted in the hospital, as also by the complainant who was, her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1446/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
husband, as well as, the fact recorded in the form of dying declaration by
the deceased before the Executive Magistrate after receiving an
endorsement from the Doctor that the deceased being in fit state of mind
to give dying declaration conclusively proved that there are consistency
amongst the witnesses in regards to stating of the fact of occurrence of
the incident and no such inference can be drawn raising any doubt on
credibility of the evidence examined before the Court and thus the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and no
interference is required to be made in the finding arrived at by the learned
Sessions Court.
20. In light of the above reasons, this Court does not find any
substance in the appeal. The appeal must fails and is accordingly
dismissed while confirming the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 23.09.2013 passed by the learned 4 th (Ad-hoc) Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No.15 of 2012.
Since the appellant - accused is on bail as per the jail record, six weeks'
time is granted him to surrender before the jail authority.
Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court
concerned forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura
