J.R. Vora, J.
1. All the above mentioned proceedings are preferred challenging the judgment and order delivered by Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 7th of January, 2005 in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2004.
2. It is stated that justice hurried is justice buried. The present is a glaring example of undue haste by the then Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in disposing of the trial and acquitting the accused for the serious offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Before considering the respective Appeals and the Revision Application on merits, few dates are required to be noted, which will demonstrate the undue haste by the then learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in disposing of the trial and acquitting the accused and convicting the original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code only, and that too, sentencing him to undergo only three days S.I., possibly knowing that, the said accused No. 1 husband has remained in jail as an under-trial for three days and, therefore, if he is sentenced to undergo three days S.I., he will not have to go to jail again. The case was committed to the Sessions Court by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, on 2.12. 2004, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as case was sessions triable. It reached the Sessions Court on 16.12.2004. In-charge Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 16.12.2004 transferred the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sixth Fast Track Court Shri A.H. Shah. Again the same was transferred to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, who on 20.12.2004, fixed the matter for framing of the charge. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against all the accused on 29.12.2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. On the very day, all the accused pleaded not guilty. On 1.1.2005, the prosecution submitted the list of witnesses to be examined on behalf of the prosecution and requested to issue the witness summons to as many as 12 witnesses and the learned Sessions Judge issued the witness summons and the next date was fixed on 7.1.2005. On 7.1.2005 itself, in all five witnesses came to be examined by the Sessions Court and the rest of the witnesses came to be dropped by the prosecution. Out of the five witnesses, two main witnesses i.e. maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the deceased turned hostile. Still, the prosecution submitted closing purshis on the very day i.e. 7.01.2005 and the remaining witnesses against whom witness summons were already issued, came to be dropped. On 7.01.2005, Application Exhibit-7 was submitted on behalf of the prosecution by which the prosecution submitted list of 17 documents to be produced along with the necessary documents, however, the learned Sessions Judge exhibited only four documents. On 7.1.2005 itself, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded. On 07.01.2005 itself, the arguments on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence came to be heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, and on the very day i.e. 7.1.2005, the then Sessions Judge, Mehsana, acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 read with 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and even acquitted the original accused Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code also and convicted the original accused No. 1 husband for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by imposing the punishment of three days simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- only. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, on 7th of January, 2005 in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2004, the State is before this Court.
3. Prosecution case and background details of the case relates to suicide committed by Renukaben Maheshbhai Patel, on 16th of December, 1997, at village Panchot of Mehsana District. Deceased Renukaben had married to Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai, accused No. 1, before two years of the incident and was staying at village Panchot near Ramji Mandir Chowk, Taluka-District Mehsana. Deceased belonged to Visnagar. From this wedlock, deceased had a female child, named as Gudi. Accused No. 1 - husband of deceased had been serving at Africa and before three months of the incident, he had been to village Panchot. According to prosecution case, accused No. 1 husband of deceased Renukaben, upon instigation of her mother-in-law i.e. accused No. 3 Patel Sharadaben Ranchhodbhai was doubting her character and was executing mental cruelty upon her as well as she was used to beat by her husband. Preceding three days of the incident, accused No. 1 husband Maheshbhai, accused No. 3 Sharadaben Ranchhodbhai mother-in-law and accused No. 2 Ranchhodbhai Hargovanbhai father-in-law of the deceased were extremely harassing the deceased and upon instigation of accused Nos. 2 and 3, accused No. 1 husband had been beating deceased Renukaben and this continued for last preceding three days of the incident. On account of this and compelling circumstances, on 16th of December, 1997, at about 13.30 hours in her house (in-laws house), deceased poured kerosene of the quantity of five liters upon her and ignited herself, so she started burning in flames. Her husband accused No. 1 attempted to quench flames, but Renukaben was burnt in whole body. Thereafter, she was taken to General Hospital at Mehsana in ambulance. She was treated by Dr. A.K. Kapadia and he found burns on whole over her body, deep in nature. The Doctor advised to shift Renukaben to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for further treatment. In the meantime, Mehsana Taluka Police Station was informed and ASI Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, examined as PW-4 at Exhibit-13, reached at Mehsana General Hospital. He found that Renukaben was admitted in Emergency Room No. 17 and the Doctor who was attending Renukaben requested ASI Hargovanbhai to record the statement of Renukaben. At that time, her treatment was going on. ASI Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, therefore, through his Writer recorded the statement of Renukaben in a manner that he asked questions and Renukaben answered, which he got noted through his Writer. In the statement, she narrated the above story that she was harassed by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on account of suspicion on her character and due to mental as well as physical cruelty, she committed suicide. According to Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, deceased Renukaben was in fit mental condition to give answers, and in token of it, Doctor-in-charge put his signature on the statement and thereafter since the fingers of both the hands of Renukaben were distorted by burning, Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai obtained thumb impression of leg of Renukaben. From the above, a crime came to be registered in all against following five persons, vide first CR No. 414 of 1997, initially, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were (i) Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai husband; (ii) Patel Ranchhodbhai Hargovanbhai father-in-law; (iii) Patel Shardaben Ranchhodbhai mother-in-law and (iv) Patel Ashaben Pankajbhai sister-in-law. The deceased thereafter was shifted to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad at about 18.00 hours on the same day. She was brought by one Chinubhai Nanlalbhai. During treatment, at about 19.10 hours, Renukaben died and, therefore, OPD In-charge Head Constable, Shahibaug Police Station, informed Police Station In-charge at Shahibaugh and requested Police Surgeon to conduct postmortem and the Executive Magistrate to draw inquest panchnama. The death of Renukaben was informed to Mehsana Taluka Police Station and upon that information, charge under Section 306 as well as under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was added against the accused. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW-1 Dr. Sureshbhai Manibhai Nayak of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, on 17th of December, 1997, at about 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. The cause of death was due to shock, due to extensive burns. The offence thereafter was investigated by the then P.I. of Mehsana Taluka Police Station Vikramsinh Arjunsinh Rahevar, PW-5. Charge sheet thereafter came to be submitted against all the four accused in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, and the said Criminal Case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions at Mehsana and was registered as Sessions Case No. 249 of 2004.
4. The case was handed over to Additional Sessions Judge on 16th of December, 2004 and again was retrieved by Sessions Judge, Mehsana on 20th of December, 2004. Learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana, framed charges against all the accused on 29th of December, 2004. Accused pleaded not guilty. It appears that summons were issued to witnesses shown in the charge sheet from Sl. No. 1 to 6 and 16 to 23. The case thereafter was adjourned to 1st of January, 2005 and thereafter on 7th of January, 2005. On 7th of January, 2005 itself, in all, five witnesses came to be examined by the Trial Court and thereafter, however, on the same day, vide Exhibit-18, learned APP In-charge of the trial after examining five witnesses, submitted closing purshis stating that besides whatever evidence was adduced by the prosecution, it did not intend to lead further evidence and declared the evidence of prosecution to be over. On the same day i.e. on 7th of January, 2005 itself, further statements of each of the accused came to be recorded by the Trial Court wherein denying the evidence in toto, each of the accused further stated that, in fact, deceased Renukaben wanted to accompany accused No. 1 to Africa, but it was likely to take time, and on that account, she took it emotionally and died. Accused No. 2 further stated to the extent that Renukaben committed suicide on account of the fact that she wanted to go to Africa with her husband and since it was to take time, she committed suicide. This is also the statement of other remaining accused. After recording of further statements of each of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Trial Judge heard arguments of both the sides on the same day i.e. on 7th of January, 2005 and after hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge delivered the judgment, which is impugned. The whole trial came to an abrupt end in a day.
5. The Trial Court came to the following conclusions in the judgment and order impugned:
i. learned Trial Judge acquitted all the four accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code;
ii. accused No. 2 Patel Ranchhodbhai Hargovanbhai, father-in-law, accused No. 3 Patel Shardaben Ranchhodbhai, mother-in-law and Patel Ashaben Pankajbhai, sister-in-law also came to be acquitted by the Trial Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A to read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) However, the learned Trial Judge convicted only accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and after hearing the accused No. 1 on the quantum of sentence, the accused No. 1 - husband was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three days and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of seven days.
6. We would like to place this on record at this juncture that set off was granted to accused No. 1 by learned Trial Judge and, therefore, virtually, since accused No. 1 was in custody as under trial prisoner for three days, he was not required to surrender to jail for punishment on depositing the amount of fine imposed.
7. Being aggrieved by the above said judgment and order, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2005 against all the four accused of Sessions Case No. 249 of 2004, for the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A (except accused No. 1), 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we may also observe here that though Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai - original accused No. 1 is convicted by the learned Trial Judge for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, but he has been acquitted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 201 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, while rest of the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are acquitted for all the charges. This Appeal came to be Admitted by this Court on 9th of October, 2007. By the same order, while admitting the above said Appeal, this Court also issued notice upon accused No. 1 Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai in respect of inadequacy of sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, exercising powers under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The said Notice was treated to be Revision Application and registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 642 of 2007 and the same came to be admitted by this Court.
8. During the course of hearing in the above said Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2005 and Criminal Revision Application No. 642 of 2007, respondents i.e. original accused have preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 14954 of 2007 under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permitting them for adducing additional evidence in the said Criminal Appeal. The said Application is also kept along with Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Application for hearing and decision.
9. It is necessary here to mention the facts of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 14954 of 2004 filed by the respondents original accused. The root cause for filing this application appears to be a Yadi, Exhibit-10, stated to have been forwarded by Arvind Gohil, Head Constable, Civil Hospital, Shahibaug Police Station to Police Surgeon, Civil Hospital, stating that Renukaben, resident of village Panchot, got burn injuries on 16th of December, 1997 at 13.00 hours on account of cooking on stove at her residence, and on account of that, her clothes caught flames. The Yadi further stated that Renukaben was rushed to Civil Hospital on the same day at 18.00 hours and during treatment died at 19.10 hours and, therefore, it was requested to the Police Surgeon, Civil Hospital, to perform postmortem on dead body. Basing this, this application has been submitted by the respondents referring to other documents and yadies in connection with Exhibit-10 and stating that certain papers were not given to the accused and that were not accompanying with the charge sheet papers. It is submitted that in all 17 documents were produced by the prosecution vide list at Exhibit-7, and out of that, only four documents were exhibited in the Trial Court and others are required to be exhibited. It is also stated that OPD Head Constable by vardhi produced at Exhibit-7 informed to the concerned authorities that he received information from CMO Dr. Ritaben Shah from Civil Hospital that one lady named Renukaben Maheshbhai Patel had received burn injuries at the time of cooking on stove and was brought to the Civil Hospital. It is, therefore, submitted that Ritaben Shah was the material witness and that other documents concerning this, as mentioned in the application, were required to be brought on record. It is, therefore, submitted that to unearth the truth, Dr. Ritaben Shah, CMO, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, Police Constable Jivrajkumar, Shahibaug Police Station, Head Constable Arvindsinh Natwarsinh Gohil and Chinubhai Naranbhai, who brought Renukaben to the Civil Hospital, are necessary witnesses and they are required to be examined as additional evidence. This Application is objected and opposed by the State vehemently.
10. In respect of the above three matters, the learned Counsel Mr. Vijay H. Patel, in Criminal Appeal and in Criminal Revision Application, on behalf of the respondents and in Criminal Misc. Application on behalf of the applicants, vehemently stated that there was no intention or willful act on the part of any of the accused to force victim lady to commit suicide and learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that no element of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was ever proved. What is stated in the dying declaration were ordinary skirmishes and not willful act on the part of any accused, which is evident from the evidence recorded. Attacking dying declaration i.e. the complaint of the victim recorded by police, it is submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Patel for the accused that the complaint which is now being treated as dying declaration was not at all reliable, and to that extent, the learned Trial Judge committed error. In the cross-examination of PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, who recorded the complaint, certain discrepancies glaring in nature, surfaces on record that the dying declaration or the complaint was recorded by the Writer of PW-4 and grave suspicion is cast on account of absence of certificate from the Doctor as to the fitness of mind of the victim to give a statement. There is no medical opinion on record that the victim was in fit state of mind to offer a statement. Such Dying Declaration or complaint could not have been relied upon by the Trail Court to even convict the accused No. 1 under Section 498-A and there is no iota of evidence adduced by the prosecution to come to the conclusion that it was a willful and intentional act on the part of the accused to create such circumstances as to force the victim lady to commit suicide. With reference to Criminal Misc. Application submitted by the respondents, it is further argued that in fact it was a case of accident and, however, such evidence was not brought by the prosecution on record. Above all, even in dying declaration, victim lady stated that her husband attempted to quench burning of his wife and, therefore, it could not be said that the accused could have driven the victim to commit suicide, and that too, by cruelty. It is further stated that in Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad, from Exhibit-10, it appears that, victim gave the history to the Doctor about the accident took place while cooking on stove and this is narrated in the yadi given by Head Constable Jivrajkumar to Head Constable Arvindsinh Natwarsinh Gohil and in turn Arvindsinh Natwarsinh Gohil informed this fact to Shahibaug Police Station. However, neither copies of such yadies were given to the accused nor very important witnesses like, Dr. Ritaben Shah, CMO, Civil Hospital, Police Constable Jivaraj Kumar, Shahibaug Police Station, Arvindsinh Natwarsinh Gohil etc. could be examined by the prosecution to unearth the truth that the incident was an accident which is evident from the prosecution case itself. Therefore, it is submitted that from the evidence recorded during the trial, since the case hinges upon the complaint recorded by PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, and evidence lacks of certificate of fitness of the deceased, all the accused are entitled to acquittal of all the charges and in the alternative accused be given an opportunity to bring additional evidence on record as prayed for, by the respondents - accused in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 14954 of 2007. It is submitted that, therefore, when no other witness out of five witnesses examined, except two police personnel, has supported the prosecution case and dying declaration is not reliable, over which the acquittal appeal filed by the State being Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2005 be dismissed and Suo Motu notice issued in Criminal Revision Application No. 642 of 2007 against accused No. 1 be discharged and for the above stated reasons, the accused No. 1 be acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, for which he was wrongly and erroneously convicted by the Trial Court. It is submitted that though no appeal against the conviction of accused No. 1 came to be filed by him, but since he is under notice of enhancement of sentence, he is entitled to urge his acquittal of the charges for which he is convicted. Alternatively it is prayed that the matter be remanded to the Trial Court for recording of further evidence in terms of Criminal Misc. Application filed by the respondents or the evidence be recorded in the above said appeal. Learned Advocate for the respondents - accused also relied upon certain decisions, which shall be referred to at appropriate juncture.
11. It has been vehemently argued by learned Advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the accused respondents that accused No. 1 attempted to help deceased and while quenching flames, he also got injuries in the incident and was treated at Civil Hospital, Mehsana, which is an admitted fact. It is further submitted that behaviour and conduct of the accused exonerates him of any culpability and hence he is required to be acquitted for the charge under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Sunit Shah, attacking the judgment and order, submitted that this is a unique case of non-application of mind by the Trial Court towards a very serious criminal trial. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, true that, PW-2 Pravinkumar Gandalal Patel; PW-3 Puriben Pravinkumar Patel, both maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the deceased, did not support the prosecution case, but the prosecution case was amply proved by the dying declaration at Exhibit-14, for which PW-4 Exhibit-13 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, who recorded the Exhibit-14 dying declaration, has been examined and has proved satisfactorily the dying declaration of the deceased. It is submitted that Exhibit- 14 is the correct depiction of the incident, straightway from the mouth of the deceased and soon after the incident. The learned Trial Judge believed this dying declaration to convict the accused No. 1 - husband of the deceased, while did not believe the same dying declaration to convict accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Attacking the double standard for different accused and adopting the same piece of evidence, which is believed by the Trial Court to acquit the accused Nos. 2 and 3, renders the judgment and order impugned perverse and not sustainable in law and, therefore, the acquittal is required to be set aside, and that for the offence proved against accused No. 1 under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, only three days simple imprisonment is awarded by the Trial Court especially when cruelty has been believed by the Trial Court as against accused No. 1. This is the perversity of the judgment and order impugned in the Appeal and Revision Application which requires to be seriously considered by this Appellate Court as when Exhibit-14 has been amply proved, the contents said to have been proved to the extent that it is a statement of the deceased that having suspicion on her character, she was harassed by the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and upon instigation of accused Nos. 2 and 3, her parents-in-law, accused No. 1 had been beating her and this quarrel ensued for three days soon preceding the incident. What more, according to learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution is obliged to prove against the accused. However, the learned Trial Judge, according to his whims, which is not corroborated by any sound reasons, came to the above pervert conclusion, which is required to be corrected by this Court. Perversity it is in the logic and reasoning of the Trial Court that this much seriousness as narrated by the deceased in her dying declaration Exhibit-14, were taken by the learned Trial Judge to be usual wear and tear of life between husband and wife and between wife and her parents-in-law. It is submitted that in such a circumstance, it is certainly a willful act on the part of the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and a question arises as what alternative was available to the harassed wife except to commit suicide. The learned Trial Judge has conveniently avoided exploring this area and came to a pervert and erroneous conclusion to acquit all the accused for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and that too, convicting only accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and let him go scot free with prize of three days simple imprisonment. Therefore, it is submitted that the Appeal against the acquittal by the State is required to be allowed. Not only that, but accused Nos. 2 and 3 are required to be adequately punished for the serious crime committed by them and, hence, Criminal Revision Application (suo motu) for the enhancement of sentence as against accused No. 1 may be allowed. So far as application under Section 391 filed by the respondents, it is submitted by learned P.P. that this application per se not maintainable in Appeal against the acquittal by the accused nor in Revision Application which is initiated suo motu by the Court. The accused No. 1 did not prefer any appeal against his conviction under Section 498-A. So, it goes to show that the application is preferred by the accused to confirm the acquittal. In any case, Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant for additional evidence to be taken by the appellate court only if it is necessary and that too after recording reasons for taking such evidence. In this case, when there is an overwhelming evidence by which the prosecution case is amply proved, the question of additional evidence, and that too, necessary additional evidence would not arise at all. What is averred in the application appears to be an after thought defence of the accused, which could not be pleaded during trial. It was not the defence of the accused that the incident was an accident and that on account of accident, the victim lady died. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the cryptic information, having no substance, recorded by the Police Constable, would not dislodge the prosecution case and also it is not the defence of the accused and, therefore, at this stage, in the form of recording of additional evidence as demanded by the accused requires simple rejection. Learned Public Prosecutor further fairly submitted that there was no evidence as against accused No. 4 and her acquittal may be confirmed.
13. It is now necessary therefore to have a comprehensive and complete perusal of the prosecution evidence as has been recorded during the trial.
14. The prosecution examined following five witnesses:
PW-1 Dr. Sureshkumar Manibhai Nayak, Exhibit-8
PW-2 Pravinkumar Gandalal Patel, Exhibit-11
PW-3 Puriben Pravinkumar Patel, Exhibit-12
PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, Exhibit-13
PW-5 Vikramsinh Arjunsinh Rahevar, Exhibit-16
15. Prosecution also adduced documentary evidence as under:
Postmortem Notes of the deceased is at Exhibit-9. The statement recorded by PW-4, which is now dying declaration is at Exhibit-14; vide Exhibit 10 Yadi given by Head Constable of Civil Hospital, Shahibaug Ahmedabad to Police Surgeon for postmortem of the deceased; Exhibit 15 is an entry of Police Station Register of Mehsana Police Station whereby a Yadi given by Dr. A.K. Kapadia, Mehsana Civil Hospital has been recorded by Head Constable, Civil Hospital Duty Constable to the effect that deceased was admitted to Civil Hospital, Mehsana; Exhibit-17 is panchnama of scene of offence and at Exhibit 18 learned APP submitted purshis for closing of the evidence.
16. PW-1, Exhibit-8, Dr. Sureshkumar Manibhai Nayak, deposed that on 17th of December, 1997, he was serving as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Dead body of Renukaben was forwarded to him by yadi and he started postmortem along with Dr. D.S. Dave on the same day at 11.00 a.m. and completed at 12.00 noon. He submitted that the dead body was having bandages of the hospital and had burns of first degree and second degree. On throat, chest, abdomen, back, both hands and on legs, there were burn injuries. Doctor further stated that he prepared postmortem note which he produced at Exhibit-9. He has deposed that the death was due to shock, due to extensive burns. He has not been cross-examined by the defence.
17. PW-2 Pravinkumar Gandalal Patel, examined at Exhibit-11, maternal uncle of the deceased, deposed that deceased was his niece. Her parents were mentally retarded and, therefore, he had brought up Renukaben and her brother. Renukaben had married with accused No. 1 at village Panchot. Accused No. 1 resided at Africa and Renukaben wanted to go to Africa but accused No. 1 stated that that will take time to take Renuka at Africa along with him. Renukaben was emotional and, therefore, she took this bad and committed suicide. Renukaben was visiting her house after marriage but was not complaining about anything. Renukaben had one female child. He denied that on 4.12.1997 any accident had taken place. With the permission of the court the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution in which he admitted that the matter had been settled between them and accused and that they did not intend to proceed further in this case. He further deposed that on account of his niece, this compromise was executed. Compromise was executed voluntarily with the accused without any coercion. He deposed that the police had recorded his statement but denied the fact that he narrated before the police that his niece Renukaben had complained about ill-treatment by her parents-in-law and her husband, and on that account, she committed suicide. No cross-examination was conducted by the defence of this witness.
18. PW-3 Puriben Pravinkumar Patel, examined at Exhibit-12, happens to be maternal aunt of the deceased. She deposed that Renukaben was her niece and was married to accused No. 1. Renukaben intended to go with the accused but accused stated to Renuka that she would be taken to Africa after some time. Since Renuka was emotional she took this ill and had committed suicide. She admitted that police had recorded her statement. This witness also confronted with her police statement with the permission of the Court and prosecution cross-examined this witness. In cross-examination of the prosecution, witness has admitted that they have compromised with the accused and they did not intend to proceed further with the case. She further deposed that the compromise was executed on account of her niece and by their free will and without any allurement or coercion. She denied that in her statement before the police she narrated that Renuka was complaining before them that she was ill-treated and harassed by her husband and in-laws and therefore she committed suicide. This witness has not been cross-examined by the defence.
19. PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, examined at Exhibit-13 was the then ASI. He deposed that on 16th of December, 1997, his duty was at Mehsana Civil Hospital as Assistant Sub-Inspector. According to him, deceased Renukaben Maheshbhai Patel, resident of Panchot, was brought to Mehsana Civil Hospital in ambulance and was admitted to the Emergency Room No. 17. The Doctor In-charge requested him to record the statement of the patient Renukaben. Her treatment was going on. Upon request of treating Doctor, he recorded the statement of the deceased. The statement was written by his Writer. He further deposed that he asked questions to the deceased and he recorded the answers through his Writer. He deposed that deceased had stated to him that her marriage was solemnized before two years of the incident and out of that wedlock she had a female child named Gudi. According to witness, deceased further stated that her husband had returned to village Panchot from Africa for about three months before the incident, and that her parents-in-law and husband were doubting her character and her parents-in-law were instigating her husband to ill-treat her. Immediately preceding to three days of the incident, her husband was physically beating her and on this count on that day as to bring an end of all the sufferings, at 13.30 hours, she poured kerosene of five liters upon her and ignited her. According to this witness, this statement of the deceased was recorded in the presence of Doctor at about 14.00 hours. The witness further deposed that when he recorded the statement of the deceased, she was fully conscious and was in a position to speak. He identified the statement recorded by him of the deceased and also identified his signature as well as signature of the Doctor who subscribed his signature because he was present at the time of recording of the statement of the deceased. The witness further deposed that he obtained thumb impression of leg of the deceased upon the said statement which he identified before the court. The statement was read over to him and the witness deposed that that was the same statement which he produced at Exhibit-14. He has been cross-examined by the defence and in his cross-examination the witness deposed that he knew Gujarati to read and write. He studied upto 10th Std. Nobody had advised him that the statement of Renukaben should not have been written by himself. There was no reason why he could not have written the statement by himself. Writer recorded the statement according to his directions. It did not happen that Renukaben directly dictated the statement to his Writer. There was no injury on his hand and there was no difficulty in writing, so far as writing by himself was concerned. He has further deposed that he could not say that how his Writer was more educated than himself. The statement was recorded by ball pen. He subscribed his signature by his pen. In the statement, he did not write at what time the statement was started and when it ended. He could not give any reason as to why the time was not mentioned in the statement. According to this witness, his writer was standing near him and was recording the statement by standing. There was a file in his hand which was hard and the Writer recorded the statement basing that file. The statement was recorded upon the government paper. In the statement, he did not note that the statement was recorded by the Writer according to his directions. He knew that the condition of Renukaben was serious and on death of Renukaben, a serious offence was likely to be charged against the accused. He denied the allegation that he did not take the required precautions. He was asked whether he obtained certificate from the Doctor as to the mental fitness of the deceased and in reply he stated that the certificate was not required to be taken by him but by Mamlatdar. He admitted that Exhibit-14 was not written in the form of question and answer. He denied the allegation that at the time of recording of the statement, relatives of the deceased were present. He further stated that the condition of the patient was very serious and since she was required to be referred to Ahmedabad, the statement of the patient could not be recorded before the Executive Magistrate. He admitted that the patient had the injuries all over the body and, therefore, she was groaning. He denied the allegation that Renukaben was not in a position to speak. He emphatically stated that she was in condition to speak. This is all is the evidence of the material witness.
20. PW-5 and last witness examined at Exhibit-16 Vikramsinh Arjunsinh Rahevar is Investigating Officer and was serving as PI at the relevant time at Taluka Police Station, Mehsana. He deposed that the investigation of Crime Register No. 414 of 1997 was entrusted to him. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and other persons residing near by the house of the accused. A panchnama of scene of offence was drawn by P.I. N.G. Patel. Muddamal was seized and the statements of the witnesses from parents side of the deceased were also recorded. He also recorded the statement of Pravinbhai Gandabhai and submitted the charge sheet in the court. He produced on record a copy of the station diary by which the crime was registered at Exhibit-17. He placed on record panchnama of scene of offence at Exhibit-18. He deposed that N.G. Patel who draw this panchnama had died. He identified the signature of Mr. N.G. Patel upon panchnama of scene of offence and he produced the same at Exhibit-18. In cross-examination of the accused, he deposed that in the incident, accused No. 1 also got burn injuries. He admitted that accused No. 1 had been to Panchot from Africa before three months of the incident. He denied the allegation that Renukaben wanted to go to Africa along with accused No. 1. He denied the allegation that accused No. 1 refused to take Renukaben at Africa and, therefore, being emotional, Renukaben took this refusal otherwise and committed suicide.
21. This is all the evidence of the prosecution.
22. We have undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case. The entire evidence on record is thoroughly appreciated by us with reference to appeal against acquittal, enhancement for revision application and with reference to the application filed by the accused for adducing additional evidence. We have taken into consideration the broad and reasonable probabilities of the case arising out of the re-appreciation of the evidence on record and other vital circumstances surrounding the essence of the trial. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by both the sides.
23. Since the acquittal appeal is to be dealt with, it is mandatory to go through the reasons assigned by the Trial Judge for acquittal and for awarding the sentence to accused No. 1 for the offences proved against him, according to learned Trail Judge, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In para 11 of the judgment impugned in Appeal against the acquittal, learned Trial Judge, at the inception, narrated the definition of Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge has observed that in Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code what was employed was 'abetment' as envisaged by Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further stated by the learned Trial Judge by way of reason that in Sub-section (3) of Section of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, two words, i.e. 'intention' and 'willful' are employed. In the opinion of learned Trial Judge, to prove an offence under Section 306, prosecution was required to prove that the act of the accused was intentional and willful. Though, the learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that Exhibit-14 recorded by witness Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai was proved and that it was also proved that deceased was fit to offer her statement, but in para-12 of the judgment impugned, however, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that in Exhibit-14 dying declaration, except accused No. 1 - Patel Maheshbhai Ranchobhai, there was no evidence against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 about cruelty. However, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion with the reasons that in each family there are quarrels ordinarily. Those quarrels cannot be termed to be intentional or willful act of the accused and that the quarrels which were narrated in Exhibit-14 were of ordinary quarrels, for which in the opinion of the learned Trial Judge, Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code could not be applied. However, taking contrary stand in para-13 of the Judgment while deciding whether there was evidence of 498-A against the accused and taking into consideration Exhibit-14 dying declaration, without assigning further reasons, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of offence under Section 498-A against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but the case of the accused No. 1 was segregated from accused Nos. 2 to 4. The learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that in Exhibit-14, it is categorically mentioned that accused No. 1 - husband Maheshbhai was physically beating the deceased and, therefore, accused No. 1 was responsible for the offence punishable under Section 498-A. Surprisingly, the learned Judge went to the extent to come to the conclusion that from the statement of deceased Renukaben, it appeared to learned Judge that she had other alternatives about the cruelty meted out upon Renukaben but she did not avail such alternatives and committed suicide and, therefore, none of the accused could be held responsible for the offence punishable under Section 306, but even then, the learned Judge further observed that though in present time it was futile to imagine that husband was Ram and wife was Sita, but even then, it was the duty of the husband to protect wife from all other harassment and she could be respected and that husband should not give any physical or mental harassment to the wife. The husband was in this case i.e. accused No. 1 was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A. There was no evidence so far as alleged offence under Section 201 was concerned and, therefore, none of the accused was also held guilty for the said offence. For the above reasons, the learned Trial Judge came to the above conclusion and awarded punishment of only three simple days to accused No. 1 and acquitted all the accused including accused No. 1 for all other charges.
24. It is necessary therefore for us to first scan and scrutinize the evidence on record as against all the accused. Undoubtedly, what we found is the evidence of PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, ASI, who recorded the statement of the deceased and Exhibit-14 statement of the deceased, which may be termed as dying declaration. There is no law that dying declaration before the Police Officer could not be believed. It is also not the law that only because statement was recorded in narrative form instead of question and answer form, such dying declaration was vulnerable.
25. It is relevant to notice here the law as to appreciating the dying declaration. Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible evidence and unless evidence is tested by cross-examination, it is not credit worthy. Under Section 32, when a statement is made by a person as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstances, which result in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question, such a statement, oral or in writing made by the deceased to the witness is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence. The statement made by the deceased falls in the category of dying declaration provided it has been made by the deceased while in a fit mental condition. It is well settled that conviction can solely be based on the dying declaration if it is proved that dying declaration is satisfactory and reliable. A dying declaration made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity, as at that solemn moment, the person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The sanctity attached to dying declaration is that a person on the verge of death would not commit sin of implicating somebody falsely. The shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of truth of the statement made by the deceased regarding cause of circumstances leading to his death. The general principle on which this species of evidence is admitted is that they are declarations made in extremity, when the person is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone. At that point of time every motive to falsehood is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the truth. Such a solemn situation is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath administered in a court of justice. A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the statement of dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it becomes very important and reliable piece of evidence and if the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment such a dying declaration by itself can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration. However, if there are any infirmities of such nature warranting further assurance then the courts have to look for corroboration. The rule of corroboration requires that the dying declaration be subjected to close scrutiny since the evidence is untested by cross-examination. The declaration must be accepted unless such declaration can be shown not to have been made in expectation of death or to be otherwise unreliable. Any evidence adduced for this purpose can only detract its value, but does not affect its admissibility. It is also well settled that it is not necessary that recording of dying declaration should be in the form of question and answer. One of the important tests of reliability of dying declaration is that, it must be satisfied that the deceased who offered dying declaration was in a fit state of mind. Generally, the following three tests have been devised in judicial pronouncements in order to answer the question whether the dying declaration is true:
1. Was the victim in a position to identify the assailant's?
(2) Whether the version narrated by the victim is intrinsically sound and accords with probabilities?
(3) Whether any material part is proved to be false by other reliable evidence.
26. In light of above principles, Exhibit-14 dying declaration will have to be considered and re-appreciated. In the instant case, to ascertain the truth with reference to Exhibit-14 dying declaration made by the deceased, only evidence available is PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, ASI, who recorded the dying declaration and the statement itself is required to be evaluated. The general tenure has to be judged from other circumstances arising out of the probability of the case to ascertain whether any part of such statement of the deceased is in contradiction. It is necessary therefore to look at Exhibit -14 and free translation of Exhibit-14 is as under:
16th December, 1997. My name is Renukaben, wife of Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel by caste; aged 20; occupation household; resident of Panchot Ramjibhai Temple, Taluka District Mehsana.
On inquiry, I voluntarily state that I reside at the above address with my husband and is doing household work. My marriage took place before two years. I have a child i.e. female child, named as Gudi. My parental home is at Visnagar. Name of my father is Patel Natvarlal Tribhovandas. My husband has been serving at Africa and for last two/three months he has come to native at Panchot. My husband upon instigation of my mother-in-law doubts my character and executes mental cruelty upon me. My husband physically beats me. Since last three days my husband, my mother-in-law Shardaben Ranchhodbhai, my father-in-law Patel Ranchhodbhai Hargovanbhai were extremely harassing me and upon instigation of my parents-in-law, my husband is beating me. This quarrel is continuing since last three days. Therefore, as a last resort, today at about 1.30 p.m. at my in-laws house at village Panchot on account of harassment of these people, I poured kerosene about five liters from one kerva upon me and ignited myself. So, I started burning. While I was burning, my husband tried to quench the flames but burns were on whole over my body. At present I am admitted in civil hospital and my treatment is going on. I was shifted into Prabhudas Hospital. At present I am fully conscious and in fit state of mind. The above said statement of mine is fully true and except that there is no reason.
The above mentioned facts was read over to me by you and, therefore, I subscribe my thumb impression to the statement.
In the above statement at Exhibit-14, leg thumb impression appears the signature of the deceased and one more signature appears and that has been explained by PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai is the signature of treating Doctor which is subscribed at 14.30 hours.
27. Now with reference to Exhibit 14, if the evidence of Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, who recorded the statement along with other circumstances of the case is considered, it makes crystal clear that the allegations of utmost cruelty committed by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is amply proved. PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai stated on oath that he was in Civil Hospital on 16th of December, 1997 and Doctor treating the deceased requested him to record the statement of patient. In corroboration at Exhibit-15, entry of station diary register is produced wherein it has been also mentioned that a yadi to the Executive Magistrate was also directed to be forwarded for recording dying declaration by Executive Magistrate. Now, what we found from the record about the injuries received by the deceased are burns on whole over body, deep in nature. There was 90% burns which is evident from the postmortem note produced on record. Therefore, it appears that instead of waiting for the Executive Magistrate to reach at the Hospital, having regard to the burn injuries received by the deceased, Doctor must have requested PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai to record the statement of the deceased and what is sated by PW-4 at Exhibit-13 is that he inquired from the patient Renukaben and obtained answer and thereafter in narrative form, according to the directions, his Writer recorded the statement of Renukaben. PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai also stated that Renukaben was in fit state of mind, fully conscious and was in position to speak. Not only that, but this witness further states that he obtained left leg thumb impression of patient because her both hands were burnt. This fact is corroborated by postmortem note. The witness has also stated that Exhibit-14 statement of Renukaben was recorded by him in the presence of the Doctor and in token of that, Doctor also signed Exhibit-14 dying declaration which he identified. In his cross-examination, he has been alleged about how instead of him his Writer had recorded the statement. He has replied satisfactorily about this aspect and there is no reason to doubt the dying declaration and recording of it by the Writer as per the direction of PW-4. Nothing could be shown on record that dying declaration was vulnerable or unreliable only because it was written by Writer of PW-4. It is the common practice that such police officers are assigned with the Writers, who are doing writing work. Above all, in appreciation of the circumstances of the case, it must be noted that PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai is exclusively an independent witness and he has no axe to grind against any of the accused nor such an allegation worth the name could be brought out on record by the defence. There is no reason therefore why this witness should not be believed and recording of statement of this witness, leaves no manner of doubt that he reached at about 2.00 p.m. at the hospital and recorded the statement soon after the incident as dictated by the deceased and the answers extracted by this witness from questionnaires. In cross-examination, he denied that before recording of the statement, he did not take precautions. It is not necessary that Doctor should always certify as to the mental fitness of the patient. It is a question of fact and from the circumstances and appreciation of evidence, if the court is satisfied that the deceased was in fit statement of mind to offer dying declaration, it is not rule of law that a medical opinion is a must to give credence to dying declaration. We found nothing in the cross-examination to dislodge what is stated by independent witness PW-4 Hargovanbhai. When he states that he recorded the statement of the patient in the presence of the treating Doctor, and she was in position to speak and in fit mental status to give the statement, inevitable conclusion would be that deceased was fully conscious and in fit mental condition. This is more probable because the statement is recorded within an hour of the incident. On the contrary, in the cross-examination, he has stated that the patient was required to be shifted to Ahmedabad Hospital for further treatment, it was not prudent to wait for Executive Magistrate to get dying declaration recorded by him. What appears from the deposition of PW-4 Hargovanbhai is hard realty and extreme truth and nothing but the truth that he recorded the statement at Exhibit-14 as deposed by him. Necessary it is to note here that even in the Trial Court, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that dying declaration was in fact recorded by PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai and was reliable piece of evidence, but while arguing the Criminal Revision Application for enhancement of sentence to accused No. 1, learned Advocate for the accused in this appeal argued for acquittal in an enhancement of sentence proceedings. Though learned Advocate for the accused vehemently attacked Exhibit-14 and the evidence of PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai, we do not find any substance in the argument that Exhibit-14 lacks certification of expert medical evidence that patient was in fit state to offer dying declaration. This probability must be disregarded and discarded as overwhelming evidence of PW-4 and circumstances of the case warrants that an independent witness i.e. PW-4 is a reliable witness and his evidence must be believed. Other wise also, nothing is brought on record to discredit this witness. Necessary it is here therefore to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Laxman v. State of Maharashtra as reported in : 2002CriLJ4095 . Hon'ble Apex Court decided that it was for the court to decide whether patient was in fit state of mind while offering dying declaration. The court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration, looks up normally to the medical opinion, but where the eye witnesses said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail nor can it be said that there is no certification of the Doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. It is also decided in the said decision that there is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to the Magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a Magistrate, there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidentiary value of weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is essentially required is that the person who records the dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit statement of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even without examination by the Doctor, the declaration can be acted upon, provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. The certification by the Doctor is essentially the rule of caution and therefore voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise also.
28. Thus, the present case is still at better footing. Not only the eye witness i.e. PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai deposes about the fit statement but he also states that all the while treating Doctor was present when dying declaration was recorded and treating Doctor signed the statement. PW-4 Hargonvanbhai Mohanbhai also stated that it was Doctor who requested him to record the statement. This overwhelming evidence about reliability and truthfulness of dying declaration and fit state of mind could not be dislodged by defence as there is no iota of fact brought to the record by the defence to even think otherwise. It is a separate issue as to whether the signing Doctor in the statement could not be examined by the prosecution. This question essentially relates to maltreatment and mal-conducting by concerned prosecutor of the trial, abandoning the role assigned to him and assuming a role of defence lawyer. The question is by not examining the Doctor, whether any doubt arises as to reliability of the deposition of PW-4 Hargovanbhai Mohanbhai and the dying declaration which he recorded. As we have extensively appreciated this aspect, we come to the conclusions that there is nothing on the record that in the absence of such certification or in the absence of examining such Doctor, any shadow is cast on the dying declaration and upon the creditworthiness of PW-4, the inevitable conclusion is that Exhibit-14 dying declaration is amply proved and no doubt in any manner arises as to truthfulness of this dying declaration and consequently we are unable to uphold the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused in this respect nor the following decisions cited by the accused side is helpful to the accused. These decisions are:
i) in the matter of Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P. as reported in AIR 1999 SC 3235;
ii) in the matter of Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar as reported in : 2001CriLJ2556 ;
iii) in the matter of Chacko v. State of Kerala as reported in : 2003CriLJ441 ; and
iv) copy of judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, AP decided on 26th of September, 2007.
The above said decisions are on the facts of the particular case, but in the present case, as stated above, considering the evidence as to dying declaration from all corners, there is no room of doubt that Exhibit-14 Dying Declaration is proved beyond doubt.
29. Now, with reference to appeal against the acquittal, ascertaining and re-appreciating the evidence, it is certainly proved that death of deceased Renukaben was suicidal death. Clinching evidence in this respect is dying declaration Exhibit 14 wherein Renukaben stated that she poured kerosene of quantity of about five liters and ignited herself. As above stated, this dying declaration is proved, suicidal death is also proved by the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Sureshkumar Manibhai Nayak, who had conducted postmortem and opined that death was due to burn injuries. Not only that, but it is an admitted fact as the accused has also stated that deceased had committed suicide. This is evident from the cross-examination of the witnesses conducted by the defence wherein it has been specifically asked by the counsel of the defence that on account of deceased being emotional and since Maheshbhai refused her to take to Africa, she committed suicide. Above all, in further statements of the accused, they have categorically stated that Renukaben had committed suicide. This is, therefore, an admitted fact and admitted facts need not be proved, though in the present case, as afore-stated there is overwhelming evidence to come to the conclusion that deceased committed suicide. It is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that death of the deceased Renukaben was a suicidal death.
30. Now in respect of the issue of cruelty executed by the accused upon deceased, Exhibit-14 is sufficient evidence that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 executed physical as well as mental harassment upon the deceased Renukaben. The phrase used in dying declaration is 'shanka kushanka' necessarily connotes only meaning that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were doubting her character. Not only that she has also stated that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were doubting her character and upon instigation of them, accused No. 1 was physically beating her. This was the scenario soon before the death continuously for three days preceding the incident. This fact is amply proved. This is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 Pravinkumar Gandalal Patel, examined at Exhibit-11 and PW-3 Puriben Pravinkumar Patel, examined at Exhibit-12. Though, none of these two witnesses supported the prosecution case, but in cross-examination of prosecution, they admitted that they had entered into compromise with the accused and then the question arises that what compromise was entered into between these two witnesses and the accused. The only inference would be, the compromise was in respect of cruelty executed by the accused upon the deceased and about committing suicide by Renukaben on account that cruelty. This is more amplified by the witnesses when they stated that compromise was executed on account of daughter of deceased. The hostile witnesses to that extent can be taken in consideration for the search of truth and this version corroborates the prosecution case that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 executed cruelty to the extent of physically beating deceased on account of which Renukaben committed suicide. In our humble opinion, there cannot be any better evidence than this of cruelty executed upon Renukaben by accused Nos. 1 2 and 3. Doubting character and physically beating for three days to wife and daughter-in-law, undoubtedly, means willful conduct of such a nature likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The whole issue is required to be evaluated in the perspective of the facts of the case and surrounding circumstances that a woman having span of two years married life, living without her husband for most of the times and when her husband comes from Africa for three months, her in-laws instigates her husband and doubting her character. This follows physical beating and mental harassment by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It must be noted that the parents of the deceased are mentally disordered and she was brought up by her maternal aunt who could not support her version after death. A Hindu wife, placed under such dire circumstances, has no place to go in this world and when such kind of cruelty is executed upon her, in ordinary course, there would not have been any other alternative except to commit suicide and to end her life. It must also be noted that the deceased was a mother of a child of two years and therefore unless grotesque and intolerably horrible circumstance appears for her to face, she would not commit the suicide even thinking and considering about her infant female child. All these circumstances necessarily led us to the only conclusion that the deceased was very badly, physically as well as mentally harassed by her in-laws and her husband. Cruelty as envisaged by Section 498-A is amply proved not only against accused No. 1 but as against accused Nos. 2 and 3 as well. We cannot accept this submission of learned Counsel because attempt on the part of accused No. 1 to extinguish burning wife may be a human impulse and not exonerating accused No. 1 from the allegation of cruelty, which is proved beyond doubt. In short, when cruelty is proved and when death is under suspicious circumstances and established to be a suicide, we do not find any reason not to raise presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This explains the reasons assigned by the Trial Judge that there was no willful or intentional act to drive the deceased to suicide on the part of accused No. 1. On the contrary, when presumption arises in the above said circumstances that accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 by willful and intentional act, had driven the deceased towards suicide, it becomes the burden of the accused to dislodge this presumption. As afore-stated, there is no iota of any evidence by which this presumption stands rebutted.
31. Now, considering the above discussion, it has been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution evidence that the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 executed cruelty upon deceased Renukaben and that Renukaben committed suicide on account of that cruelty, which we have discussed earlier. Now the question is how to evaluate these circumstances. Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom has enacted Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which mandates the Court that the Court may presume having regard to all the other circumstances of the case that the suicide taken place had been abetted by husband or by such relative of the husband of the deceased wife. No doubt in deciding whether permissive presumption of fact as envisaged in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act should be invoked in any particular case, the court will have to be circumspect and consider the attending facts and circumstances of the case. When it is proved that the character of the deceased was doubted and it is proved that she was physically as well as mentally treated with cruelty and when it is proved beyond doubt that she committed suicide, there cannot be any other conclusion in the present case except to invoke the permissive presumption in this case. Once this presumption is invoked, the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the circumstances to rebut the presumption. In the present case, we do not find any probable explanation on the part of any of the accused even on preponderance of the probability that either the death of the deceased was not suicidal or that the suicidal death was not on account of cruelty on the part of the accused. This is a case wherein direct evidence of dying declaration is available. The statement of deceased is found reliable to the extent to have proved beyond doubt that cruelty was committed by accused Nos. 1 2, and 3 within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. If the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is invoked about the suicidal death of deceased, there is no other explanation by the accused on record to explain the death of the deceased. This is more so when the suicidal death is admitted by the accused. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Judge ought to have held that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 as well are guilty of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and all the three accused i.e. 1, 2 and 3 to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, instead, the learned Trial Judge, for the flimsy reasons assigned, as stated above, acquitted all the accused, as afore-stated and convicted the accused No. 1 only for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and that too, for three days simple imprisonment, which he had already undergone. We may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in that regard in the matter of Ananda Mohan Sen and Anr. v. State of West Bengal as reported in (2007) 10 SCC 774, wherein marriage span was within seven years and it was proved that physical as well as mental cruelty was inflicted on deceased by accused immediately before her death. In that case, husband had fled from the house after the incident. The Apex Court held that Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 1872 was attracted and onus shifted on the accused to show that the death was accident in nature. In this case, the Apex Court also observed that it was difficult to believe that an educated woman would take poison accidentally and that prosecution had established the ingredients of offences falling both under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case on hand also, the marriage span was within seven years cruelty is proved through dying declaration and supporting evidence, death of the deceased, admittedly was suicidal death and this is a fit case therefore to invoke presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The accused have failed to discharge the burden upon them to explain the death of the deceased. On the contrary, they admitted that the death of the deceased was suicidal one. In ordinary circumstances, as above stated, the lady having a female child of two years, would not resort to suicide only because her husband stated her that it would take little time to take her to Africa along with him. It is difficult to believe this theory of the defence. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have committed not only the offence under Section 498-A but under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as well. Though there is no evidence worth the name as against accused No. 4, sister-in-law of the deceased and her acquittal is required to be confirmed.
32. However, when we entertain and consider the appeal against the acquittal, we need to embark upon the fact that the reasoning assigned by the Trial Judge is perverse and not sustainable in law. To our surprise, as afore stated, the Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the dying declaration was amply proved, even then, the role played by accused Nos. 2 and 3 has conveniently been ignored by the Trial Judge. To our further surprise and shock, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that doubting character of wife, beating wife continuously for three days and harassing her mentally are ordinary skirmishes and wear and tear of married life. We have not come across any such cases that, ordinarily, in all the families, wives' characters are ordinarily doubted and wives are beaten. The learned Trial Judge, however, completely, therefore, came to perverse conclusion to the extent that instead of Renukaben resorting to other alternative, wrongly resorted to the alternative of suicide. This conclusion of the learned Trial Judge is most perverse, which is not only violating all principles of criminal justice system, but violating of all accepted social norms and sanctity. Here, we feel that, the impugned judgment and order including the reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the Trial Judge is absolutely perverse.
33. Unmerited acquittals are equally affecting the society like conviction of an innocent persons. Powers given to the trial judge in our criminal justice system should be understood in the background of its evolution and roles and interrelationship of the functionaries under the criminal justice system which ultimately protects the interest of society. The reputation and credibility of our criminal justice system depends a lot upon the functioning of our trial judges who must know that justice should not only be done but should be shown to have been done. This is possible only if the Trial Judge shows to the world that his independence and impartiality could not be questioned. This is possible when trial judge achieves and maintains a balance by developing an attitude of detachment. In our humble opinion, this detachment means to keep effectively away from the role of a prosecutor or defence at a bay. This is at least expected from the trial judge. From the close scrutiny of the facts of this case it appears that to come to the conclusion that deceased did not resort to other alternatives and that doubting character of a wife and committing cruelty upon her, were ordinary wear and tear of a family life, amounts to in our humble opinion, to assume the role of defence by the Trial Judge, making his conclusion perverse to the extent that society in general is affected. Criminal Justice System deals complex human problems and diverse human beings. Witness may turn hostile and may reconcile when search for the truth is vigorously undertaken through instrument of criminal law. It becomes therefore the pious duty of the judge presiding over the criminal trial to appreciate the evidence from all corners instead of making it suitable to the defence side. The courts exists for doing justice to the persons who are affected. Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. This could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law. The need of hour in criminal courts is 'robust judgment'. The Trial Judge is the linchpin in every case even when there is no express evidence on record. It is stated that the good trial judge needs to have a third ear to hear and comprehend what is not said. When in this case, we find that there is express evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime, that has been twisted to the convenience of the accused. To find out the truth and to punish offenders adequately is the prime duty of the Trial Judge. Instead, we find 'made to measure' conclusion of the Trial Court convenient to the accused to the extent that the learned Trial Judge ignored the role played by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and role played by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of driving the woman to commit the suicide, even though, the learned Trial Judge believed the truthfulness and credibility of the dying declaration. There cannot be any other example of perversity of the conclusion than the case at hand and, therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the judgment and order impugned ignoring the fact that accused Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as well as ignoring the fact that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code is wholly perverse, not sustainable in law, against the evidence on record and causing failure of justice and, hence, this conclusion of acquittal is required to be set aside. We make it again clear that there is no evidence at all against respondent No. 4 Patel Ashabhai Pankajbhai and her acquittal is confirmed. Consequently, so far as, Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2005 filed by the State is concerned, Appeal has to be allowed and after setting aside the order of acquittal, except in respect of accused No. 4, we come to the conclusion that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are as well guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A to read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, there is no evidence for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and, hence, the acquittal of all the accused for the said charge is required to be confirmed.
34. Now, we come to the Revision Application No. 642 of 2007. While admitting the Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2005, Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the punishment awarded to accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is meager and insufficient and, therefore, a Notice was issued to accused No. 1 for enhancement of sentence, which was registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 642 of 2007 and the powers of the Court under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code was exercised. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, punishment as prescribed by law is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. However, the learned Trial Judge in 'made to measure' judgment and ignoring the sentencing policy, awarded three days simple imprisonment to accused No. 1 and fined accused No. 1 for Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of seven days. Knowing fully well that the original accused No. 1 has remained in jail for three days as under-trial. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has even tried to see that accused No. 1 has not to go to jail again. Sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code only for three days simple imprisonment is nothing but a mockery of justice. It clearly appears that the learned Trial Judge measured the sentence to be awarded to the accused No. 1 not in terms of settled principle of sentencing system, but by an yardstick of how many days accused No. 1 had undergone during trial and, therefore, three days imprisonment, that is apparent from the record of the case.
35. It is settled law that punishment of a crime must be in proportion to the gravity of the offence. This is the crime against the society. Law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. This could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Undoubtedly, protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. The edifice of social order should meet the challenges confronting the society and, therefore, law should adopt the proper machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix to establish law and order in society. Undue sympathy towards criminal proclivity would be more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. The duty therefore is cast upon the court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence, the manner in which it was executed or committed. It must be noted that individual status of criminal in society or the consequence of the crime committed are never relevant consideration in penology, but it is the proportion between the crime and punishment which is the goal to be achieved.
36. In the matter of Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. as reported in : 2006CriLJ1132 , the Apex Court has observed in paras 9 and 10 as under:
9. Criminal law adheres in general principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is correctional needs of perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of this crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just deserts as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread.
10. Proportion between the crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction, drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for many serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences.
37. The socio economic status, religion, race caste or creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminals is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence, commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of the heinous crimes and in this case a bride burning. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the courts. To show mercy in the case of such type upon the criminal would be a travesty of justice and leniency would be misplaced. In the matter of State of Karnataka v. Raju as reported in : 2007CriLJ4700 the Apex Court again in paras 13 and 14 reiterated the above principles about sentencing system.
38. Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. When statute provides and define crime in respect of matrimonial relationship and also provides sentence for making of a well-knit, healthy and not a disturbing and porous society, it becomes the duty of the courts to respond to the cry of the society in awarding appropriate and adequate sentence.
39. Therefore, in view of what is stated above and for the reasons mentioned, three days simple imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court to accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is nothing but travesty of justice and enhancement of such sentence is justified in all respects and, therefore, we propose to allow Criminal Revision Application 642 of 2007 and direct to enhance the sentence awarded to accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We have extensively heard learned Advocate for the accused No. 1 in this regard, as afore stated.
40. Now, Criminal Misc. Application No. 14954 of 2007 is required to be dealt with. This Application is preferred by the accused for additional evidence to be recorded as per the provisions of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mostly, the applicants submit that it is the duty of the prosecution to bring the truth on record, but scrutiny of the evidence on record and certain documents referred in the paper book prepared by the State of Gujarat, some papers are found un-exhibited and were not given to the petitioners with the charge sheet papers and some witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution failed to bring on record treatment papers of Renukaben from Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. A vardhi recorded by the Police Constable of the Civil Hospital, OPD, on the day of the incident which is at Sl. No. 7 of list of documents at Exhibit-7 denotes that CMO Dr. Ritaben Shah from Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, informed this Constable that Renukaben was brought to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad with burn injuries inflicted upon her while she was cooking on stove and, therefore, this application by accused with a request to examine Dr. Ritaben Shah, CMO, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, Police Constable Jivrajkumar, Shahibaug Police Station, Head Constable Arvindsinh Natwarsinh Gohil of Shahibaug Police Station as additional evidence. It is also submitted that Chinubhai Naranbhai, who had brought Renukaben to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, be also examined.
41. After hearing both the sides in respect of this application, it becomes clear that this Application is based on cryptic vardhi noted by Constable of Shahibaugh Police Station in which he noted the fact that Dr. Ritaben Shah informed him that Renukaben had been burnt on account of stove while she was cooking, her clothes caught the flames from the stove, which was never the case of the defence from the very beginning or even in further statements recorded of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Firstly, it is incorrect statement in the application that some papers are not assigned or given to the accused with the charge sheet papers. It is clear that Exhibit-7 document list is on record and those documents mentioned in Exhibit-7 list must have been given to the accused. In the Court of learned J.M.F.C., the accused were asked about the police papers, wherein each of the accused stated that they had received such papers. While Exhibit-7 was brought on record, none of the accused objects on the ground at that juncture of time that no such documents which were brought on record were given to the accused with charge sheet papers. It is settled law that any document which does not form part of the charge sheet cannot be brought on record without the permission of the Trial Court. The list is exhibited and some of the documents from that documents list are also exhibited establishes that the copies of the papers containing in Exhibit-7 were given to the accused and, therefore, neither accused took any exception for production of such documents nor prosecution asked for the permission because those papers form part of the charge sheet and, therefore, it is wrong to say that the papers were not given to the accused.
42. However, the whole application is based upon the fact that Head Constable noted the vardhi that Dr. Ritaben Shah informed him that Renukaben had burnt while she was cooking on stove. As stated here-in-above, it is to be noted that it was never the case of the defence that the deceased had burnt while she was cooking on stove nor even in their further statements recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
43. Now, we shall examine the merits of the application with reference to Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
44. Granting discretion upon appellate court to take further evidence in an appeal is an exception to the general rule that an appeal must be decided on the evidence which was before the trial court. Therefore, the discretion conferred must always be exercised with circumspection and for meeting the ends of justice. Additional evidence be permitted only when it is the requirement of the Court to elucidate truth or when interest of justice demands such a course. The discretion in shape of exception is vested therefore to be exercised in rarest of rare cases and such exercise must avoid arbitrariness and according to recognised cannons of criminal justice system.
45. The object paramount must be to see that justice is done between the prosecutor and the person prosecuted. Meaning thereby that the object of the Section is nothing but the prevention of a guilty person's escape through some careless or ignorant proceedings of a trial court or the vindication of a wrongfully accused person's innocence, where the same carelessness or ignorance has omitted to record circumstances essential to the elucidation of truth. The additional evidence can be permitted at the instance of the prosecution as well as the defence. It is known celebrated principle of law that discretion under this Section should not be exercised for the purpose of filling a gap in the prosecution case when the necessary evidence was available to the prosecution at the hearing and ought to have been produced then. Likewise, defence should not also be permitted to tender such evidence when the evidence in defence was available to the defence at the hearing of trial and ought to have been produced then.
46. The word 'necessary' employed in the Section does not import that it is impossible to pronounce judgment without the additional evidence (AIR 1965 SC 1987). Broadly, the principle to allow fresh evidence in Appeal can be summarised as under:
i. The evidence sought to be called must be evidence which was not available at the trial;
ii. the evidence must be relevant to the issues;
iii. it must be credible evidence in the sense of being well capable of belief;
iv. the Court will after considering that the evidence to go on to consider whether there might have been reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant if that evidence had been given together with the other evidence at the trial.
It must be noted that the provision has mandated the courts that whenever additional evidence is permitted, reasons for the same should be recorded.
47. Thus, the application has no merit in the first place because it is an admitted fact and proved as an admitted fact that Renukaben met with suicidal death. The question of accidental death of Renukaben on some cryptic entries of some Head Constable must not dislodge the proved facts on record in form of admission. This is the prime reason for rejecting this Criminal Misc. Application. It is utmost necessary to be noted that in further statement of each of the accused recorded accused themselves admitted that Renukaben died on suicidal death. Panchnama of scene of offence at Exhibit-17 establishes that Renukaben had committed suicide. In this panchnama, sister of the accused made a statement before the panchas that Renukaben had committed suicide. In the panchnama it is a statement that floor of the scene of offence was smelling of kerosene. This overwhelming evidence of suicidal death necessarily discards all probabilities that Renukaben had met with an accidental death. The entry and yadi upon which this application is based, is cryptic and having no evidentiary value, in view of thumping evidence on record to the extent of admission of the accused that Renukaben committed suicide and, therefore, this application must meet with the fate of rejection only. It is necessary to note that the accused had filed this Application and when accused prays for additional evidence, it must be meant that the accused intends to adduce defence. In the trial if we scrutinize the evidence on record and the stand taken all throughout the trial by the accused, it is apparent that the defence of the accused was that Renukaben wanted to go to Africa and her husband accused No. 1 stated that it would take time to take Renuka to Africa and Renukaben being emotional, she took this ill and committed suicide. It is nowhere right from beginning it is the case of the defence that Renukaben died on account accidental death while he was cooking on a stove. This probability otherwise also is required to be discarded on account of thumping evidence on record about suicidal death of Renukaben as discussed in detail as above. As regards panchnama, it has been stated that it has not been proved according to law. When we noticed the evidence of PW-5 Vikaramsinh Arjunsinh Rahevar, Investigating Officer, this panchnama is exhibited and no objection at all was taken by the defence side. Meaning thereby that once the document is exhibited, it's contents is read in evidence. Neither a single question is asked by the defence to the Investigating Officer that no such panchnama was prepared by the I.O. nor any objection for exhibiting panchnama Exhibit-17 was taken by defence. No such question was asked to any of the witnesses including Investigating Officer by the defence that Renukaben died accidental death on account of stove while she was cooking. Cryptic entry made by the Head Constable in yadi of Shahibaugh Police Station appears to be manipulation and we have no reason to bring on record such irrelevant and uncreditworthy evidence at the instance of the accused at this stage. Lastly it must be stated that Exhibit-10 entry was made available to accused and they knew before trial about contents of Exhibit-10 yadi of Head Constable, Ahmedabad. Accused did not prefer to lead evidence in this respect during trial and now accused cannot be permitted to lead that defense by way of additional evidence because Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates the court to record the reasons for allowing the application for bringing further evidence. We do not find a single reason to bring on record further evidence as the evidence available on record is in the form of dying declaration as well as by the admission of the accused. The application, therefore, requires to be rejected, for the above stated reasons. The decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the applicants - accused are (i) in the matter of Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of W.B. as reported in AIR 1965 SC 1887; (ii) in the matter of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. State of Maharashtra as reported in : 1971CriLJ1188 ; (iii) in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal as reported in : 1987CriLJ1061 ; (iv) in the matter of Rambhau v. State of Maharashtra as reported in : 2001CriLJ2343 , not helpful to the accused in respect of this application.
48. We are at pain to observe that the role of prosecuting agency during the trial along with the Trail Judge appears to be dubious. We find that besides Exhibit-14 dying declaration there was available evidence on record to prove the factum of cruelty and death of Renukaben, but was not brought on record by the prosecuting agency, instead, all concerned were in hurry to finish the case in a day. After framing of the charge on 7th of January, 2005, witnesses came to examined on the same day, further statements of accused were recorded, arguments were heard and judgment impugned was delivered by Trial Judge on the same day. As stated here-in-above in para-2, on 1.1.2005, the prosecution requested to issue witness summons upon witnesses shown in the charge-sheet at Sl. No. 1 to 6 and 16 to 23 and the witness summons were also issued. However, on 07.1.2005, in all only five witnesses came to be examined by the Trial Court, and out of which, two witnesses, who were the relatives of the deceased i.e. maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the deceased, turned hostile. Still, the prosecution submitted closing purshis stating that besides whatever evidence was adduced by the prosecution, it did not intend to lead further evidence and declared the evidence of the prosecution to be over and thereby dropped the other witnesses. It is prerogative of the prosecution to whom they should examine, but we are at pain to observe that neither the learned Trial Judge nor the learned APP endeavoured to find out the truth by probing further the case. Instead, as soon as, the witnesses, who were the relatives of the deceased, turned hostile, the Trial Court as well as the learned APP shut the doors towards their pious and prime duty to search for the truth and the trial was closed in extreme hurry. It is not the law that when some of the witnesses turned hostile, the court should abandon the search for the truth and the learned APP should become oblivious to put forward the whole prosecution case and instead of adducing further evidence for search of truth, simply giving purshis in the case to lock the whole case in a cup board so as to ignore completely the heinous crime like abetting a helpless woman (wife) to commit suicide, committed under the nose of the society. It appears that the Trial Court has failed to perform its duties to reach to the real truth and to convict the accused. It is in the interest of justice that the trial should be conducted on day-to-day basis, but at the same time it must be seen that justice must not be victimized at the unscrupulous treatment to the trial by prosecuting agency. It becomes the duty of all concerned to bring on record sufficient evidence. Fortunately, in this case, valuable piece of evidence i.e. dying declaration could be proved, beyond doubt and ultimately the case is proved.
49. True that criminal justice deals with complex human problems and diverse human beings. On account of relations, witnesses may turn hostile and witnesses may resile when search for the truth is vigorously undertaken through instrumentality of criminal law. In trials, therefore, it becomes the duty of the Judge presiding over a criminal trial, to appreciate the evidence from all corners, and if the evidence is not produced, though available, then, the same could be produced. The courts exist for doing justice to the persons who are affected. As afore-stated, the crimes of such nature like murder are affecting the society. The court is not merely to act as a tape recorder recording the evidence, overlooking the object of trial i.e. to get at the truth. The courts cannot be oblivious to the active role to be played, for which there is not only ample scope but sufficient powers are conferred under the Code. The court has a greater duty and responsibility to render justice in a case where it appears that the role of the prosecuting agency itself is dubious. The courts are expected to perform its duties and functions effectively and true to the spirit with which the courts are sacredly entrusted the dignity and authority and an alert judge actively participating in court proceedings with a firm grip on oars enables the trial smoothly to reach at the truth. The interest of the parties in conducting the trial in such a way so as to gain success is understandable, but the obligation of the Presiding Judge to hold the proceedings as to achieve the dual objectives i.e. search for truth and delivering pure justice cannot be subdued. Wherever necessary, even courts are empowered to curb perjury. This is a fact that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath, make false statements to suit the interest of the parties. Effective and stern action is required to be taken on such a stand, which may be taken upon the witnesses. The mere existence of penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence.
50. We find to our utter shock that so far as this Appeal is concerned, the role of prosecuting agency also appears stigmatic. Witnesses are the eyes and ears of the justice. If the witnesses are incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears, the trial gets putrefied and paralyzed and cannot be termed as a fair trial. It does not appreciable in the present case, why, in spite of the fact that, many witnesses were issued witness summons at the instance of the prosecution, subsequently, only five witnesses came to be examined, out of which, two witnesses, the relatives of the deceased, turned hostile, the learned APP submitted closing purshis, dropping the other witnesses by submitting that the prosecution does not want to lead any further evidence. It is the cardinal principle of law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the court. It is also required to be noted that the prosecution submitted a list of 17 documents to be produced and exhibited. However, the learned Trial Judge exhibited only four documents and other documents which are vital or important documents, were not exhibited by the learned Trial Judge, in spite of that, the learned APP did not raise any objection and was satisfied with exhibiting of only four documents. Undoubtedly, therefore, the role attributed to the learned APP in this trial has been eschewed in hurry of disposal of the trial or for some other reasons, which has resulted in failure of justice.
51. It is known and cardinal principle of evidence that even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, the conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff in coming to the conclusion of truth. It also becomes the duty of the court to take into consideration of relevant evidence available and courts are empowered to produce on record such evidence if the prosecution failed in their duties to produce such evidence. The conclusion of a criminal trial must be the outcome of cool deliberations and the scanning of the material by the informed mind of the Judge that leads to determination. How can a prosecuting agency or concerned Trial judge afford to be so perfunctory in dealing with the criminal trial of grave crime of murder.
52. Necessary it is therefore to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar as reported in : 2002CriLJ2645 . In paras 75 and 76, the Apex Court observed as under:
75. It is matter of common experience that in recent times there has been sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross- examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces as astute lawyer, there is found to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurence or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers and muscle men or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune from decline of values in public life. Their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in a casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time.
76. Thus, in a criminal trial a prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The Court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. These days when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Now the maxim 'let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted' is, in practice, changing world over and courts have been compelled to accept that 'society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals'. I find this Court in recent times has conscientiously taken notice of these facts from time to time. In the case of Inder Singh and Anr. v. State (Delhi Administration) : 1978CriLJ766 , Krishna Iyer, J. laid down that 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes.' In the case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh : 1989CriLJ88 , it was held that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. : 1994CriLJ2104 , it was held that Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. In the case of Mohan Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. : 1999CriLJ1334 , it was held that the courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused.
53. In the case of Zahira Habibulla Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in : 2004CriLJ2050 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasion to deal with the role of the Public Prosecutor. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Public Prosecutor is not supposed to be a persecutor, yet the minimum that was required to be done, to fairly present the case of the prosecution, was not done. It is further observed that it is as much the duty of the Prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and courts should not also play into the hands of such persecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness. In the present case, the Public Prosecutor appears to have acted more as a defence counsel than one whose duty was to present the truth before the Court.
54. K. Lack of 'robust judging' has stated in criminal courts need of the hour is 'robust judging'. The trial judge is the linchpin in every case, and he has also its eyes and ears. He is not merely a recorder of facts but a purveyor of all evidence, oral and circumstantial. It is said by him that a good trial judge needs to have a 'third ear' i.e. hear and comprehend what is not said. When a material eye witness, whose beloved relative has been murdered and who has identified the accused in his police statement says in his/her evidence at the trial that he cannot recall the faces or names of anyone, this must obviously excite suspicion in the mind of a truth seeking judge; he (or she) must probe further and question the witness (even if the prosecutor does not do so), as to why he had so stated before the police shortly after the incident and whether he had met with anybody before giving evidence in court or had been tutored or compelled to say what had been just deposed to. No new law is required for this. Only common sense and acquaintance with the facts of life. After having found that the witnesses who were already examined, the relatives of the of the deceased turned hostile on 7.1.2005, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have been alerted. The learned Sessions Judge, on its own, ought to have exercised the powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and examined those witnesses who were already issued the summon witnesses. As stated here-in-above, not only the learned Sessions Judge has failed to exercise powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but even has not bothered to exhibit the relevant documentary evidences which were already on record, which if exhibited, would have been fatal to the evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, ought to have appreciated that that his duty was to find out the truth of what actually occurred.
55. Thus, in the present case, we found that prime and pious duty of the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence for the search of truth is abandoned. However, in hurry of disposal of the case or for some other reason, the learned Sessions Judge has disposed of the trial and acquitted the accused.
56. For the above said reasons, we come to the following conclusions:
i. Criminal Appeal No. 1346 of 2005 stands allowed and the acquittal order containing in the impugned judgment and order of the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the charges under Section 306 is set aside and accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 to read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. That the order of acquittal of the judgment and order impugned in respect of accused No. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A is set aside and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A to the read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
ii. Acquittal of all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed as well as acquittal of accused No. 4 - Ashaben Pankajbhai of all the charges is confirmed.
iii. Criminal Revision Application No. 642 of 2007 is allowed and we conclude that sentence awarded to accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is insufficient and is required to be enhanced appropriately.
The matter be posted for hearing the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of quantum of sentences to be awarded to each of these three accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code to read with Section 114 of the IPC.
57. After pronouncing the judgment in above three matters, learned Advocate Mr. Vijay H. Patel for H.L. Patel Advocates seeks time for submissions to be made in respect of quantum of sentence to be awarded to accused No. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of the offences under Sections 498A and 306 r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter is posted on 18th June, 2008 for this purpose and for pronouncing of final order of sentence. It must be noted that in no case, the matters shall be adjourned on that day.
58. Today, learned advocate Mr. V.H. Patel on behalf of the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Sessions Case No. 249 of 2004 about the quantum of sentence submitted that none of these three accused has any criminal antecedents to the extent that not even any minor crime is registered against any of such accused. It is further submitted that accused No. 1 husband Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel has also received injuries in the incident and ultimately what is proved is abetment and not the direct offence. It is vehemently urged that the original accused No. 2 Patel Ranchhodbhai Hargovanbhai and No. 3 Patel Shardaben Ranchhodbhai both are aged persons and that their case be considered for benefit of probation. As against that learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Sunit Shah submitted that sentencing policy of criminal justice system recognizes two principles and those are gravity of the offence and proportionate punishment to the offender. It is submitted that applying these principles, appropriate punishment is required to be awarded to each of the accused found guilty.
58. After hearing both the learned Counsels on the quantum of sentence, we come to the conclusion that the grounds that the guilty has no antecedents or the offenders are aged persons have no relevance whatsoever to the sentencing policy. Whatever we have stated in this judgment about the sentencing policy and basing our view upon the principles as laid down by noted two Apex Court decisions (i) in the matter of Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. as reported in : 2006CriLJ1132 and (ii) in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Raju as reported in : 2007CriLJ4700 , the punishment should be in proportion to the crime and according to the gravity of the offence. Other factors do not concern while deciding the quantum of sentences.
59. In view of he above, for the offence punishable under:
Section 498(A) to r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, accused No. 1 Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai, No. 2 Patel Ranchhodbhai Hargovanbhai and No. 3 Patel Sharadaben Ranchhodbhai each is sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand Only], in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Likewise, for the offence punishable under Section 306 to r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, each of the accused No. 1 Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai, No. 2 Patel Ranchhodbhai Hargovanbhai and No. 3 Patel Sharadaben Ranchhodbhai is sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand Only], in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. It is required to be noted that this is not a fit case to even consider giving benefit of probation to the offenders in view of the gravity of the offence and under the circumstances, it is proved that the said offence is committed.
60. Upon request of learned advocate for the accused, time of eight weeks from today is granted to the accused No. 1 Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai, No. 2 Patel Ranchhodbhai Hargovanbhai and No. 3 Patel Sharadaben Ranchhodbhai to surrender before the trial Court for serving of the sentences.