Page 1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1973-1974 OF 2008
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchodbhai
and others !! A""ellants
#ers$s
State o% &$'arat !Res"ondent
JUDGMENT
M.Y. EQBAL J.
This is an e(ce"tional case )here this Co$rt has ta*en
serio$s note+ the )a, the Sessions J$d-e dis"osed o% the
Sessions case )ithin a "eriod o% nine da,s+ )hich can be
brie%l, narrated herein.belo)/
01!20!0334/ Char-es )ere %ra5ed and the case )as
ad'o$rned to 2!2!0336!
2!2!0336/ Prosec$tion "rod$ced list o% 20 )itnesses
7!2!0336/ The "rosec$tion "rod$ced 6 )itnesses+
)ho )ere e(a5ined+ and re5ainin-
2
Page 2
dro""ed! On the sa5e da,+ acc$sed
)ere e(a5ined $nder Section 828+
Cr!P!C!+ ar-$5ents heard and '$d-5ent
)as deli9ered ac:$ittin- all the acc$sed!
All acc$sed )ere ac:$itted+ e(ce"t the 5ain acc$sed
;h$sband<+ )ho )as con9icted $nder section 41=A+ IPC to the
"eriod alread, $nder-one since he re5ained in 'ail %or three
da,s! In the a""eal arisin- o$t o% said '$d-5ent at the
instance o% the State+ the Hi-h Co$rt in the i5"$-ned
'$d-5ent dated 2>!>!033= has also ta*en note o% this %act
and %inall, re9ersed trial co$rt?s %indin-s o% ac:$ittal a-ainst
all the acc$sed and con9icted the "resent a""ellants.
acc$sed o% the char-es $nder Section 83> read )ith Section
224 o% Indian Penal Code+ as also con9icted a""ellant.
acc$sed no!0 ;%ather.in.la) o% the deceased< and a""ellant.
acc$sed No!8 ;5other.in.la) o% the deceased< %or the
o%%ence "$nishable $nder Section 41=A o% the Indian Penal
Code! The Hi-h Co$rt also enhanced the sentence a)arded
to A""ellant.acc$sed No!2 ;H$sband o% the deceased< %or the
0
Page 3
o%%ence "$nishable $nder Section 41=A o% Indian Penal Code!
The a""ellants ha9e been directed b, the Hi-h Co$rt to
$nder-o ri-oro$s i5"rison5ent o% se9en ,ears )ith total %ine
o% Rs! 26+333@.! The trial co$rt had ac:$itted all the acc$sed
e(ce"t acc$sed no!2 ;h$sband<+ )ho )as con9icted %or
o%%ence $nder Section 41=A+ IPC and sentenced hi5 %or three
da,s si5"le i5"rison5ent+ )hich )as alread, $nder-one b,
hi5!
0! The %acts leadin- to the "rosec$tion stor, "ertains to
the 9illa-e Panchot o% Mehsana District+ &$'arat+ )here on
2>!20!2117 s$icide )as co55itted b, one lad, Ren$*aben
Maheshbhai Patel+ )ho )as 5arried to a""ellant no!2 %or t)o
,ears be%ore the incident! Fro5 this )edloc*+ co$"le had a
%e5ale child! A""ellant no!2.h$sband o% deceased had been
ser9in- in A%rica and be%ore three 5onths o% the incident+ he
had co5e to 9illa-e Panchot! It is alle-ed that
a""ellant@acc$sed No!8 ;5other.in.la) o% deceased< )as
do$btin- the character o% the deceased and s$b'ected her to
8
Page 4
5ental cr$elt,+ and the deceased )as also constantl,
beaten b, her h$sband! Prosec$tion case is that "recedin-
three da,s o% the incident+ all the three acc$sed "ersons+
)ho are a""ellants be%ore $s+ )ere e(tre5el, harassin- the
deceased and $"on insti-ation o% a""ellant nos!0 and 8+
h$sband.a""ellant no!2 had been beatin- deceased
Ren$*aben+ )hich contin$ed %or three da,s! On acco$nt o%
this and co5"ellin- circ$5stances+ on 2>!20!2117+ at abo$t
28!83 ho$rs+ Ren$*aben+ at her in.la)s ho$se+ "o$red
*erosene o% the :$antit, o% %i9e litres $"on her and i-nited
hersel% and conse:$entl, she started b$rnin- in %la5es! Her
h$sband ;2
st
a""ellant< i55ediatel, tried to sa9e the
deceased and it has co5e to the e9idence that )hile 5a*in-
s$ch an atte5"t+ the 2
st
a""ellant also s$%%ered in'$ries!
Therea%ter+ she )as ta*en to &eneral Hos"ital o% Mehsana in
a5b$lance and )as treated b, Dr! A!A! Aa"adia and he
%o$nd b$rns on all o9er her bod,+ dee" in nat$re!
4
Page 5
8! In the 5eanti5e+ Mehsana Tal$*a Police Station )as
in%or5ed and ASI PB4 reached at the E5er-enc, o% the
Hos"ital )here Ren$*aben )as ad5itted and her treat5ent
)as -oin- on! The Doctor )ho )as attendin- Ren$*aben
re:$ested ASI Har-o9anbhai to record her state5ent! The
said "olice o%%icial+ there%ore+ thro$-h his )riter recorded the
state5ent o% 9icti5 Ren$*aben in a 5anner that he as*ed
:$estions+ )hich she ans)ered and he -ot it noted thro$-h
his )riter! The deceased had stated in her d,in- declaration
that her 5arria-e )as sole5niCed t)o ,ears be%ore the
incident ;i!e! in the ,ear 2116< and o$t o% that )edloc* she
had a %e5ale child! She stated that her h$sband had
ret$rned to 9illa-e Panchot %ro5 A%rica abo$t three da,s
be%ore the incident! In the state5ent+ she narrated the stor,
that she )as harassed b, the a""ellants on acco$nt o%
s$s"icion on her character and d$e to 5ental as )ell as
"h,sical cr$elt,+ she co55itted s$icide! Accordin- to
a%oresaid "olice o%%icial ;PB4<+ Ren$*aben )as in a %it 5ental
6
Page 6
condition to -i9e ans)ers and in to*en o% it+ Doctor.in.char-e
"$t his si-nat$re on the state5ent and therea%ter th$5b
i5"ression o% her le- )as obtained since %in-ers o% both o%
her hands )ere distorted b, b$rnin-! U"on this+ a cri5e
ca5e to be re-istered a-ainst %o$r "ersons incl$din-
a""ellants herein! The %o$rth acc$sed )as sister.in.la)!
Therea%ter+ in the e9enin-+ on the ad9ice o% the Doctor+
Ren$*aben )as shi%ted to Ci9il Hos"ital o% Ah5edabad %or
%$rther treat5ent+ )here she died d$rin- treat5ent at abo$t
21!23 ho$rs!
4! Therea%ter+ char-e.sheet ca5e to be s$b5itted a-ainst
all the %o$r acc$sed in the Co$rt o% Chie% J$dicial Ma-istrate+
Mehsana+ )ho co55itted the case to the Co$rt o% Sessions
at Mehsana! Sessions J$d-e+ Mehsana %ra5ed char-es
a-ainst all the acc$sed on 01!20!0334 %or the o%%ences
"$nishable $nder Sections 41=A+ 83>+ 032 and 224 o% the
Indian Penal Code! On 2!2!0336+ the "rosec$tion s$b5itted
a list o% abo$t 20 )itnesses to be e(a5ined on behal% o% the
>
Page 7
"rosec$tion and Sessions J$d-e iss$ed )itness s$55ons!
On 7!2!0336+ in all+ %i9e )itnesses ca5e to be e(a5ined b,
the Sessions Co$rt and the rest o% the )itnesses ca5e to be
dro""ed b, the "rosec$tion! O$t o% the %i9e )itnesses+ t)o
5ain )itnesses i!e! 5aternal $ncle and 5aternal a$nt o% the
deceased t$rned hostile! Des"ite this+ the "rosec$tion
s$b5itted closin- purshis on the 9er, sa5e da, and the
re5ainin- )itnesses a-ainst )ho5 )itness s$55ons )ere
alread, iss$ed+ ca5e to be dro""ed! On 7!2!0336+
A""lication E(hibit.7 )as s$b5itted on behal% o% the
"rosec$tion b, )hich the "rosec$tion s$b5itted a list o% 27
doc$5ents to be "rod$ced alon- )ith the necessar,
doc$5ents! Ho)e9er+ Sessions J$d-e e(hibited onl, %o$r
doc$5ents! On 7!2!0336 itsel%+ %$rther state5ents o% the
acc$sed $nder Section 828 o% the Code o% Cri5inal
Proced$re ca5e to be recorded! On the 9er, sa5e da,+ the
ar-$5ents on behal% o% the "rosec$tion as )ell as the
de%ence ca5e to be heard b, the Sessions J$d-e and on that
7
Page 8
da, itsel%+ Sessions J$d-e+ Mehsana ac:$itted all the acc$sed
%or the o%%ences "$nishable $nder Section 83> read )ith
Sections 224 and 032 o% the Indian Penal Code and also
ac:$itted acc$sed nos!0 to 4 %or the o%%ence "$nishable
$nder Section 41=A+ IPC and con9icted the acc$sed no!2.
h$sband %or the o%%ence "$nishable $nder Section 41=A+ IPC
b, i5"osin- "$nish5ent o% three da,s si5"le i5"rison5ent
and %ine o% Rs!8+333@.! At this sta-e+ it is "ertinent to note
that since acc$sed no!2 )as in c$stod, as $ndertrial "risoner
%or three da,s+ he )as not re:$ired to s$rrender to 'ail %or
"$nish5ent on de"ositin- the a5o$nt o% %ine i5"osed!
6! Dissatis%ied and a--rie9ed b, the decision o% the trial
co$rt+ the State "re%erred Cri5inal A""eal No!284> o% 0336
a-ainst all the %o$r acc$sed+ )hich )as ad5itted and the
Hi-h Co$rt iss$ed suo motu notice %or re9isin- the sentence
a)arded to acc$sed no!2 ;h$sband< and the sa5e )as
re-istered as Cri5inal Re9ision A""lication No!>40 o% 0337!
=
Page 9
A%ter thoro$-hl, a""reciatin- entire e9idence on record )ith
re%erence to a""eal a-ainst ac:$ittal+ enhance5ent %or
re9ision a""lication and also )ith re%erence to the
a""lication %iled b, the acc$sed %or add$cin- additional
e9idence+ the Hi-h Co$rt too* into consideration the broad
and reasonable "robabilities o% the case arisin- o$t o% the re.
a""reciation o% the e9idence on record and other 9ital
circ$5stances s$rro$ndin- the essence o% the trial! A%ter
hearin- learned co$nsel on either side and re.a""reciatin-
the e9idence+ the Di9ision Dench o% the Hi-h Co$rt allo)ed
the a""eal o% the State and held a""ellants herein -$ilt, and
con9icted the5 o% the char-es $nder Section 83> read )ith
Section 224+ IPC and also con9icted acc$sed no!0 and 8 %or
the o%%ence "$nishable $nder Section 41=A+ IPC! The Hi-h
Co$rt+ allo)in- a%oresaid suo motu re9ision a""lication+
enhanced the i5"rison5ent o% a""ellant@acc$sed no!2
;h$sband< to RI o% se9en ,ears!
1
Page 10
>! Hence "resent a""eals b, s"ecial lea9e b, the acc$sed
"ersons+ 9iC!+ h$sband+ %ather.in.la) and 5other.in.la) o%
the deceased!
7! Mr! Ni*hil &oel+ learned co$nsel a""earin- %or the
a""ellants stron-l, s$b5itted that the Hi-h Co$rt %elt
an-$ished b, the %act that the "rosec$tion had dro""ed
9ario$s )itnesses and the trial co$rt e(a5ined these 6
)itnesses and co5"leted the trial )ithin one da,! Learned
co$nsel 9ehe5entl, contended that instead o% re5andin-
the 5atter bac* and )itho$t allo)in- an, %$rther e9idence+
the Di9ision Dench o% the Hi-h Co$rt $"t$rned the ac:$ittal
based solel, on E(hibit 24+ the d,in- declaration! It is
%$rther contended that the deceased )as ta*en to the Ci9il
Hos"ital o% Mehsana at or abo$t 8!33 PM and )as shi%ted at
>!33 PM to Ah5edabad at a distance o% abo$t 63 *5s! In a
s5all "lace li*e Mehsana+ it )o$ld not ha9e been di%%ic$lt %or
an,bod, to in%or5 the E(ec$ti9e Ma-istrate )ithin this -a"
o% %o$r ho$rs! Neither the Doctor nor the )riter )as
23
Page 11
e(a5ined! In %act+ the ASI ;PB4<+ )ho )as literate and )as
able to )rite+ had no occasion to ta*e ser9ices o% a )riter
and then not to e(a5ine hi5! It is %$rther contended that
there )as no certi%icate abo$t the co5"etenc, o% the
deceased to de"ose! The b$rns )ere sho)n to the e(tent
that the th$5b i5"ression o% the hand also co$ld not be
ta*en! The d,in- declaration )as at 9ariance to the other
e9idence!
=! Learned co$nsel %$rther contended that e9en ass$5in-
that PB4 read )ith E(!24 can be belie9ed as an ad5issible
"iece o% e9idence+ the contents thereo% cannot be said to
attract the in-redients o% either Section 41=A or Section 83>!
In the d,in- declaration itsel%+ the deceased had 5entioned
that )hen she tried to b$rn hersel%+ it )as the 2
st
a""ellant
)ho i55ediatel, tried to sa9e her! The e9idence o% PB6
sho)s that the 2
st
a""ellant s$%%ered b$rn in'$ries )hile
5a*in- an atte5"t to sa9e the deceased! It is %$rther
contended that the e9idence o% PB0 and PB8 also s"ea*
22
Page 12
abo$t the 5ental %ra5e o% the deceased as also a "ossible
reason %or )hich she 5ade an atte5"t to co55it s$icide!
PB0 and PB8+ 5aternal $ncle and 5aternal a$nt+ ha9e
raised the deceased as their o)n child in an e9ent$alit,
)here the "arents o% the deceased )ere 5entall, $nstable!
It )as s$b5itted that d,in- declaration 5a, be s$%%icient to
con9ict the h$sband b$t 5a, not be s$%%icient %or con9iction
o% other acc$sed $nder Section 83> IPC!
1! Lastl,+ learned co$nsel s$b5itted that once ha9in-
%o$nd that the e9idence )as not "ro"erl, lead b, the
"rosec$tion+ the Hi-h Co$rt o$-ht to ha9e balanced the
ri-hts o% the acc$sed and the Hi-h Co$rt has erred in not
re5andin- the 5atter bac* to the trial co$rt! The
a9ailabilit, o% other e9idence )o$ld ha9e also en$red to the
bene%it o% the a""ellants! Learned co$nsel %$rther
s$b5itted that s$ch an o""ort$nit, )as denied to the
20
Page 13
"resent a""ellants and the con9iction )as ret$rned "$rel,
on con'ect$res and s$r5ises!
23! Learned co$nsel relied $"on the '$d-5ent "rono$nced
b, this Co$rt in Govindaraju vs. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722
!"#$%&'# (")*# +. !,*,' -. /*#0*%* ;0322< 23 SCC 278
and R*)'s1 (")*# +.!*,,' -. C11*,,$s2*#1 ;0332< 1
SCC >2=!
22! Per contra+ learned co$nsel a""earin- %or the State
contended that PB0 and PB8+ both 5aternal $ncle and
5aternal a$nt o% the deceased+ did not s$""ort the
"rosec$tion case+ b$t the "rosec$tion case )as a5"l,
"ro9ed b, the d,in- declaration+ )hich is the correct
de"iction o% the incident+ strai-ht)a, %ro5 the 5o$th o% the
deceased soon a%ter the incident! It is %$rther contended
that in the "resent case+ )hen there is an o9er)hel5in-
e9idence b, )hich the "rosec$tion case is a5"l, "ro9ed+ the
:$estion o% additional e9idence+ and that too+ necessar,
28
Page 14
additional e9idence )o$ld not arise at all! Bhat had been
a9erred in the a""lication a""ears to be an a%tertho$-ht
de%ence o% the acc$sed+ )hich co$ld not be "laced d$rin-
trial!
20! The learned co$nsel dre) o$r attention to "ara-ra"h 82
o% the i5"$-ned '$d-5ent statin- that this is a %it case to
in9o*e Section 228.A o% the Indian E9idence Act+ 2=70! The
acc$sed ha9e %ailed to dischar-e the b$rden $"on the5 to
e("lain the death o% the deceased! On the contrar,+ the,
ad5itted that the death o% the deceased )as a s$icidal one!
In ordinar, circ$5stances+ the lad, ha9in- a %e5ale child o%
t)o ,ears+ )o$ld not resort to s$icide onl, beca$se her
h$sband stated to her that it )o$ld ta*e little ti5e to ta*e
her to A%rica alon- )ith hi5! It has been contended b, the
learned co$nsel that the Hi-h Co$rt+ there%ore+ ri-htl, ca5e
to the concl$sion that the a""ellants co55itted not onl, the
24
Page 15
o%%ence $nder Section 41=A b$t also $nder Section 83> o%
the Indian Penal Code!
28! A%ter hearin- learned co$nsel %or the "arties and
"er$sin- the "a"ers incl$din- the i5"$-ned order+ )e are in
con%or5it, )ith the o"inion and concl$sion o% the Di9ison
Dench o% the Hi-h Co$rt! The co$rts are e("ected to
"er%or5 its d$ties and %$nctions e%%ecti9el, and tr$e to the
s"irit )ith )hich the co$rts are sacredl, entr$sted )ith the
di-nit, and a$thorit, and an alert '$d-e acti9el,
"artici"atin- in co$rt "roceedin-s )ith a %ir5 -ri" on oars
enables the trial s5oothl, to reach at tr$th! In the "resent
case+ the trial co$rt has %ailed to "er%or5 its d$ties to reach
to the real tr$th and to con9ict the acc$sed! As obser9ed b,
the Hi-h Co$rt+ )e are also at "ain to notice that the role o%
"rosec$tin- a-enc, d$rin- the trial alon- )ith the trial '$d-e
a""ears to be d$bio$s! Desides d,in- declaration+ there )as
a9ailable e9idence on record to "ro9e the %act$5 o% cr$elt,
and death o% Ren$*aben+ b$t it )as not bro$-ht on record b,
26
Page 16
the "rosec$tin- a-enc,! Instead+ all concerned )ere in
h$rr, to %inish the case in a da,! Prosec$tion s$b5itted a list
o% 27 doc$5ents to be "rod$ced and e(hibited+ b$t the trial
J$d-e e(hibited onl, %o$r doc$5ents and "rosec$tion also
did not raise an, ob'ection!
24! As obser9ed b, this Co$rt in the case o% Zahira
Habibulla Sheikh & anr. vs. State of Gujarat & ors.,
;0334< 4 SCC 26=+ the "rosec$tor )ho does not act %airl, and
acts 5ore li*e a co$nsel %or the de%ence is a liabilit, to the
%air '$dicial s,ste5+ and Co$rts co$ld not also "la, into the
hands o% s$ch "rosec$tin- a-enc, sho)in- indi%%erence or
ado"tin- an attit$de o% total aloo%ness! Co$rt has a -reater
d$t, and res"onsibilit, i!e! to render '$stice+ in a case )here
the role o% the "rosec$tin- a-enc, itsel% is "$t in iss$e and is
said to be hand in -lo9e )ith the acc$sed+ "aradin- a 5oc*
%i-ht and 5a*in- a 5oc*er, o% the cri5inal '$stice
ad5inistration itsel%! As s$ccinctl, stated in Jennison vs.
2>
Page 17
Baker ;All ER "! 233>d< EThe la) sho$ld not be seen to sit
b, li5"l,+ )hile those )ho de%, it -o %ree+ and those )ho
see* its "rotection lose ho"e!F Co$rts ha9e to ens$re that
acc$sed "ersons are "$nished and that the 5i-ht or
a$thorit, o% the State is not $sed to shield the5sel9es or
their 5en! It sho$ld be ens$red that the, do not )ield s$ch
"o)ers )hich $nder the Constit$tion ha9e to be held onl, in
tr$st %or the "$blic and societ, at lar-e! I% de%icienc, in
in9esti-ation or "rosec$tion is 9isible or can be "ercei9ed b,
li%tin- the 9eil tr,in- to hide the realities or co9erin- the
ob9io$s de%iciencies+ co$rts ha9e to deal )ith the sa5e )ith
an iron hand a""ro"riatel, )ithin the %ra5e)or* o% la)! It is
as 5$ch the d$t, o% the "rosec$tor as o% the co$rt to ens$re
that %$ll and 5aterial %acts are bro$-ht on record so that
there 5i-ht not be 5iscarria-e o% '$stice!
26! Be are o% the o"inion that the Di9ision Dench o% the
Hi-h Co$rt has correctl, re.a""reciated the e9idence on
27
Page 18
record and re9ersed the ac:$ittal decision o% the trial co$rt!
Be conc$r )ith the %indin-s o% the Hi-h Co$rt that in the
"resent case+ "ri5e d$t, o% the trial co$rt to a""reciate the
e9idence %or search o% tr$th is abandoned and in a h$rr, to
dis"ose o% the case or %or so5e other reason+ the Sessions
J$d-e had dis"osed o% the trial and ac:$itted the acc$sed!
2>! In 9ie) o% the abo9e+ )e do not %ind an, reason to
inter%ere )ith the i5"$-ned decision o% the Hi-h Co$rt! The
Cri5inal A""eals are accordin-l, dis5issed and the bail
bonds o% the acc$sed.a""ellants stand cancelled! The, shall
s$rrender %orth)ith to ser9e o$t the re5ainin- "eriod o% the
sentence+ %ailin- )hich+ the trial co$rt is directed to ta*e
a""ro"riate ste"s %or sendin- the5 to "rison to $nder-o the
re5ainin- "eriod o% sentence!
33333333333.J.
4M.Y. E56*78
2=
Page 19
33333333333.J.
4A61*0 M*%-1*# !*9#'8
Ne) Delhi+
Se"te5ber 0>+ 0324!

21
Page 20
03