DINESHBHAI KANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) Mr.Dipen Dave, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that as per the complaint, on 13.08.2020, the son of the complainant namely Vikram, after having his dinner, was sleeping in a room at Hanumanji Temple and on 14.08.2020, at around 2.00 a.m., the brother of the complainant informed him that his son Vikram was burnt in a room where he was sleeping. He was taken to Krishna Hospital in 108 ambulance and thereafter, the complainant's son was taken to Rajkot Hospital for further treatment and during the course of his treatment, he died there. Mr.Dave, referring to the FIR, submitted that the cause of incident was shown as the deceased having a love affair with the daughter of the accused No.1 Mahadevbhai since 4 years, and as per the prosecution, that was the motive to kill the complainant's son and under the conspiracy while the deceased was sleeping in a room at Hanumanji Temple, the accused locked the door from outside and threw petrol from the window with an intention to kill him.

(3.) Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that all the three accused were named in the FIR. The complaint has been given by the father of the deceased. There is an oral dying declaration which is a direct evidence and which discloses the motive of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the commission of the offence. The statements of witnesses are also corroborating the fact and the dying declaration is before the Executive Magistrate, which is an independent piece of evidence, and since the charge-sheet has been filed against them, Ms.Bhatt submitted that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.