RAVAL VIJAYKUMAR AMBALAL Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal arises out of a judgment and order rendered by Sessions Court, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 169 of 2004 on 07/01/2005, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo RI for three years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default, to undergo SI for six months and further convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default, to undergo SI for two years. The Sessions Court, simultaneously, acquitted A -2 -Raval Lilaben Ambalal, mother of the appellant, who was also accused of the said charges. The prosecution case is that the appellant happened to be the husband of Ushaben and they were staying at Mumbai. Their marriage life was of about 12 years and from the said wedlock, deceased -Ushaben had delivered two children.

(2.) WE have heard learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for the appellant and Mr. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Mr. Parikh submitted that the entire case depends on three dying declarations allegedly made by the deceased. First being the history recorded by the Doctor, second being the dying declaration recorded before Executive Magistrate and third being the FIR, as recorded by the Police and given by the deceased. According to Mr. Parikh, these dying declarations are not consistent with each other and the facts emerging from the dying declarations, are not supported by independent witnesses and, therefore, the judgment may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted.

(3.) LEARNED APP has opposed this appeal. According to him, the three dying declarations are consistent in the main. The inconsistency, if any, is not in respect of cause of death, and even if ignored, the dying declarations reflecting the cause of death are consistent. The dying declarations are recorded by witnesses like Doctor and Executive Magistrate, who are independent persons and have no axe to grind against the accused and, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.