MAHORSINH HOTAMSINH MAGHON RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed against the judgement and order dated 7. 6. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2001.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the appellant Mahorsinh Hotamsinh Maghon (Rajput) got married with Kirenben before six years and they were residing at Gandhinagar. Out of their wedlock, one daughter was born. It is further submitted that the wife of the appellant Kirenben was conceiving second time. It is further the prosecution case that on the date of incident i. e. on 20. 6. 2001 in the morning Kirenben went to the house of neighbour Pramodsinh for asking Rs. 100/- on credit. At that relevant point of time some dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased which could not be resolved even during the entire day. Because of that the appellant lost his temper and in the night at around 3 to 3. 15 a. m. when the deceased was sleeping he poured kerosene at her and due to that Kirenben got up from the bed and thereafter, it is alleged, the appellant set her at fire. She ran out of her house for the purpose of taking help. She was hospitalized in Civil Hospital at Gandhinagar. Thereafter, yadi was sent for the purpose of recording her dying declaration. The Executive Magistrate came and recorded her dying declaration in which she has narrated the entire incident. Later on she succumbed to her injuries. When the dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, as per doctor's evidence, she was conscious. On the basis of the dying declaration of the deceased, conviction order has been passed by the trial Court.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent State. The conviction is based on the bais of dying declaration. Dying declaration bas been recorded before the Executive Magistrate. We have been taken through the dying declaration. There is a clear assertion in the dying declaration against the accused that it was the accused who is responsible for the death of the deceased. No plausible cause has been shown on which it could be said that the dying declaration is not worthy reliable. In that view of the matter, when the dying declaration recorded before the Executive Magistrate which is neither tutoring nor any kind of embezzlement or embroidery being there, it cannot be said that the trial Court was in error in recording conviction of the appellant accused and sentencing imprisonment for life. In that background, we are of the considered view that the trial Court was right in recording the conviction. Accordingly, we agree with the findings of the trial Court.