- (1.)In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02/05/2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1644 of 2005, whereby the Division Bench, placing reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased Champaben, has affirmed the decision of the learned Trial Judge, who had found the accused-appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/34, 332 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC").
(2.)The broad essential facts, which need to be stated for the adjudication of this appeal, are that the deceased, Champaben, was staying with her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and children in a hut near the Water Tank, Macchipir Area, Baalvatika, Ahmedabad and the said hut was sold off by her mother-in-law. The said transaction had brought the deceased Champaben and her children to a miserable state of penury and eventually they were forced to live on the footpath. As alleged, the mother-in-law and brother-in-law had left them in the lurch and went to live elsewhere. On 13.12.2001, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused-appellants attacked her and gave her fist and kick blows and then A-3, namely, Chinabhai caught hold of her and Balubhai Hemabhai Chunara poured kerosene and set her ablaze. A- 2, Shailesbhai @ Pappu Balubhai Chunara, aided and abetted the offence. On the basis of the statement made by the deceased on 13.12.2001, the criminal law was set in motion and accused persons were arrested. The dying declarations of Champaben were recorded regard being had to her sinking condition. Eventually, she succumbed to her injuries on 22.12.2001.
(3.)After completing the investigation, the prosecution laid the chargesheet under Sections 302/34, 323 and 114 of the IPC before the competent Court which in turn committed the matter to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence brought on record and placing reliance on the dying declarations of Champaben, convicted the accused persons and imposed the sentence. Suffice it to say, all of them were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC, apart from separate sentence imposed under Sections 323 and 114 of the IPC. The learned trial Judge repelled the plea of the defence that there were three dying declarations and there was manifest inconsistency and hence, they did not deserve acceptance.