LexPATEL MAHESHBHAI RANCHODBHAI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 678
A
PATEL MAHESHBHAI RANCHODBHAI AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1973-1974 of 2008)
B
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014.
[M.Y. EQBAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
c
ss. 306 rlw s. 114 and s. 498-A -
Suicide by married
woman in her matrimonial home within three years of her
marriage - Dying declaration alleging harassment and severe
beatings - Conviction of husband and sentence of 3 days i.e.
the period already undergone - Acquittal of other accused -
0
Sentence of husband enhanced to 7 years by High Court in
suo motu revision - Acquittal of two other accused reversed
and sentence of 7 years RI imposed - Held: High Court has
correctly appreciated the evidence and reversed the acquittal
- Besides, the dying declaration, there was evidence on
E record to prove the factum of cruelty and death of deceased
- Revision.
CRIMINAL TRIAL
Sessions trial - Case uls 306, rlw s. 114 and s. 498-A /PC
F - Disposed of by trial court within a period of 9 days - Held:
High Court has rightly held that in the instant case, prime duty
of trial court to appreciate the evidence for search of truth is
abandoned and in a hurry to dispose of the case or for some
other reason, Sessions Judge disposed of the trial and
G acquitted the accused - Administration of justice - Duty of
court and prosecution - Emphasised.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the trial court has
H
678
PATEL MAHESHBHAI RANCHODBHAI v. STATE OF 679
GUJARAT
failed to perform its duties to reach to the truth and to A
convict the accused. As observed by the High Court, the
role of prosecuting agency during the trial along with the
trial judge appears to be dubious. Besides the dying
declaration, there was available evidence on record to
prove the factum of cruelty and death of the deceased, B
but it was not brought on record by the prosecution.
Instead, all concerned were in hurry to finish the case in
a day. Prosecution submitted a list of 17 documents to
be produced and exhibited, but the trial Judge exhibited
only four documents and prosecution also did not raise C
any objection. The Division Bench of the High Court has
correctly re-appreciated the evidence on record and
reversed the acquittal decision of the trial court. The High
Court has rightly held that in the instant case, prime duty
of the trial court to appreciate the evidence for search of 0
truth is abandoned and in a hurry to dispose of the case
or for some other reason, the Sessions Judge had
disposed of the trial and acquitted the accused. [para 13
and 15] [687-D-F; 688-E-F]
1.2. The courts are expected to perform its duties and E
functions effectively and true to the spirit with which the
courts are sacredly entrusted with the dignity and
authority and an alert judge actively participating in court
proceedings with a firm grip on oars enables the trial
smoothly to reach at truth. Courts have to ensure that F
accused persons are punished and that the might or
authority of the State is not used to shield themselves or
their men. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of
the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought
on record so that there might not be miscarriage of G
justice. [para 13 &14] [687-C-D; 688-B-D]
Zahira Habibul/a Sheikh & anr. vs. State of Gujarat & ors.
2004 (3) SCR 1050 = (2004) 4 sec 158 - relied on.
Jennison vs. Baker (All ER p. 1006d) - referred to.
H ·
680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 10 S.C.R.
A
Govindaraju vs. State 2012 (5) SCR 67 = (2012) 4 SCC
B
c
D
E
722, Surinder Kumar v.
State of Haryana 2001
(12) SCR 1205 = (2011) 10 SCC 173 and Ramesh Kumar
v.Satte of Chhattisgarh 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 247 = (2001)
9 sec 618 - cited.
Case Law Reference:
2012 · (5) SCR 67
cited
para 10
2001 (12) SCR "1205
cited
para 10
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 247 cited
para 10
2004 (3) SCR 1050
relied on
para 14
(All ER p. 1006d)
referred to
para 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1973-1974 of 2008.
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.06.2008 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1346
of 2005 and Criminal Revision Application No. 642 of 2007.
Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Marsook Bafaki {for Sheela
Goel) for the Appellants.
Nitin Sangra, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal, Preeti Bhardwaj for
F
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This is an exceptionalExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.