SHAILESHBHAI @ PAPPU BALUBHAI CHUNARA & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJRAT

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 1075 · Decided: 07-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 1075 
SHAILESHBHAI @ PAPPU BALUBHAI CHUNARA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJRAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1974 of 2012) 
AUGUST 07, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134, 323 and 114 - Murder -
Conviction and sentence u/ss. 302134, 323 and 114 on basis 
A 
B 
of dying declaration that accused persons poured kerosene C 
on victim and set her ablaze - Defence case that there were 
three inconsistent dying declarations - On appeal, held: Two 
doctors made an endor5ement respectively and the executive 
magistrate recorded the dying declaration - No inconsistency 
in the said recordings - Testimony of the magistrate reliable 
D 
as also testimony of victim consistent - Thus, order of 
conviction and sentence upheld - Evidence. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: On the scrutiny of the dying declaration, it is 
E 
found that .there is no inconsistency in all the recordings, 
namely, by doctor 'S', who had made an endorsement at 
the time of admission; doctor 'KP', who also made an 
endorsement and recorded three names; and the 
Executive Magistrate who had recorded the dying 
F 
declaration. Nothing has been brought on the evidence 
to discredit the testimony of the Executive Magistrate who 
recorded the dying declaration in questionnaire form. 
There was no circumstance from which it could remotely 
be inferred that she was tutored or her statement was 
G 
·embellished by any kind of influence. On the contrary, her 
testimony was consistent and, therefore, the reliance 
placed on the same by the trial judge as well as by the 
1075 
H 
\ 
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A High Court was absolutely impeccable and, therefore, 
there was no flaw in the judgment of conviction and 
order of sentence. [Paras 6, 14, 15] [1082-C-D; 1083-D-F] 
Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P 2004 (2 ) SCR 659: 
(2004) 9 SCC 713; Amo/ Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
B (2008) 5 SCC 469; Sharda v. State of Rajasthan 2009 (16) 
SCR 441: (2010) 2 SCC 85; State of Rajasthan v. Sharavan 
Ram & Anr. 2013 (5) SCR 1076: (2013) 12 SCC 255; Kam/a 
v. State of Punjab (1993) 1 SCC 1; Kishan Lal v. State of 
Rajasthan 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 517: (2000) 1 SCC 31 O; 
C State of A.P. v. P. Khaja Hussain 2009 (6) SCR 660': (2009) 
15 SCC 120; Laxmi (Smt) v. Om Prakash and others 2001 
(3) SCR 777: (2001) 6 SCC 118; Kundula Bala 
Subrahmanyam and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh 
1993 (2) SCR 666: (1993) 2 SCC 684 - referred to. 
D 
E 
Case Law Reference 
2004 (2 ) SCR 659 
(2008) 5 sec 469 
2009 (16) SCR 441 
2013 (5) SCR 1076 
(1993) 1 sec 1 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
F 
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 517 Referred to 
Para 7, 8 
Para 7, 9 
Para 7, 10 
Para 7 
Para 11 
Para 11 
Para 11 
Para 12 
Para 13 
G 
H 
2009 (6 ) SCR 660 
Referred to 
2001 (3) SCR 777 
1993 (2) SCR 666 
Referred to. 
Referred to 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURl9DICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1974 of 2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2012 in 
SHAILESHBHAI @ PAPPU BALUBHAI CHUNARA v. 
1077 
STATE OF GUJRAT 
Criminal Appeal No. 1644 of 2005 of the High Court of Gujarat 
A 
at Ahmedabad. 
Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Dr. Sushi! Kr. Gupta, Mridula Ray 
Bharadwaj, Manoj Kumar for the Appellants. 
Hemantika Wahi, Jesal, Puja Singh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this appeal, by special leave, the 
assail is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 
C 
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 accusedappellants guilty 
D 
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 
E 
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 
F 
alleged, the mother-in-law and brother-in-law had left them in 
the lurch and went to live elsewhere. On 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.