LexYOMESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR BHATT versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 5 S.C.R. 958 YOMESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR BHATT v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 2109 of 2009) MAY 19, 2011 . [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: C Article 136 and 142 - Limited notice issued in special leave petition - Power of Court to consider all issues while hearing the matter finally - HELD: In view of the inherent powers of the Court under the Rules and having regard to Article 142, the Supreme Court at the time of final hearing is o not precluded from considering the controversy in its entire perspective and in doing so, the Court is not inhibited by.any observation in an order made at the time of issuing the notice - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Or.47, rr. 1 and 6 - Inherent powers of Supreme Court. E Penal Code, 1860: s. 304 (part II) - During an altercation accused pouring kerosene on victim and setting her on fire resulting in her death - HELD: There being no eye-witness, the case is based F on circumstantial evidence and statements of deceased in the dying declarations - Accused had no pre-mediation to kill the deceased or cause any bodily injury to her - The incident happened on the spur of the moment - The case falls u/s 304(part II) - The sentence of 11 years and 2 months already G undergone by the accused is more than sufficient - Circumstantial evidence. H The appellant was prosecuted for committing an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. The prosecution case 958 . YOMESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR BHATT v. STATE OF 959 GUJARAT was that on the day of incident, the woman working as a A maid in the house of the appellant did not turn up. He, accompanied by one 'AP', went to her house, which was nearby. An altercation took between the maid and the appellant. The appellant gagged the mouth of the maid, and emptied a can of kerosene on her and lit the B matchstick. PW-2, the elder sister-in-law of the victim, reached there after hearing shouts and made arrangem.ents for taking the victim for treatment. The victim made thr~e dying declarations. The first one was recorded when PW-2 took the deceased to the hospital c wherein the victim had informed the doctor that the appellant tiad sprinkled kerosene on her and set her on fire. The second and the third ones recorded by the PS1 and the Executive Magistrate, respectively were to the same effect. Thereafter, the victim lost her consciousness o and died six days later in an unconscious stage. The trial court convicted the accused u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence. In the special leave petition filed by the appellant, though the notice was confined only to the question as to whether the appellant was guilty of an c.ffence under an·y of the parts of s.304 IPC and not u/s 302, during the course of hearing it was contended for the appellant that E the Court at the time of final hearing was not bound with F the directions given while issuing notice, and the appellant was entitled to urge all questions including his right tO plead for his acquittal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decrees and may make such orders as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending G H 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A before it. It is, therefore, clear that the Court while hearing the matter finally, may pass such orders which the justice of the case demands and in doing so, no fetter is imposed on the Court's jurisdiction except, of course, any express provision of the law to the contrary. Any 8 observations which are made by the Court at the time of entertaining a petition by way of issuing notice are tentative observations. [para 9-10] [966-C-F] 1.2. It is also clear from 0. 47, r. 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 that the inherent powers of the Court C are saved under the Rules. In view of the inherent powers of the Court under the Rules and having regard to the constitutional provision under Article 142, the Supreme Court at the time of final hearing is not precluded from considering the controversy in its entire perspective and D in doing so, this Court is not inhibited by any observation in an order made at the time of issuing the notice. This Court is, therefore, entitled to consider the plea of the appellant for acquittal des
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.