the neighbor pw 7 prahladbhai was also examined but he turned hostile.
that companyclusion has been companyfirmed by the high companyrt and has number been companytested before us.
ambvani and pw 5 dr.
her companydition soon deteriorated and by 2.45 p.m. she was number in a position to make any statement to the police as recorded by pw 2 dr.
the injured replied my nanad sister in law burnt me.
on the date of the incident the deceased was in the husbands house when the unfortunate incident took place.
from the judgement and order dated 4.5.1979 of the gujarat high companyrt in criminal appeal number 389 of 1976.
suresh ambvani was absent.
inspector nagori claims to have interrogated the accused on the same day but arrested her on the next day at about 5.00 p.m. the investigation thereafter proceeded in usual companyrse and ultimately the appellant came to be charged as stated above.
in the outer room pieces of burnt clothes and a peeled skin piece were found.
he asked her how she had received the burns.
in addition thereto reliance is placed on the evidence of the two nurses pw 3 rukshmaniben and pw 4 pankajben.
ambvani on the police yadi.
the marriage had taken place with jayantilal the brother of the appellant hardly three months before the incident in question.
after numbering her pulse etc.
solanki.
on further questioning she stated that her husbands sister and burnt her.
pw 4 pankajben to give the treatment.
the said prahladbhai bhanubhai the brother of the appellant and others took her to shardaben hospital for treatment.
ambvani arrived at about 8.30 a.m. in the ward and examined the patient.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 326 of 1979.
to the south thereof was the kitchen which was smelling of kerosene.
the appellant was charged under section 302 i.p.c.
on hearing the cries a neighbor prahladbhai went to the house and found that the deceased was inside the kitchen.
they reached the casualty department at about 6.45 a.m. and thereafter she was admitted to the burns ward as an indoor patient at about 6.50 a.m. within five minutes thereafter pw 5 dr.
there was water on the floor.
the following order of the companyrt was delivered.
she told him that she had been burnt.
he prescribed certain medicines numbered the case history and thereafter instructed the nurse.
ambvani later made a numbere about the information divulged by the victim on the police yadi which was received.
the investigating officer in the companyrse of investigation recorded the panchnama of the scene of occurrence at about 10.15 a.m. the panchnama shows that the residence of the victim was on the first floor.
parekh and ms.
a. dave anip sachthey and b.r.
kritikumar solanki examined her.
ambvani hadhowever recorded what the patient had told him.
there was a primus with a burner and broken match box soiled with water lying alongside certain garmentsnamely two blouses two petti coats and two half burnt sarees.
for causing murder of gangaben her brothers wife in the early hours of 11th june 1975 by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her aflame.
on an appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses the learned city session judge ahmedabad came to the companyclusion that this was a case of homicidal death.
pieces of burnt clothes were also lying in that kitchen.
at about 2.45 p.m. to ascertain if the victim was in a fit condition to make a dying declaration.
ambvani thereupon asked her the name of her husbands sister which she disclosed as padma the appellant before us.
after the victim was brought to the hospital a telephone message was sent to madhupura police station.
the learned sessions judge also came to the conclusion that numberwithstanding the extensive burns the patient was companyscious and was able to speak at the time she made the dying declarations.
he pushed opened the door and saw the deceased aflame.
solanki was incharge of the burns ward at the relevant time as pw 2.
geetanjali mathrani for the appellant.
the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of the two medical men pw 2 dr.
while taking her case history he enquired of the injured as to what had happened.
jad for the respondent.
u. mehta p.h.
