Supreme Court - Daily OrdersIbrahim Ismail Bhatti vs State Of Gujarat on 6 December, 2023IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n                                        CRIMINAL APPEAL        NO.504/2012\n\n\n                IBRAHIM ISMAIL BHATTI                                             APPELLANT(S)\n\n                                                     VERSUS\n\n\n                STATE OF GUJARAT                                                 RESPONDENT(S)\n\n\n                                                   O R D E R1.       Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.2.       The appellant is the husband of the deceased who has\n\n                been convicted for the offence punishable underSection 302of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, ‘theIPC’).\n\n                According     to    the    prosecution,      on    31st    October,      1992    the\n\n                appellant     and    the   co-accused       (brother       of    the    appellant)\n\n                poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her to\n\n                fire.      The deceased was taken to hospital on the next day.\n\n                On 3rd November, 1992, on the basis of the statement of the\n\n                deceased     (Ex.51),      First   Information          Report    was   recorded.\n\n                According to the prosecution case, dying declaration was\n\n                recorded before the Executive Magistrate who was examined as\n\n                PW1.      The Trial Court convicted the appellant but acquitted\n\n                the      co-accused.       Conviction     of      the     appellant      has    been\n\n                confirmed by the impugned judgment.Signature Not Verified\n\nDigitally signed by\nGEETA AHUJA\nDate: 2023.12.11\n17:41:47 IST\nReason:13.     The    learned counsel           appearing for         the appellant        has\n\ntaken us to the notes of evidence. His first submission is\n\nthat the alleged dying declarations have been recorded three\n\ndays after the incident and there is no explanation of such\n\na delay.        Moreover, the deceased died within two hours of\n\nthe     dying        declaration    recorded          by    PW1.      Inviting     our\n\nattention       to    evidence     of    PW1,   it     is    submitted      that   the\n\nstatement       of    the    deceased     was    not       recorded    as   per    the\n\ndictation and there are additions made by PW1.                           He pointed\n\nout that two independent witnesses namely PW4 and PW5 who\n\naccording to the prosecution case doused the fire did not\n\nfully    support       the   prosecution        and,       therefore,    they      were\n\ndeclared as hostile witnesses.                  It is submitted that both\n\nthe witnesses were independent witnesses who did not depose\n\nthat    the     deceased     stated      that   the        appellant    had   poured\n\nkerosene on her. The submission of the learned counsel for\n\nthe appellant is that the dying declarations relied upon by\n\nthe prosecution cannot be believed at all.4.     We have carefully perused the depositions of PW1 and\n\nPW8.    PW8 is the Medical Officer who certified on the dying\n\ndeclaration recorded by PW1 that the deceased was fit enough\n\nto make a statement.               It is not possible to accept the\n\ncontention that something was added to the dying declaration\n\nto the deceased by PW1.                 In fact, PW1 has stated that the\n\naddition      made     by    him   was    as    per    the    dictation       of   the\n\ndeceased.25.    We    have    also     perused       the     deposition          of    Kanjibhai\n\nBijalbhai Patel, who recorded the statement of the deceased\n\nat Ex.51.      Hardly anything has come on record in the cross-\n\nexamination        which     will        create       any      doubt        about    the\n\ncorrectness of the dying declaration.                          There is an oral\n\ndying     declaration      made     by    the     deceased      before       Salemamad\n\nHussein Lohar (PW6).           Even the version regarding the oral\n\ndeclaration has not been shaken in the cross-examination.6.    Learned counsel invited our attention to Station Diary\n\nEntry of 3rd November, 1992 made in the afternoon by PSO\n\nattached to Bhuj Taluka Police Station.                     He pointed out that\n\nit   is    mentioned      therein    that       the    deceased      suffered       burn\n\ninjuries while she was making tea.                    Apart from the fact that\n\nthe entry is not made by a police officer who recorded the\n\nstatement     of    the    deceased,        the       mother    of     the    deceased\n\nAminaben (PW7) deposed that the deceased told her that she\n\nwas tutored to tell that she got burn injuries while she was\n\npreparing tea.7.    We find that there is no reason to disbelieve the three\n\ndying declarations (one oral and two written).                          Only because\n\nPW4 and PW5 were declared as hostile, we cannot ignore the\n\nevidence in the form of the three dying declarations.                                We,\n\ntherefore, find no error in the view taken by the Sessions\n\nCourt and the High Court.38.    At this stage, we may refer to the order dated 12th\n\nMarch, 2012 passed in this appeal while granting bail to the\n\nappellant.     Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said order read as\n\nunder:“5. The appellant has already completed about\n      13(thirteen) years and 4 (four) months of his\n      sentence. We are also informed by Ms. Wahi,\n      learned counsel appearing for the State of\n      Gujarat, that steps are being taken to release the\n      appellant   on   his   completion  of   14   years\n      imprisonment.6. Be that as it may, since the appellant has\n      already undergone a major part of the sentence,\n      let him be released on bail to the satisfaction of\n      the trial court and let not the same come in the\n      way of his release in terms of the decision of the\n      State Government.”9.    Though we are dismissing the appeal and directing the\n\nappellant to surrender, the benefit of pre-mature release\n\nwill have to be given to the appellant after he completes 14\n\nyears of actual imprisonment as conceded by the State in\n\nparagraph 5 reproduced above.10.   We dismiss the appeal.              We direct the appellant to\n\nsurrender    within   a     period   of    one   month   from   today   for\n\nundergoing the remaining sentence.11.   We    direct    the    respondent-State       to    implement     the\n\nassurance recorded on behalf of the State in paragraph 5 of\n\nthe order dated 12th March, 2012.412.   The   appeal   is   accordingly     dismissed.   Pending\n\napplication(s), if any, shall stand disposed of........................J.(ABHAY S. OKA)\n\n\n                                    .......................J.(PANKAJ MITHAL)\n NEW DELHI\n DECEMBER 06, 20235ITEM NO.105                COURT NO.8                      SECTION II-B\n\n                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F          I N D I A\n                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS\n\n                 CRIMINAL APPEAL       NO(S).   504/2012\n\nIBRAHIM ISMAIL BHATTI                                      Appellant(s)\n\n                                       VERSUS\n\nSTATE OF GUJARAT                                       Respondent(s)Date : 06-12-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today.\n\nCORAM :   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL\n\n\nFor Appellant(s)    Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR\n                    Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.For Respondent(s)   Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv.Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR\n                    Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.Ms. Srujana Suman Mund, Adv.UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following\n                               O R D E R\n\n    The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order which\n\nis placed on the file.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.(KAVITA PAHUJA)                                      (AVGV RAMU)\nCOURT MASTER (SH)                                  COURT MASTER (NSH)6