Division Bench Upholds Conviction in Fatal Kerosene-Setting; Dying Declaration and Corroborative Evidence Found Reliable

A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani heard the criminal appeal challenging a Sessions Court judgment convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC. The appeal arose from conviction and life sentence dated 22.11.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in Sessions Case No.161 of 2009; the appellant sought reversal of the conviction and sentence imposed for the death of Rayliben Rameshbhai Parmar.

The Bench dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and life sentence after re‑appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. The Court held that the prosecution proved the chain of events — the accused’s alleged pouring of kerosene on the sleeping victim and ignition with a match — by direct testimony, contemporaneous statements and medical evidence. The Court relied on the recorded dying declaration and its corroboration with earlier statements to investigators and eyewitness testimony, finding no material inconsistency to discard the evidence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Thus, from the aforesaid discussion made in consonance with the re-appreciation of the evidence, the factum of the events took place prior to and post the incident as narrated by the deceased while she was admitted in the hospital, as also by her husband who in turn had disclosed the said fact before the complainant, as well as, the fact recorded in the form of dying declaration by the deceased before the Executive Magistrate who was satisfied about the fitness of the deceased being in fit state of mind to give dying declaration conclusively proved that there are consistency amongst the witnesses in regards to stating of the fact of occurrence of the incident and no such inference can be drawn raising any doubt on credibility of the evidence examined before the Court and thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and no interference is required to be made in the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Court.” The Court also quoted and applied the legal principles in Poonam Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, noting that “a dying declaration can be the sole basis for convicting the accused” provided it is “trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable.”

Background

The petitioner, Bajiben Prabhatbhai Parmar, was accused of setting her sister‑in‑law Rayliben on fire on 30.06.2009 at Village Vatvatiya, Lunawada Taluka, Panchmahal district, allegedly in retaliation for an earlier quarrel over children picking cotton from the accused’s field. The complaint and subsequent FIR (CR No.82 of 2009 at Kothamba Police Station) narrated that the accused brought a steel vessel of kerosene and a matchbox, poured kerosene on the sleeping victim and ignited her, causing burns to the chest, limbs and genital area; the victim later died on 11.07.2009 at Godhra Civil Hospital. Investigation led to committal to Sessions Court and trial on charge under Section 302 IPC.

At trial the prosecution examined multiple witnesses including the complainant, neighbours, the husband of the deceased (PW‑7), the Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration (PW‑6), the head constable who first recorded the victim’s statement (PW‑20) and the post‑mortem doctor (PW‑15). The defence challenged the prosecution case on several grounds: alleged contradictions in medical testimony, absence of Doctor’s endorsement on the dying declaration form, non‑examination of the victim’s daughter who slept nearby, and the contention that the husband did not himself register the complaint.

The Bench reviewed the evidence and found: the husband and other eyewitnesses described seeing the accused run away carrying a steel utensil after the victim was ignited; early statements recorded by the head constable matched the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate; and the post‑mortem report attributed death to septicemic shock due to burn injuries consistent with ignition by kerosene. The Court accepted the Executive Magistrate’s testimony that he was satisfied of the declarant’s consciousness and fitness to make the dying declaration and that the doctor was not summoned because the declarant was conscious at the time. Quoting established precedent, the Court reiterated that “insistence for certification by the doctor is only a rule of prudence” and the real test was whether the dying declaration was truthful and voluntary. Finding consistency across testimony and no material infirmity, the Bench held that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed; the Sessions Court’s conviction and sentence were confirmed. The appellant was directed to surrender before the jail authority within six weeks and the trial court records were ordered to be remitted forthwith.

Case Details: Case No.: R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 702 of 2013 NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:18743-DB Case Title: Bajiben Prabhatbhai Parmar Versus State of Gujarat Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vijay H. Patel for HL Patel Advocates For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bhargav Pandya, APP