High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Wife's Stabbing, Holds Child Witness Reliable

A division bench of Justices Ilesh J. Vora and R. T. Vachhani heard an appeal against a conviction under Section 302 IPC arising from the alleged midnight stabbing death of a wife at the matrimonial home. The appeal challenged the trial court’s finding of guilt and life sentence, contending that the prosecution relied on the sole testimony of a child witness and on improperly proved recoveries.

The High Court dismissed the conviction appeal and affirmed the trial court’s order of life imprisonment. The court accepted the prosecution case that the death was homicidal and held that the evidence proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “For the discussions as mentioned hereinabove, we come to a conclusion that, the act of the accused fall within the clause thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code and would not fall in any exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and same is read as under: … Thirdly, : if it is done with intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of action to cause death or Fourthly, - if the person committing the act knows that, it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as it likely to cause death and commit such an act, without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injuries as aforesaid.” The court further recorded that “prosecution has proved its case with sufficient oral and documentary evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant was the author of the crime.” It also noted that “the evidence of Nilesh Dabhi – PW:9 … is truthful and reliable and his conduct at the relevant time and after the incident, was most natural.”

Background The accused, married for over 15 years, lived separately from his wife, who had been staying at her parental home in Ahmedabad with their children due to matrimonial disputes. On 5 January 2015 the wife and one son came to the accused’s house at Pathawada to collect household articles for an intended settlement. After dinner all slept in one room. In the night the son (PW-9, then about 9–11 years old) heard his mother scream, saw lights off and his father standing nearby; in the morning he found his mother dead with multiple stab injuries and a knife embedded in her chest. Police registered an FIR, investigated, seized blood-stained clothes and the knife, obtained FSL and serological reports and filed charges under Sections 302 and 498 IPC. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment; this conviction was challenged before the High Court.

On appeal the defence argued that the prosecution primarily relied on the child’s solitary testimony which could have been tutored, that seizure procedures under Section 27 Evidence Act were not properly proved and that an alternative theory of a third-party perpetrator had not been investigated. The defence alternatively sought conviction under Section 304 Part II on the ground of grave and sudden provocation. The State opposed these contentions, relying on medical evidence of multiple external and internal incised wounds including fatal injury to the right lung, recovery of the weapon and blood matching the deceased, and the son’s consistent account. The High Court examined the evidence, upheld the trial court’s procedural handling of the child witness, accepted the son’s testimony as reliable, concluded the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, held the act fell within clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 300 IPC, and found no merit in altering the conviction. The appeal was dismissed and records were directed to be returned to the trial court.

Case No.: R/CR.A/1222/2016 Case Title: AMARATBHAI @ KEVABHAI AAHAJI (DABHI) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pratik B. Barot (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ronak Raval (Addl. Public Prosecutor)