AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Supehia, J
The present application is listed in view of a communication dated 05/21.08.2023 written by the Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Ahmedabad Central Jail to the registrar seeking opinion of this Court for grant of remission to the convict-Pravinbhai Bababhai Chauhan under the provisions of Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.) as he has completed more than 14 years of sentence.
The jail remarks show that the applicant has completed 15 years and 6 days of incarceration as on 19.08.2023. The same also shows that his conduct is not good. Thus, the applicant-convict is seeking remission as per the prevailing policy of the State Government, after completion of 15 years of sentence.
At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 10.07.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No.966 of 2008 confirming the sentence recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The relevant facts, as recorded by the Coordinate Bench and as per the Dying Declaration of the deceased at Exh.20, are as under:
*** *** ***
7.2. In the dying declaration, exh.20, after preliminary questions, when she was asked as to what happened, she stated that she was burnt by her husband on the previous day at 7 O clock in the evening by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. She stated that the incident happened in the kitchen. She further stated that her husband every now and then under some pretext or the other, used to quarrel and tell her not to show her face. On the previous evening after taking up a fight, he poured kerosene from a can lying in the house and, thereafter, set her on fire with a matchstick. She clarified that the husband was suspicious. He had in fact forbidden her from going out even for filling up water. If she did go out, he would falsely doubt her and pick up fights. To a question whether there was any other member of the family present at that time, she answered in the negative. As to who saved her, she stated that when she shouted the neighbours came, covered her with mattress and poured water on her.
*** *** ***
16.If we peruse the three dying declarations minutely they are totally consistent and absolutely reliable and dependable. The deceased had given specific account of the events of the evening. She was clear about the absence of mother-in-law when the incident took place. She had stated that the husband was suspicious about her character and was in the habit of picking up quarrels. She had been forbidden from going to the village well or the pond for filling up the water or washing clothes. On the date of the incident in the evening, he once again picked up a quarrel on this count, started abusing her, got angry, picked a can containing kerosene lying nearby, poured it on her and set her on fire. In all the three dying declarations, there are no material contradictions. On the genesis of the incident, on her husbands suspicious nature, on the point of his doubting her character and picking up frequent quarrels, on the date of the incident once again picking up quarrel on the same ground and on pouring kerosene and setting her on fire after abusing her, she was totally consistent.
17.We have absolutely no reason to discard such series of declarations made by the deceased before she died. In particular, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, she has given full details howsoever in brief about the incident in question. Such dying declarations are corroborated by the discovery of kerosene can at the instance of the accused. He led the police party and the panch witness to the house and unearthed the can from an empty open space between two house used for storing firewood and cow-dung. The scene of the incident also found a puddle of kerosene mixed water, a matchbox, burnt piece of cloth and burnt human skin, all pointing to the unfortunate incident.
*** *** ***
Before closing, we cannot help but observe that perhaps the time has come to recognise that the suspicion about infidelity of wife by the husband cannot be seen as a provocation to commit an act of violence on the wife. A suspicion or even some information about the character of the wife cannot be a license to violate her bodily or to endanger her life or safety.
Thus, looking to the manner in which the incident has occurred, the conduct of the convict and also keeping in mind the trauma and pain, which the deceased would have suffered due to burn injuries, we are not inclined to give favourable opinion in favour of the convict on grant of remissions.
When the order is passed, the convict is also present before this Court and we have heard him also.
The present application stands disposed of.