In a landmark decision, the Gujarat High Court has reversed the acquittal of Chhaganbhai Kaliyanbhai Bhabhor, holding him guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife, Sumitraben, based on her dying declaration. This ruling comes 15 years after the original acquittal in 2009, setting a significant legal precedent regarding the admissibility and validity of dying declarations. Justice Nisha M. Thakore, presiding over Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2010, delivered the verdict on September 27, 2024, reinstating the charges under Sections 498(A) (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case:
The case dates back to June 30, 1992, when Sumitraben, the wife of Chhaganbhai Bhabhor, allegedly took her life by setting herself on fire after a domestic dispute. The couple had returned from working in their fields when Sumitraben confronted her husband about prioritizing his brother’s farm work over theirs. Angered by her criticism, Chhaganbhai verbally abused her and threatened her with violence. Later that evening, while he was sitting outside, Sumitraben doused herself in kerosene and set herself alight.
Despite being rushed to the government hospital in Dahod, Sumitraben succumbed to her burn injuries after 22 days. During her treatment, she gave a dying declaration implicating her husband, stating that his persistent cruelty and threats drove her to take this drastic step. However, in 2009, a Fast Track Court in Dahod acquitted Chhaganbhai due to procedural lapses in the dying declaration, and the alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Validity of the Dying Declaration:
The primary question before the High Court was whether Sumitraben’s dying declaration could be admitted as valid evidence in the absence of certain procedural safeguards, such as a medical certification of her mental fitness at the time of making the statement.
2. Burden of Proof for Cruelty and Abetment of Suicide:
The prosecution needed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the husband’s actions amounted to cruelty under Section 498(A) of the IPC and that he had abetted her suicide under Section 306.
3. Hostile Witnesses and Inconsistent Testimonies:
The case was further complicated by key witnesses, including Sumitraben’s relatives, who turned hostile during the trial, and did not support the prosecution’s claim of consistent domestic abuse.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Nisha M. Thakore, in reversing the acquittal, emphasized that the dying declaration of Sumitraben was consistent and credible despite procedural concerns. The court rejected the defense’s argument that the absence of a medical endorsement on her mental fitness at the time of the declaration rendered it unreliable. Instead, the court cited key legal precedents, asserting that while medical certification is ideal, its absence does not automatically disqualify a dying declaration if it otherwise inspires confidence.
The court observed:
“The solemnity of a dying declaration cannot be diminished merely due to the lack of a medical endorsement, provided the surrounding circumstances indicate that the victim was in a fit mental state to narrate her account. Sumitraben’s declaration, consistent in its narrative, reflects a clear causality between her husband’s cruelty and her tragic decision to end her life.”
The judgment highlighted that the deceased had made consistent statements regarding the mental and physical abuse she endured throughout her marriage. Even though key witnesses, including her mother and brother, turned hostile, the court placed considerable weight on the victim’s account as recorded in her dying declaration.
Reassessment of Evidence:
The High Court meticulously reassessed the evidence, particularly focusing on the consistency of Sumitraben’s statements. While the original trial court had dismissed the dying declaration for lacking a doctor’s endorsement, the High Court ruled that the declaration could not be discarded solely for that reason. Justice Thakore cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra and Atbir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which held that as long as the declaration appeared truthful and voluntary, it could form the sole basis for conviction.
The court found that the victim’s consistent account of her husband’s cruelty, particularly his suspicions about her character and frequent physical abuse, clearly established the elements of cruelty under Section 498(A). The High Court also noted that Chhaganbhai’s actions on the day of the incident — threatening her with violence and abusing her — were sufficient to infer abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.
Importance of the Dying Declaration:
In a critical part of the ruling, the court emphasized the importance of the dying declaration, particularly in cases of domestic violence and abetment of suicide. It observed that:
A dying declaration, made voluntarily and without duress, holds immense evidentiary value in cases where the victim is no longer alive to testify. In the present case, the deceased’s consistent statements about the accused’s behavior and threats provide a strong basis for conviction.”
The court further pointed out that the defence had not presented any credible evidence to challenge the authenticity of the dying declaration. It held that the trial court had erred in giving undue importance to minor procedural lapses while ignoring the substance of the victim’s declaration.
