Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat case drew national attention for its brutal facts where a woman was set ablaze on a public street in Patan, Gujarat. What made the case particularly significant was the reliance on the victim’s dying declarations to establish the identity of the accused and the sequence of events. It addressed important questions about the evidentiary value of such statements under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. For a deeper understanding of important judicial decisions explore more Landmark Judgements.

Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat: Introduction

Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat is a landmark case involving the brutal murder of a woman, Asha Ben, who was set ablaze in broad daylight in Patan, Gujarat. The case mainly centered around the admissibility and reliability of her dying declarations, which identified the accused. The case addressed important issues regarding the evidentiary value of such statements and the interpretation of intent under criminal law.

Download Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat PDF

The case at hand pertains to a brutal murder committed in broad daylight in Patan, Gujarat, where a woman named Asha Ben was set ablaze on a public street. The accused, a local businessman, was initially acquitted by the Sessions Court but was later convicted by the Gujarat High Court. The conviction was based on the dying declarations made by the victim. The accused then appealed this conviction as a matter of right. The following are the brief facts of the case of Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat -

Background of the Victim

Asha Ben was one of seven daughters of her father and was married to Vinod Bhai (PW-5). Together, they had two children namely, Mital and Bharav. They all lived in their own house in Patan. On the date of the incident, Asha Ben was on her way to pick up her child Mital from Bal Mandir, part of the Bombay Metal School.

Motive and Intent of the Accused

The accused allegedly had an affair with the sister of Asha Ben, Sharada Ben, which Asha Ben disapproved of. She voiced her objection to both Sharada Ben and others. Upon learning of her opposition, the accused decided to retaliate.

Incident on 21st October 1988

Asha Ben was walking to the school around 10 a.m., the accused intercepted her on a scooter. He accused her of defaming him over his relationship with her sister, then poured a flammable liquid from a can on her and ignited her using a lighter.

Completely engulfed in flames, Asha Ben ran towards a nearby water column near the railway station, where she extinguished the fire. A passerby woman covered her, and she was rushed to the hospital in a rickshaw. She suffered extensive burns.

Dying Declarations and Medical Treatment

In the hospital, Asha Ben made statements identifying the accused to:

• The Police Officer (PW-10),
• The Executive Magistrate (PW-1) around 11:15 a.m
• Her husband (Vinod Bhai).

She remained under treatment for nearly 25 days but eventually succumbed to her injuries on 15th November, 1988.

Findings of the Trial Court

The Sessions Judge found certain discrepancies in the dying declarations and held that they lacked reliability. The Court noted that the alleged sequence of events, especially the use of the lighter, was not entirely plausible. As a result, the Trial Court acquitted the accused.

Evaluation of the Gujarat High Court

The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court re-evaluated the entire evidence and held that:

• The dying declarations were consistent, credible and made in a conscious state.
• The Sessions Court had committed a serious error in discarding the statements.
• The identity of the accused was established beyond doubt by the victim herself.

The High Court of Gujarat concluded that no reasonable court could have acquitted the accused on the basis of the available evidence.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Shri U.R. Lalit, who appeared for the Appellant, argued that the Gujarat High Court failed to adopt the cautious approach typically required in appeals against acquittals. He contended that the Appellate Court should have shown greater deference to the findings of the Trial Court.

Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat: Issues Addressed

The main questions which were addressed in the case of Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat are as follows- 

• Admissibility and Reliability of Dying Declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The main issue in this case was whether the statements made by the deceased prior to her death could be accepted as a dying declaration? The Court analysed whether the victim’s dying declaration was made in a conscious and voluntary state and whether it was consistent and reliable enough to base a conviction?

• Identification of the Accused by the Deceased

The Supreme Court in Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat examined whether the deceased had clearly and accurately identified the Appellant as the person who set her on fire and whether there was any possibility of mistaken identity or insufficient acquaintance with the accused that could affect the credibility of the identification?

• Culpability of the Accused under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Court in Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat scrutinized whether the act of pouring an inflammable liquid and setting the victim on fire constituted murder under Section 300 clause Secondly (i.e., an act done with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death)?

In the Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act and Section 300 and Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act (Now Section 26 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhinitam, 2023) deals with statements made by a person as to the cause of their death or the circumstances of the transaction resulting in their death, when the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are admissible as dying declarations.

In Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat case, the statements of the victim before death identifying the accused and narrating the incident were admitted as a dying declaration under this provision.

Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 300 of Indian Penal Code (Now Section 101 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines murder when the act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury and the offender knows that such injury is likely to cause death.

The Supreme Court in Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat held that pouring a flammable substance and setting a person on fire is an act done with clear knowledge that it is likely to result in death, hence it falls within the scope of Section 300.

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (Now Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) prescribes the punishment for murder, which may include the death penalty or imprisonment for life, and may also include a fine.

Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat: Judgment and Impact

The Supreme Court in the case of Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat after considering the medical testimony of doctors who treated the victim and conducted her post-mortem, concluded that the cause of her death was clearly the burn injuries she sustained on 21st October, 1988. The Court highlighted that once the Prosecution had convincingly established the cause of death based on broad probabilities, there was no need to entertain speculative or hypothetical alternatives.

The Court while interpreting Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act which relates to dying declarations, noted that the statements of the victims were not made in the context of clarifying any family or paternity dispute. Rather, they were made to rectify her earlier assertion and clearly identify her assailant as Hiralal, whose full name she later clarified as Lalchand Hiralal. 

The Supreme Court in Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat found no reason to disbelieve the victim's identification of the appellant. It held that the victim was sufficiently acquainted with the Appellant and thus unlikely to have made an error in identifying him as the person who set her on fire.

The Court in Patel Hiralal Joitaram v State of Gujarat observed that it was beyond imagination that the Appellant, after dousing the victim in a flammable liquid and setting her alight, would not foresee that such an act would likely lead to death. The fact that the victim succumbed to her injuries on 15th November, 1988 did not diminish the gravity of the act or take it outside the scope of Clause "Secondly" of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to acts where the offender knows that his act is likely to cause death.

Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat: Final Decision

The Supreme Court in Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court ruled that the victim’s dying declaration was reliable, made in a conscious state, and clearly established the identity and intent of the assailant. The Court concluded that the act of setting the victim on fire was done with knowledge that it was likely to cause her death, and hence, satisfied the requirements under Section 300 (Secondly) IPC.

Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat: Conclusion

In Patel Hiralal Joitaram vs State of Gujarat the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court affirmed that the dying declarations were made consciously, were consistent and clearly identified the accused.