Absence of 'Intention' to Kill Leads Gujarat HC to Alter Murder Conviction (S.302 IPC) to Culpable Homicide (S.304 Part II IPC) - 2025-09-22

Gujarat High Court Alters Murder Conviction, Citing Lack of Intent Despite Knowledge of Likely Death

Surat, Gujarat – In a significant ruling on the fine distinction between murder and culpable homicide, the Gujarat High Court has altered the conviction of a man from Section 302 (Murder) to Section 304 Part II (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval , held that while the accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, the prosecution failed to establish a clear intention to kill.

The Court concurrently dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of two co-accused, upholding the trial court's finding on their limited role in the incident.

Case Background

The case stems from a judgment dated April 24, 2017, by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, which convicted Sunil @ Rahul Rajeshbhai Makwana for the murder of Rupesh Pawar. The incident occurred on May 26, 2013, following a prior altercation where the deceased had allegedly beaten the appellant.

According to the FIR lodged by the deceased's father, Chandrakant Narayan Pawar, the appellant, along with three others, arrived at their residence looking for Rupesh. The appellant, holding a wooden log, declared his intention to "finish" Rupesh. Later that night, the family found the appellant and his associates assaulting Rupesh near Choryasi Dairy. The appellant struck a fatal blow to Rupesh's head with the wooden log, leading to his death.

The trial court convicted Sunil Makwana under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting the other two adult co-accused, Kirit Rathod and Deepak Solanki. Two appeals were filed: one by the convict challenging his conviction and another by the State against the acquittals.

Arguments Before the High Court

For the Appellant (Sunil Makwana): Advocate Mr. Pratik B Barot argued that the conviction was erroneous. He contended that key eyewitnesses, being the parents of the deceased, were interested witnesses and their testimony was not entirely reliable. The core of his argument was that the act was not premeditated murder but a spontaneous act driven by anger from the earlier quarrel. He submitted that the case at best falls under Section 304 Part II IPC, as the appellant only had the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, not the intention to cause it.

For the State of Gujarat: APP Mr. L. B. Dabhi defended the conviction, asserting that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and minor discrepancies were insignificant. He argued that the appellant’s prior threat to "finish" the deceased established clear intent. The State also challenged the acquittal of the co-accused, arguing that their participation in the assault (kicking and punching) proved their common intention.

Court’s Analysis: Intention vs. Knowledge

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, placing significant reliance on the principles distinguishing Section 299 (Culpable Homicide) from Section 300 (Murder) of the IPC, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Anbazhagan vs. The State .

The bench noted that while the parents were eyewitnesses, their testimony was largely consistent and credible. However, the court focused on inferring the appellant's mens rea (guilty mind) from the surrounding circumstances.

Pivotal Observations from the Judgment:

The Court observed:

"The episode of Appellant inflicting injuries to the deceased was because the Appellant was infuriated due to incident that took place between the deceased and the Appellant in the morning where the accused was beaten by the deceased and thus from the oral as well as documentary evidence we find it too difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the present appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."

The judges further reasoned that the appellant's utterance of "I will finish your son" could not be seen in isolation.

"Merely uttering the word 'I will finish your son' just before the incident cannot be attributed to the Appellant so as to hold that the Appellant had clear intention to murder the deceased. Attended circumstances, are also required to be looked into to arrive at a logical conclusion."

The Court also highlighted that the appellant did not use a more lethal weapon and fled the scene when the deceased's parents and neighbors arrived. These factors, combined with the context of a prior quarrel, led the Court to conclude that the appellant acted with the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, but without a specific intention to kill or cause an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Final Verdict

Based on its analysis, the High Court partly allowed the appeal. 1. Conviction Altered: The conviction of Sunil @ Rahul Rajeshbhai Makwana under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. 2. Sentence Modified: As the appellant had already served more than 12 years in prison, his sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. The fine of Rs. 2,000 was upheld. 3. Acquittals Confirmed: The State's appeal against the acquittal of Kirit Rathod and Deepak Solanki was dismissed, with the Court concurring with the trial court's findings.

The Court directed the immediate release of the appellant if not required in any other case.