Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2014
Decided On : 10-11-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 504 – Murder and intentional insult – Life imprisonment – Where two ingredients namely that infliction of bodily injury on deceased was caused intentionally and secondly that it was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, are satisfied, offence would amount to murder – There may be circumstances which may emerge from facts and evidence of a given case that offence becomes ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ – Assailant used knife and inflicted serious injuries on body of deceased, including below belly – Accused was liable to be attributed with knowledge that injuries which he was to inflict by using weapon in hand, would be sufficient to result into death in ordinary course – There was element of impulse, anger and self-provocation on part of appellant due to altercation involving nephew of appellant and deceased – Death of deceased was after 13 days – Death of deceased was after 13 days – Cause of death was medically identified as ‘Septicemia’ – Appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC – Conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 302, IPC set aside and same is converted into one under Section 304 Part I, IPC – Sentence modified to period already undergone. (Paras 5.7, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2000. Thereby High Court confirmed judgment and order dated 31.01.2000 of the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.25 of 1999, convicting appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant-convict came to be sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. In respect of offence under Section 504, IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment in default for three months, both sentences were to run concurrently.
Findings of Court:
Sentence of 14 years already undergone by appellant shall be treated as sufficient and subserve interest of justice. Bail bond of appellant furnished to Trial Court shall stand discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the incident and the charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's reasoning on evidence and charges (Para 5) |
| 3. conversion of charge from murder to culpable homicide (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final order and disposition of the appeal (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
The appellant herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2000. Thereby the High Court confirmed the judgment and order dated 31.01.2000 of the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.25 of 1999, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504, INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). The appellant-convict came to be sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. In respect of the offence under Section 504 , IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and to undergo the simple imprisonment in default for three months, both the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. The charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 504 , 324, IPC and Section 302 , IPC subsequently added at exhibit-1, for committing murder of one Louis Williams in the late night of 13.06.1998 at the residence of said Louis - the complainant.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 12.06.1998 at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant and his brother Tanvel were quarrelling with each other. One Rajesh, who was a nephew of the complainant- deceased, intervened. At that time the accused stated to have inflicted injuries on the thigh to the said Rajesh by using knife. No police complainant was lodged against the accused in that regard as it was an internal quarrel. Rajesh took treatment in a private hospital, and after taking treatment, had been sleeping in his house. In the intervening night of the same day at about 1.00 p.m. the accused named Nandkumar @ Nandu went to the house of the deceased, and hurled abusive language. The complainant got up to come out of his house. As the appellant was abusive, the deceased interfered. The appellant inflicted stab injury by knife on the deceased on the left side of the back and on the right hand. The appellant thereafter ran away from the place taking the knife.
3.1 It was stated that there was no vehicle available since it was late night to take the victim Louis to the hospital, however a person in the neighbour who had a rickshaw helped to take the injured Louis to the L.G. Hospital, accompanied by his sister Gajraben (PW 2). The police constable on duty of the hospital informed the Kanabha police station telephonically about admission of the said Louis to the hospital, who had been inflicted with stab wound. A Wardhi was sent, which was received by the police officer concerned on the morning of the next day on 13.06.1998. The First Information Report was recorded thereafter, as the competent police officer went to the hospital. At that time, offence under Sections 324 and 504 came to be registered as per C.R. No.I-107/98.
3.2. The injured victim having been treated for the said injuries, came to be discharged from the hospital. An operation was performed by the doctor regarding injuries. It appears that the complainant- victim was again admitted to the hospital and died while receiving the treatment in the afternoon of 26.06.1998. The cause of the death was indicated to be Septicemia. The charge for the offence under Section 302 , IPC was added. The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The appellant voluntarily surrendered at the police station on 29.06.1998 going there with knife and the said weapon was thus recovered.
3.3 The charge against the appellant was framed for the offences under Sections 504 , 324 and 302, IPC. The trial was held in which the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
