Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows: The case involves a challenge to the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and related charges (!) (!) . The incident occurred when the appellant inflicted injuries with a knife on the deceased, leading to his hospitalization and eventual death after 13 days due to septicemia (!) (!) . The medical evidence established that the injuries inflicted were capable of causing death in the ordinary course of nature, indicating the appellant's knowledge of the potential lethality of his actions (!) (!) . The trial court initially convicted the appellant of murder, but on appeal, the High Court and the Supreme Court recognized that the act was committed with elements of impulse, anger, and self-provocation, and lacked premeditation (!) (!) . The courts concluded that the appellant did not have the intention to cause death but was aware that his actions could result in death, which qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC (!) (!) (!) (!) . Consequently, the conviction was converted from under Section 302 IPC to under Section 304 Part I IPC, with the sentence already served deemed sufficient for justice (!) (!) . The appellant's bail bond was discharged, and the appeal was allowed in part, with all pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly (!) (!) . Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.

Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar vs State of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1903

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N. V. ANJARIA
Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Manju Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The case involves a challenge to the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and related charges (!) (!) .
The incident occurred when the appellant inflicted injuries with a knife on the deceased, leading to his hospitalization and eventual death after 13 days due to septicemia (!) (!) .
The medical evidence established that the injuries inflicted were capable of causing death in the ordinary course of nature, indicating the appellant's knowledge of the potential lethality of his actions (!) (!) .
The trial court initially convicted the appellant of murder, but on appeal, the High Court and the Supreme Court recognized that the act was committed with elements of impulse, anger, and self-provocation, and lacked premeditation (!) (!) .
The courts concluded that the appellant did not have the intention to cause death but was aware that his actions could result in death, which qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Consequently, the conviction was converted from under Section 302 IPC to under Section 304 Part I IPC, with the sentence already served deemed sufficient for justice (!) (!) .
The appellant's bail bond was discharged, and the appeal was allowed in part, with all pending interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly (!) (!) .

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

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.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 12.06.1998 at about 8.00 p.m., t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1903

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N. V. ANJARIANandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar – AppellantVersusState of Gujarat – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N. V. ANJARIA
Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent