The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention, with sudden provocation potentially reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the sole appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.28 of 2017 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, and sentenced as tabulated as under:

The trial court ordered that the sentences imposed on the appellant shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the appellant sole accused Chaudhary Nagji @ Ramesh Sagram is as follows:

(A) On 04.11.2016 at about 03:00 o’clock, the appellant accused took a knife from his pan-shop and inflicted a blow on the right side of the deceased’s chest, as a result of which, the deceased Laxmanji succumbed to injuries. The said incident occurred on the road side, Rampura cross road, Mehsana.

(B) The background facts of the alleged incident of murder are that,

- The deceased Laxmanji was close friend of complainant Thakore Chenaji (PW:10). The complainant was working as a Watchman with factory named Ami Steel, situated nearby the place of the incident and living with his family in the compound of the factory. The complainant PW:10 side by side also running as business of cold-drinks, in a lorry nearby his factory.

- The deceased Laxmanji on the day of incident i.e. 04.11.2016, was sitting on the lorry as PW:10 complainant was busy with some other works.

- The accused Chaudhary Nagji Sagram was having a pan-shop opposite side of the road where the lorry was parked.

- On the day of incident, PW:10 after some time, had come to his lorry and both deceased Laxmanji, and PW:10 were present on the lorry.

- The accused Nagjibhai came on the lorry and started demanding Rs.1,000/- that the complainant owned to him. The complainant PW:10 asked for time as he did not have sufficient money which the accused refused it and took a bottle of soda and told the complainant to take it back once he paid his dues. At that moment, the deceased assured that the PW:10 will make the payment and there was verbal spat with the accused, as a result, the accused got agitated and hit the head of the deceased with the nearby tree and had left the place taking away the soda bottle.

- Thereafter, the deceased followed the accused to his pan shop and there scuffle took place, as a result, the accused allegedly took a knife from his pan shop and inflicted one blow on the right side of the deceased’s chest and the accused no.2 - the father of accused no.1 had also caused bodily injuries to the deceased as at the time of incident, he was accompanied to his son.

- That the deceased was taken to the government hospital, Mehsana where he declared brought dead.

- On the basis of information received, the police went to the hospital where PW:10 disclosed his FIR (Exh.44).

3. That the offence being registered against the appellant accused and his father, the investigation officer PW:15 proceeded to investigate the case and during the course of investigation, he sent the dead body for postmortem, took visit the place of incident and drew panchnama of place of incident and obtained the necessary samples for FSL, recorded the statement of material witnesses, arrested the accused, seized and recovered the knife allegedly used by the appellant accused in commission of the offence, obtained N.C. case papers, and sent the muddamal to the the FSL and at the end of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed before the Jurisdictional Court. The case was committed to the court of sessions.

4. After due framing of ch