Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
Adhar @ Bapu Lakha Chitte - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Against Conviction) No. 1769 of 2016
Decided On : 26-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302, which was contested on grounds of lack of intent to kill - The appellant, under the influence of alcohol, set the deceased on fire after a quarrel, leading to her death from septicemia post-injury - The court found that the act did not demonstrate intention to kill, thus warranting a conviction under Section 304 instead. (Paras 1, 5, 19, 20)
(B) Dying Declaration - Admissibility and reliability of dying declarations recorded by magistrate and police were upheld, forming the basis for conviction. (Paras 5, 14)
(C) Intent and Knowledge - The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the role of intoxication and the nature of the act. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was in a live-in relationship with the appellant, who was habitually intoxicated and financially irresponsible. Following a dispute over money for food, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and ignited her. The deceased succumbed to injuries after a week.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction under Section 302 was overturned; the appellant was found guilty under Section 304 Part-II, reflecting culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issues: The primary issues included the appellant's intent during the act and the nature of the injuries leading to the death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's actions, influenced by alcohol and domestic disputes, did not constitute murder as defined under Section 300 IPC, affirming the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction under Section 302 set aside, convicted under Section 304 Part-II with a sentence of 10 years.
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 28.03.2016 passed by the Sessions Court, Surat in Sessions Case No.341 of 2013 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional imprisonment for 9 months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in short is that, the deceased Premilaben was living with the appellant-accused in a live in partnership relations. She had a son born out from her husband with whom she got married. The deceased and the accused belongs to lower strata of the society and doing masonry work at Surat. In the area of Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat, they had lived in a hut, along with other labourers who were living in the same vicinity.
Despite of their relations, the life of the deceased and the accused was disturbed as the accused was in habit to consume liquor and did not contribute any amount in running the day to day life. The dispute on this issue arose and according to allegations, deceased Premilaben was harassed mentally and physically by the appellant-accused. on 16.04.2013 in the evening, the deceased Premilaben and the accused came back from their labour work and deceased about to start the meal for which she had demanded money from the accused and while refusing to pay the amount, the altercation took place between the two. The accused then left the hut and purchased the kerosene oil from the nearby shop. The kerosene oil was in one small polythene bag. The accused came to his hut and filled the kerosene in one plastic tumbler and then sprinkled the kerosene on the deceased and lit her with the matchstick. After the incident, the neighbouring persons called the 108 ambulance and the injured Premilaben who had sustained 60 to 70% burn injuries, was taken to New Civil Hospital, Surat. She was primarily treated by Dr. Nisha Chandra (PW.19). The civil hospital informed the Khatodara Police Station. The P.I., C.K. Patel (PW.22) went to the hospital where the deceased Premilaben disclosed her complaint, inter alia, alleging that, the appellant-accused burnt her by pouring kerosene. The complaint was recorded on 17.04.2013 at about 00:55 and the offence came to be registered under Section 498A, 323, 307 of the IPC. The police after taking endorsement of the duty doctor about the consciousness and fit mental condition of the injured, called the Executive Magistrate (PW.13) Dipak Sonawala. The Executive Magistrate on the basis of requisition made by the police, immediately reached at the Burns Ward of the hospital and orally take a sense of the doctor that the deceased was conscious and mentally fit. The Magistrate thereafter, recorded the statement of Premilaben wherein she had alleged against the accused that she was burnt alive by pouring kerosene. The statement in the form of dying declaration recorded between at about 1:55 a.m. to 2:10 a.m. During the course of investigation, the I.O. (PW.22) recorded the statement of the neighbouring persons, the minor son (PW.12) Avinash Saidane and the parents of the injured Premilaben. He also drew the panchnama of place of incident in the presence of officer of Forensic Science, Surat and collected necessary samples for chemical analysis. The I.O. arrested the accused on 20.04.2013 and due to sustaining of the burn injuries over his both hands, he was referred to Government Hospital where he was admitted for treatment. The injured Premilaben was admitted on 16.04.2013 in the hospital, succumbed to her injuries on 23.04.2013 at about 6:30 p.m. The I.O. sent her dead body for post-mortem and as per the report, the cause of death was septicemic shock due to burns. The I.O. thereafter, sent the seized articles to the FSL for chemical analysis. In such circumstance
The court clarified that actions under intoxication leading to death may constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder, not murder itself.
Point of Law : Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh puni....
Unintentional homicide will not come under Section 302 of IPC.
The dying declaration and complaint were considered credible evidence, and the absence of a doctor's endorsement on the dying declaration was not considered significant. The court applied Section 106....
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, affirming that the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite claims of accidental death.
A statement can be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, constituting valid evidence if it inspires confidence, even if it was recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, an....
The court established that the distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the intent of the accused, with Section 304 Part-I applicable when the act does not demonstrate a clear inten....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under the IPC, and the application of this distinction to deter....
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
