IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, JJ.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Chadabhai Bhagabha Chauhan & Anr. - Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1342 of 2010
Decided On : 27-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304, 307, 326, 504, and 34 - Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 135 - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused of murder and related charges, finding insufficient evidence to establish intent to kill - The incident arose from a land dispute, leading to a sudden fight - The court upheld the conviction under Section 304, Part I, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 19, 21)
(B) Acquittal - The appellate court must respect the trial court's findings unless they are perverse or unreasonable - The prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder under Section 302. (Paras 10, 21)
Facts of the case:
The complainant and accused are relatives involved in a land dispute. On 05.07.2008, a confrontation led to the death of Ramjibhai and injuries to Abhabhai, resulting from an assault with a scythe. The trial court acquitted the accused of murder but convicted one for culpable homicide.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction under Section 304, Part I, was upheld as the evidence supported a finding of culpable homicide without intent to kill.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the accused under Section 304 instead of Section 302.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the incident was a sudden fight without premeditation, satisfying the requirements of exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. Here is the appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.
2. Vide judgment and order of sentence dated08.02.2010, passed in Sessions Case No.45 of 2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nadiad at Kheda, acquitted the respondents-accused under Sections 302, 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. All the accused came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short) and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (‘B.P. Act’, for short). The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the accused as per the below table:
| Accused | Acquitted from charge |
| Accused no. 1 – Chadabhai Bhagabha Chauhan | Sections 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. |
| Accused no. 2 – Somabhai Bhagabhai Chauhan | Sections 326, 307 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. |
| Accused no. 3 – Rameshbhai @ Timpo Chadabhai Chauhan | Acquitted from all the charges i.e. Sections 302, 307, 326, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. |
| Accused no. 4 – Raisingbhai @ Titabhai Chauhan | Acquitted from all the charges i.e. Sections 302, 307, 326, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. |
4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that, the complainant and the accused are resident of village; Baladi, Taluka: Mahudha, Dist.: Kheda and they are also relatives. On 05.07.2008, the complainant PW-1 – Naresh Chauhan, his father – Ramjibhai and uncle – Abhabhai PW-12, had gone to their field for cultivation. The field of the accused is adjacent to the field of the complainant party.
According to case of the prosecution, in the noon hours i.e. at 12-00 noon, the accused in number 4 came to the field of the complainant party and asked the deceased Ramjibhai and his brother PW-12 Abhabhai, keep vacant some of the portion of the land, as it has been used for personal purpose i.e. bathing and the area, which was asked to keep vacant, is near the house of the accused. Since long, the dispute was going on with respect to said land. The PW-1 as well as deceased Ramjibhai as well as his brother PW-12 Abhabhai, refused to keep the said portion of land vacant and confronted that the said land is in their possession and since long they are cultivating. On this issue, heated exchange of words were taken place and according to case of the prosecution, the accused party hurled abusive and then, assaulted the deceased Ramjibhai, his brother PW-12 Abhabhai with the weapon Scythe (Dharia) and stick. The accused No. 1 Chaddabhai Bhagabhai gave a blow on the left shoulder of the PW-12 Abhabhai with Scythe and due to the said blow, the left forearm was amputated. The accused Chaddabhai again gave a blow on the right hand of the PW-12 Abhabhai, which has resulted into amputation of right thumb and right index fingure and also injured him on his right thigh. The deceased Ramjibhai when intervened, the accused No.2 – Somabhai, gave a blow with Scythe (Dharia) over his left shoulder. It is further case of the prosecution that, the accused Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. respondents herein were present armed with wooden stick at the spot and assaulted the deceased as well as his brother Abhabhai PW-12. In order to save the deceased as well as injured, the persons near the vicinity of the area came there and due to hue and cry, the accused fled away from the place. The deceased Ramjibhai and injured immediately taken to the Civil Hospital, Nadiad, and thereafter referred to Higher Center at Ahmedabad. The deceased Ramjibhai was declared dead by the doctor at Ahmedabad, whereas, the injured Abhabhai PW-12, was admitted in the orthopaedic department at Ahmedabad for a period commencing from05.07.2008 to 16.07.2008.
PW-1 – son of deceased Ramjibhai lodged an FIR at Nadiad and the offence came to be registered with Mahudha Police Station being I-C.R.No. 83 of 2008, under Sectio
The court upheld the conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304, Part I, emphasizing the absence of intent to kill and the nature of the incident as a sudden fight.
The court upheld the conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II, emphasizing the absence of intent to kill and the act being committed in the heat of passion.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence at the crime scene does not establish culpability without corroborative evidence.
Once prosecution establishes existence of three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300 of IPC, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on part of accused to cause death – It d....
The court found that the appellants' actions during a sudden quarrel constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
The court ruled that a stabbing occurring during a quarrel, influenced by mutual provocation and intoxication, merited a conviction under Section 304-I of the IPC instead of Section 302.
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.