SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P.M. RAVAL, JJ.
Mulubhai Punjabhai and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1493, 1556 of 2008
Decided On : 15-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Hardik K. Raval
For the Respondent: L.B. Dabhi

The court clarified distinctions between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the necessity of establishing intent for proper sentencing, affirming the application of probation for lesser offenses under statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Criminal conspiracy, rioting, unlawful assembly - Conviction and sentence challenged - Accused convicted for murder under Section 302 and subsequently classified under Section 304 Part II for culpable homicide - The court found that while fatal injuries were inflicted, the intent to kill was not established - The trial court's failure to adhere to probation requirements recognized - Key issues involved intent to harm and application of statutory provisions in sentencing. (Paras 12, 19 and 21)

(B) Murder vs. culpable homicide - Clarification of legal definitions established in IPC; distinction critical for sentencing - The determination hinges on the presence or absence of intent to cause death or injury likely to cause death. (Paras 14, 16 and 18)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for their roles in the killing of deceased individuals during a market altercation. The dispute stemmed from a previous argument regarding an electric motor. The injuries caused by the accused led to fatalities after subsequent medical treatment. (Paras 3.1 and 17)

Findings of Court:
Conviction under murder modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder; fine upheld. Probation granted for lesser offenses considering character and lack of prior offenses. (Paras 19 and 20)

Issues: Primary question whether the actions constituted murder versus culpable homicide; assessment of intent and sentencing criteria under IPC. (Para 14)

Ratio Decidendi: Court concluded that the nature of injuries and absence of multiple assaults indicated intent did not rise to murder; thus, conviction under Section 304 Part II appropriate, recognizing mitigating circumstances and previous conduct of appellants. (Paras 18 and 21)

Result: Appeal of Gagu Rama allowed in part, conviction modified to Section 304 IPC; appeal of Bhikha Rama dismissed with probation granted.

Table of Content
1. overview of case facts and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of evidence and testimonies presented. (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's observations regarding evidence. (Para 8)
4. arguments presented by the appellants. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. analysis distinguishing murder and culpable homicide. (Para 14 , 15 , 18)
6. application of probation provisions. (Para 19 , 20)
7. final judgment and disposition of appeals. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT :

ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. Since, the facts of the case and issue involved in captioned appeals are identical and arise out of the same judgment, the appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Vide judgment and order dated 28.03.2008, passed in Sessions Case No.108 of 1985, the Additional Sessions Judge at Jamkhambhaliya convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter:

Gagurama accused no. 3 (Criminal Appeal No. 1556 of 2008):

Conviction under SectionPunishmentFineIn default of fine
Section 302 of IPCLife ImprisonmentRs.2,000/-Simple imprisonment for 1 year

Accused No. 2 : Bhikharama (Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 2008):

Conviction under SectionPunishmentFineIn default of fine
Section 323 of IPCRI for 6 monthsRs.500SI for 15 days

The sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.

Hence, these appeals.

3. The facts, leading to the present appeals, are as follows:

3.1 That, on 28.07.1985 at about 8:00 p.m, deceased Govind Kana and Bhikha Mulu allegedly killed by the eight accused at Village: Amrapar, Taluka: Jamjodhpur, District: Jamnagar (now Jamkhambhaliya) and also caused the injuries to the witnesses. The FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 504, 337 read with Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC.

According to prosecution case, on 28.07.1985 at about 8-00 p.m. the deceased Govindkana, Kanakala, Keshar Mulu and Bhikha Mulu, went into village market to purchase cigarates and tobacco. They came at the shop of Narbheram Jivandas and purchased the tobacco etc. While returning back, when they reached near the shop of Mansukh Nanji, the accused A1 Mulu Punja, Bhikharama A2, Gagurama A3 and Devsinh Rama came in their way and found standing in the opposite direction. The four accused were armed with sticks, spears (bhala). The other four accused A5 – Hamir Jiva, Natha Punja A6, Malde Punja A7 and Karsan Punja A8 were also standing in support of the accused Nos. A1 to A4. It is further case of the prosecution that, the accused A1 to A4, hurled abusive and confronted the complainant party. The complainant party requested them not to used filthy language. The accused thereafter got provoked and started assaulting Govindkana. He was injured by A1 – Mulu Punja and he had given a blow on the stomach as well as thy with the weapon spear. The accused A2 Bhima Rama, caused injuries to witness Keshar Mulu by using a stone, thereafter, the accused appellant Gagurama gave a stick blow on the head of Bhikha Mulu and accused Devshi Rama – A4, gave a spear blow on the thy of Kana Kala – complainant PW-6. Meanwhile, on account of hue and cry, the villagers came to their rescue. The accused Nos. 5 to 8, in order to resist the intervention of the villagers, threw stones on the witnesses as well as villagers. Thereafter, considering the situation, the accused fled away from the spot. In the said incident, Govind Kana and Bhikha Mulu sustained fatal injuries. Both the injured as well as witnesses, who have sustained injuries, had been taken to nearby Government Hospital and thereafter, shifted to Junagadh Civil Hospital. In the late night, during the treatment, the dying declaration of Govind Kana came to be recorded by PW-2 – Mansukh Vaghera. Govind Kana succumbed to injuries on the next day i.e. 29.07.1985. Bhikhu Mulu was sustained a serious head injury and was throughout unconscious and after giving primary treatment to him, he was referred to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, where he was admitted as indoor patien

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top