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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 10944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ilesh J. Vora, R. T. Vachhani, JJ
Mahendrabhai Somabhai Vasava – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1618 of 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pratik B Barot
For the Respondents: J K Shah

An offence qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 PT. I IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC, when death results from a sudden quarrel without premeditation and without a specific intent to cause death, falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 188, 300, 304 Part I - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Culpable homicide vs Murder - Incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel without any premeditation - Whether the offence falls under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I - Appellant caused injury with a tool carried for work - Absence of intention to kill - Injury not immediately incapacitating - Case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 and 188 IPC by the trial court for the murder of the deceased following a quarrel over scavenging scrap material. The deceased succumbed to injuries after 12 hours due to septicemia. The appellant appealed against the conviction, contending that the incident was a sudden quarrel without premeditation and sought alteration of the offence to Section 304 Part I IPC.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but lacked the requisite intention for murder. The court found that the incident was a sudden, heat-of-the-moment occurrence, thus modifying the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

Issues: Whether the act of the accused constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, given the absence of premeditation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an incident occurs in a sudden quarrel without prior enmity or premeditation, and where the assailant lacks the specific intention to kill, the offence falls under the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction altered to Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court findings and evidentiary background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. appellate arguments regarding mitigating circumstances and heat of passion. (Para 7 , 8)
3. distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide based on intent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final order altering the conviction and modifying the sentence. (Para 14)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 2 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). The learned Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Section 302 IPC. Further, under Section 188 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only), and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case briefly stated as follows:

2.1 The complainant in this case, Manoj Kalidas Solanki, lives with his parents at Navi Vasahat Bholav, Bharuch, behind Gujarati School, and is not currently doing any work or business and has studied up to standard fifth. On 12/08/2013, at around 8 pm, the complainant was sitting at his house to take a bath. In the meantime, the complainant's maternal uncle's son named Pratik, aged 13, who rush to the complainant's house and told the complainant, "Come quickly, Suryabhai has been beaten by someone with profused bleeding," saying that the complainant went to his brother Sureshbhai, who lives with the complainant's grandmother next to the mosque in Bholav village. Where the complainant's brother Sureshbhai was suffering from acute bleeding from the stomach, when Sureshbhai was asked about it, he said, "Mahendrabhai fought with me and beat me with a paddle. That is why the blood is coming out." Therefore, Usmanbhai, who was driving a cart near Sureshbhai's house, called 108 ambulance and when the ambulance arrived, the complainant brought his brother Sureshbhai to Bharuch Civil Hospital for treatment. At that time, the doctor asked the complainant's brother Sureshbhai, Mahendrabhai Somabhai Vasava, resident of Bholavwala, about the fact that they had quarreled and beaten him, and the doctor informed the police. After that, when the police came, the complainant's brother appraised the police the above fact, during it deceased faint and after that the he did not regain consciousness. Therefore, the complainant gave this present complaint to the Police Head Constable of Bharuch Railway Police Station in person, that complaint was registered under Section-302, 188 of the Indian Penal Code from Bharuch Railway Police Station C.R.No. First -17/13.

2.2 After registration of the FIR, the investigating officer at Bharuch Railway Police Station took up the investigation of the crime, arrested the accused Mahendrabhai Somabhai Vasava, produced him before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railway Court, Surat, and upon it being established that a prima facie offence was made out against the accused, filed a charge-sheet under Sections 302 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The said criminal case was numbered 2988/13. Since the offences charged were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railway Court, Surat, committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Surat, where it was registered as Sessions

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