Gujarat High Court
Shanabhai Dhulabhai Khant vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1425 of
2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=========================================
SHANABHAI DHULABHAI KHANT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BIPIN BHATT(1529) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR J. K. SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 24/11/2025
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 of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.07.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa in Sessions Case No. 86/2012 (New Case No. 64/2013), whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further undergo six Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The appellant was, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03/05/2012 at around 05:00 hours in the morning, in the village of Ubhran, Taluka Malpur, District Aravalli, the deceased Ambaben wife of Radhabhai Khant was plastering the front-yard (aangan) of their house with cow-dung and mud as part of the routine household work. At that time, her husband Radhabhai Khant and their son Ashishbhai were present in the house, while another son, the complainant Rakeshbhai Radhabhai Khant, had momentarily stepped out towards the village. Suddenly, the accused Shanabhai Dhulabhai Khant, who is a relative residing in the same village, came to the spot in an agitated state and started hurling abuses in filthy and unparliamentary language, alleging that the family of Radhabhai had not paid the complete amount for the construction of a compound wall. When the deceased Ambaben objected to such abusive language and asked the accused to refrain from abusing, the accused, in a fit of rage, picked up an iron shovel (phaavdo) lying nearby, and with force gave a blow with the sharp edge of the shovel on the head of Ambaben. On seeing this, Radhabhai immediately rushed to save his wife and intervened, whereupon the accused, with the same iron shovel, delivered another forceful blow on the head of Radhabhai as well. As a result of these blows on the vital part of the body, both Ambaben and Radhabhai sustained deep incised wounds on their heads, started bleeding profusely, and Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined collapsed on the ground. Upon hearing the screams, the complainant Rakeshbhai rush to the house and witnessed both his parents lying in a pool of blood. On inquiry, his brother Ashishbhai narrated the entire incident and disclosed the name of the accused as the assailant. The accused also attempted to attack the complainant with the same weapon, but on seeing people gathering at the spot, he fled away, threatening the family with dire consequences. Immediately thereafter, the injured Ambaben and Radhabhai were taken in a private vehicle by their relatives, including paternal uncle Mathurji Kalabhai Khant, Ranjitbhai, Revaben, Jigiben and Manishaben, first to Modasa Referral Hospital and, owing to the seriousness of the head injuries, Ambaben was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for specialized treatment. Unfortunately, during the course of treatment at Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, Ambaben succumbed to the injuries sustained on her head. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, with the common intention and knowledge that the blows inflicted by a dangerous weapon on the vital part were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, intentionally caused the death of Ambaben and attempted to cause the death of Radhabhai, and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was initially carried out by PSI K.A. Vala, Malpur Police Station. Statements of the complainant and other material witnesses were recorded, and upon the death of Ambaben at Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, Head Constable Gunvantsinh was deputed to conduct the inquest and collect the post-mortem report and death certificate. After PSI Zala resumed duty, he prepared the panchnama of the scene of offence, Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined recorded further statements, arrested the accused, and in the presence of panch witnesses recovered the iron shovel used in the assault at the instance of the accused. The muddamal articles were seized, necessary medical papers were collected and, on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Malpur, where it was registered as Criminal Case No. 968 of 2012.
4. The learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Modasa framed the charges against the appellant and proceeded with the trial. In order to establish the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined in all twenty-two (22) witnesses and produced and relied upon thirty-two (32) documentary evidences. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the further statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence, asserting that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
5. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents.
Oral evidences :
PW1 - Exh. 14 Rakeshbhai Radhabhai Khant
PW2 - Exh. 16 Aashishkumar Radhabhai Khant
PW3 - Exh. 17 Radhbhai Kalabhai Khant
PW4 - Exh. 18 Manishaben Radhabhai Khant
Page 4 of 16
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
PW5 - Exh. 19 Dr. Sureshkumar Kantibhai Zaveri
PW6 - Exh. 23 Dr. Arunkumar Bhikhabhai Bhatiya
PW7 - Exh. 28 Suryaben Shanabhai Khant
PW8 - Exh. 29 Dr. Yogeshgiri Manigiri Goswami
PW9 - Exh. 32 Dahyabhai Vaghjibhai Vankar
PW10 - Exh. 36 Kanubhai Martabhai Dedun
PW11 - Exh. 40 Gopalbhai Ramanbhai
PW12 - Exh. 29 Somabhai Nanjibhai Katara
PW13 - Exh. 44 Nanaji Kesharaji Bamaniya
PW14 - Exh. 46 Gopalbhai Mohanbhai Patel
PW15 - Exh. 48 Lalabhai Mathurbhai Khant
PW16 - Exh. 51 Ramanbhai Bhikhabhai Bhoi
PW17 - Exh. 53 Ashokkumar Manilal Bhoi
PW18 - Exh. 54 Kantibhai Kalabhai Tarar
PW19 - Exh. 56 Ramsinh Ransinh Chauhan
PW20 - Exh. 58 Lakshmanbhai Ranchhodbhai Pagi
PW21 - Exh. 60 Khumansinh Abhesinh Vala
PW22 - Exh. 64 Divyarajsinh Jorubha Zala
Documentary Evidences:
Exh.15 Compliant
Exh.20 P. M. Note
Exh.21 Cause of Death Certificate
Exh.22,23 List written to the Medical Officer
Page 5 of 16
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Exh.24 Medical Certificate of the injurded Ambaben
Exh.25 Reefer Chit of the Vatrak Hospital
Exh.26 Medical Certificate of the injurded Radhabhai
Exh.27 List written to the Medical Officer
Exh.30 Medical Certificate of the injurded Suryaben
Exh.31 List written to the Medical Officer
Exh.33 List written to the Executive Magistrate
Exh.34A List written to the Executive Magistrate
Exh.34 Map
Exh.37 List written to the Talati
Exh.38,39 Assessment sheet
Exh.41 Index card
Exh.42 Extract from the station dairy
Exh.45 Panchnama of the physical condition of the
complianant and the witness.
Exh.47 Panchnama of the Crime scene
Exh.49 Panchnama of the Ambaben body conidition
Exh.52 Panchnama of the Accused body conidition
Exh.55 Inquest Panchnama
Exh.57 Panchnama of the possession of Muddamal
Exh.61 List written to the Talati
Exh.62 List written to the Executive Magistrate
Exh.63,70 Report of addition of section
Exh.65 Receipt of the FSL
Page 6 of 16
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
Exh.66 Dispatch Note.
Exh.67 FSL Report
Exh.68 Serological Report
Exh.69 List written to the Executive Magistrate
Exh.71,72 Copy of the Notification (Jahernama)
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, were recorded, to which, they pleaded their false involvement.
7. Learned advocate for the appellant-accused further submitted that the appellant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration, having completed more than 13 years of actual imprisonment till date. It was urged that in view of the nature of the incident, which occurred in a sudden heat of passion without premeditation, coupled with the prolonged period of custody already suffered, the sentence may appropriately be reduced to the period undergone, more so when the appellant is the sole earning member of his family and his continued incarceration would cause irreparable hardship to his dependents.
8. Learned APP, Mr. J. K. Shah, while strongly supporting the findings of the Sessions court on the reliability of the ocular testimony of the injured eye-witness, the medical evidence establishing that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the discovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant and the incriminating FSL report, very candidly submitted that upon re-appreciation of the entire material on record, that the incident though having taken place in a sudden Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined quarrel even without any premeditation, and in absence of no prior enmity, the Court ruled out the fact that the weapon was picked up from the spot itself, and the act was committed. However, in continuation further submitted except that nothing further transpires to attribute any adverse to the accused.
9. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the state and has considered the entire evidence on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, the core issue that arises for determination is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for the offence of murder is sustainable, or whether, in view of the surrounding circumstances, the act would fall within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attracting Section 304 Part I IPC.
Factual Matrix coupled with reasoning:-
10. The record demonstrates that the quarrel arose suddenly over a trivial issue relating to alleged non-payment for a partition wall. The accused did not come with arm to the spot; rather, he picked up an iron shovel lying at the place of incident. The evidence indicates that the blow was inflicted in a fit of anger following an exchange of abuses. This Court finds that there was no premeditation or prior intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. However, the blows were inflicted on a vital part of the body, head and with considerable force. This clearly establishes that the accused had knowledge that such an act was likely to cause death, although the element of intention to cause death cannot be conclusively inferred from the circumstances. Therefore, while the act constitutes culpable Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined homicide, it lacks the essential ingredient of intention that would elevate it to murder under Section 300 IPC.
11. From the evidence on record, particularly the medical certificates at Exhibits 24 and 26 and the testimony of the doctor who eamined the deceased. It clearly emerges that the deceased Ambaben had sustained three incised and lacerated wounds on the left side of the forehead, measuring 6 × 3 × 3 cm, 3 × 2 × 1 cm and 2 × 2 × 0.5 cm respectively, all of which were deep enough to reach the skull bone and were actively bleeding. The injured witness, Radhabhai Kalabhai, was also found to have an incised and lacerated wound on the right side of the head measuring 3 × 2 × 0.5 cm, and another similar wound on the lower part of the right arm measuring 3 × 2 × 1 cm. The doctor has opined that both sets of injuries could be caused by a spade, and the weapon produced in court was identified as capable of inflicting such wounds. Although in cross-examination the doctor agreed that such injuries could occur if a person falls forcefully on a stone, the panchnama of the scene of offence and the site map do not indicate the presence of any stones at the place of incident, thereby ruling out the defence plea. The nature, depth and location of the injuries, particularly those on the deceased extending up to the skull bone, indicate that the assault was carried out with considerable force; however, the medical evidence does not conclusively establish an intention to cause death, but it clearly demonstrates knowledge that such acts were likely to cause death or at least serious bodily harm.
12. The prosecution has also examined Ashishbhai Rakhabhai Khant at Exh. 16, and on perusal of his entire testimony, the factum of his presence at the time of the incident appears doubtful under Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined the surrounding circumstances. However, even if it is considered that he was present at the time of the incident, the manner in which the occurrence took place is that the present petitioner- original accused allegedly gave a blow with a hoe while hurling abuses, because of which the deceased fell down. Due to the hue and cry, the father of the said witness also rushed to the place of incident and tried to intervene, and at that time, when the deceased was alleged to have been given a blow with the hoe, he too sustained injuries. Immediately thereafter, both the injured and the deceased were taken to the Modasa Hospital, where the deceased was admitted. However, as the deceased had sustained serious injuries, she was referred to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where, after undergoing treatment for about one week, she succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the prosecution witnesses, namely Rakhabhai - husband of the deceased - and Ashishbhai - son of the deceased, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, when their depositions are read together with the medical evidence, indicate that the death of the deceased was not a natural one but a culpable homicide. However, the question which requires consideration, in view of the entire evidence on record, is as to how and in what circumstances the deceased came to die.
13. It transpires that the prosecution in support of his case has examined 21 witnesses however, out of the said witnesses the only injured Raghbhai Kalabhai Khant at Exh. 17 who has narrated the incident.
14. It transpires from the entire material placed for consideration that the cause behind so, the called incident as per the case of the prosecution is that the accused was supposed to share the Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined expenditure behind the construction of the common wall however no such evidence seems to have been placed on record which otherwise create shadow of doubt as to the substance and case of the prosecution that the witness while modifying and rectifying its case appears to have stated that the accused already paid the amount in question have already been paid. The theory of the prosecution that the accused was demanding more money does not find confidence to the said extent. Be it may as it is reverting to the following aspects.
15. The said fact seems to having not been proved by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt be as it may be. The defense has also tried to put up the case made an endeavor to place on the record that the accused was suffering from the mental disorder who was not in position to face the trial however, the said fact seems to have denied by the said witness and appears to have reiterated the case of the prosecution.
16. In so far as the defence raised by the prosecution and the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner are concerned, it is contended that at the relevant time necessary attention was drawn to the learned Sessions Judge regarding the emollience of each mental disorder of the petitioner, and by referring to the proceedings of the Sessions case, an attempt was made to show that the necessary medical reports had been called for from the concerned Sessions Court. However, no such material appears on record except for the said reference. On the contrary, it indicates that thereafter charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded accordingly. It further transpires that during the course of the Sessions case, the present petitioner Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined neither protested nor raised any such issue, rather co-operated throughout the proceedings. Therefore, the context now raised regarding mental disorder is not sustainable as the same appears to be without any substance.
Legal Proposition:-
17. In light of the principles laid down in Rampal Singh V. State of U.P. 2012 8 SCC 289 while reiterating and drawing support from Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818], and as reiterated in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar v. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 1302), the distinction between murder under Section 302 and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 turns upon the presence or absence of intention has been succinctly dealt with and observed as under:
"19. The difference was further elucidated in Rampal Singh v. State of U.P.,(2012) in the following words:
"18. This Court in Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. [(2007) 14 SCC 660 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 915] noticed that academic distinction between "murder" and "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" had vividly been brought out by this Court in State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya [(1976) 4 SCC 382 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 659] where it was observed as under: (Vineet Kumar case [(2007) 14 SCC 660 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 915], SCC pp. 665-66, para
16) "16. ... that the safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of Sections 299 and 300 IPC is to keep in focus the key words used in various clauses of the said sections. Minutely comparing each of the clauses of Sections 299 and 300 IPC and drawing support from the Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined decisions of this Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818] and Rajwant Singh v.
State of Kerala [AIR 1966 SC 1874 : 1966 Cri LJ 1509] , speaking for the Court, R.S. Sarkaria, J. neatly brought out the points of distinction between the two offences, which have been time and again reiterated. Having done so, the Court said that wherever the court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', on the facts of a case, it [would] be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to 'culpable homicide' as defined in Section 299. ... If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First or the Second Part of Section Page 8 of 29 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304 IPC. It was, however, clarified that these were only broad guidelines to facilitate the task of the court and not cast-iron imperative."
20. This Court in the aforesaid case of Rampal Singh (supra) further explained the difference between these two offences from the perspective of the punitive provisions of Sections 302 and 304 IPC by grading the offences in three categories as follows:
"21.Sections 302 and 304 of the Code are primarily the punitive provisions. They declare what punishment a person would be liable to be awarded, if he commits either of the offences. An analysis of these two sections must be done having regard to what is common to the offences and what is special to each one of them. The offence of culpable homicide is thus an offence which may or may not be Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined murder. If it is murder, then it is culpable homicide amounting to murder, for which punishment is prescribed in Section 302 of the Code. Section 304 deals with cases not covered by Section 302 and it divides the offence into two distinct classes, that is, (a) those in which the death is intentionally caused; and (b) those in which the death is caused unintentionally but knowingly. In the former case the sentence of imprisonment is compulsory and the maximum sentence admissible is imprisonment for life. In the latter case, imprisonment is only optional, and the maximum sentence only extends to imprisonment for 10 years. The first clause of Section 304 includes only those cases in which offence is really "murder", but mitigated by the presence of circumstances recognised in the Exceptions to Section 300 of the Code, the second clause deals only with the cases in which the accused has no intention of injuring anyone in particular. In this regard, we may also refer to the judgment of this Court in Fatta v. Emperor [AIR 1931 Lah 63] , 1151. C. 476 (Refer: Penal Law of India by Dr Hari Singh Gour, Vol. 3, 2009.)"
18. In the case on hand, the assault appears to have been triggered by a sudden quarrel, and the appellant acted under a wave of provocation and fury. Though the blows were fatal, the absence of pre-planning or deliberation does subsist, though the learned advocate for the petitioner try to persuade this Court to hold that the case is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC-- sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation. However, we are not impressed with the said submissions. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, in the alternative, even considering the incriminating circumstances and the fact that the incident in question occurred in the spur of the moment.
19. The medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report indicating severe cranial injuries and haemorrhage, establishes Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the appellant knew that hitting a person on the head with an iron shovel was likely to cause death. Thus, the case falls squarely under Section 304 Part I IPC, where death is caused by an act done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The evidence of eyewitnesses, including injured witness Radhabhai and son Ashishbhai, though consistent and reliable, does not reflect any motive or pre-planned design on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. It appears that the accused lost self-control due to the sudden quarrel and acted in the heat of passion.
20. This Court finds that the Sessions Court failed to properly evaluate the mitigating circumstances and erred in holding that the offence amounted to murder under Section 302. The circumstances, as established, fit within the well-recognized category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I.
21. Furthermore, the act of the appellant is not one that resulted in instantaneous death. The deceased succumbed after several days of treatment, and although the injuries were serious, the delayed death further strengthens the inference that the act stemmed from sudden anger rather than a deliberate intention to kill. On a cumulative assessment of the evidence and in view of the governing precedents, we are is persuaded to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The conviction in continuation of aforesaid reason under Section 323 IPC for causing hurt to Radhabhai stands confirmed. In this background, absence of motive assumes great importance which in turn would put a Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1425/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined question made on the presence of "intention" to commit an act.
22. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the assault, the absence of premeditation, the relationship between the parties as being close relatives, and the long passage of time since the incident, upon the conviction of appellant under part I of section 304 IPC as above he has already undergone 13 years and 5 months of sentence. Thus, we sentence accused to the period already undergone by him with fine.
23. The sentence of 6 months RI under Section 323 IPC is maintained. Both sentences have already held by learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any further deliberation.
24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
(a) The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part I IPC.
(b) The sentence of imprisonment for life is modified to the extent of sentence already undergone.
(c) The fine amount and default sentence imposed by the Sessions court shall remain unaltered .
(d) The conviction and sentence recorded under Section 323 IPC are confirmed.
(e) The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
(f) The bail bonds stand discharged.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) Kaushal Rathod Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:45:19 IST 2025