Gujarat High Court
Chetanbhai Ravjibhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 214 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
CHETANBHAI RAVJIBHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JAY MEHTA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 25/03/2026
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 22.01.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.7 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined under Section 302 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 six months under Section 302 IPC.
2. Prosecution case briefly stated as follows:
2.1 That the complaint Ravjibhai Govindbhai Chauhan, husband of the deceased, is resident of Songarh, Dist Bhavnagar. The complainant used to live at Songarh, with his family including two sons wherein elder one Chetanbhai and the younger Nileshbhai used to live at Ahmedabad.
Chetanbhai got married to Paritaben four years back and almost one and a half years ago they got divorced and therefore Chetanbhai was living with his mother and father at Songarh. It is further the case of prosecution that on 29/9/2014., at around 7.30 AM., the complainant was at his shop and his wife Kantuben and his son Chetan, were alone at home. There was a scuffle between his wife and son Chetan, on the issue of having tea and going to work and complainant called his wife to his shop to maintain peace at home. Thereafter, ten minutes later, she went to her home at around 8.15 a.m. saying that she will come back within 10 or 15 minutes to the shop however she didn't turn up to the shop and complainant went home to check where he saw that his son Chetan ran away while his wife was seriously injured and lying on bed. There were two injuries on the back of her forehead and one injury on front side of her forehead. On listening his voice, his neighbours and relatives, ran and she was taken to the nearest clinic on rickshaw, from where 108 ambulance was called and Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined she was taken to Bhavnagar Government Hospital. On reaching Govt. Hospital, the doctor on duty declared her brought dead. Thus, it is the case of prosecution that appellant - accused in response to the quarrel took place with his mother suddenly got excited and inflicted blows with iron mortar on her head and thereby caused her death.
2.2 After registration of the FIR, the investigating officer took up the investigation of the crime, arrested the accused produced him before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, and upon it being established that a prima facie offence was made out against the accused, filed a charge- sheet under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Since the offences charged were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Surat, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 7 of 2015.
2.3 Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thereafter the case proceeded accordingly.
3. The prosecution has examined numbers of prosecution witnesses and produced and relied upon documentary evidence to substantiate its case. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, categorically denied the incriminating circumstances put to him by the Court and pleaded complete innocence.
Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined
He asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, after a detailed appreciation of evidence, placed firm reliance upon the evidence of the complainant and the doctor and on the strength of the above evidence, the learned Sessions court convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
5. Assailing the order of sentence and conviction under Section 302 IPC, learned counsel Mr.Patadia appearing for the appellant submitted, with considerable vehemence and persuasive force, that the entire incident had arisen out of a sudden and trivial quarrel over making of tea and going to work; there was absolutely no premeditation or pre- planning; the appellant had no intention whatsoever to cause the death of the deceased; the weapon used was an iron mortar generally used in cooking which the appellant had picked up; the assault was delivered in the heat of the moment; the deceased, despite receiving injury was taken to the hospital; death was occurred due to shock and haemorrhage on account of head injury; there was no independent eye-witness to the occurrence; and therefore the act of the appellant, at worst, would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC or, in any event, under Section 304 Part I IPC as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
5.1 Learned advocate for the appellant-accused vehemently prayed that the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court under Section 302 Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined IPC be altered to one under Section 304 Part I IPC, as the incident undisputedly occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel without any premeditation and the case does not fall within the four corners of Section 300 IPC. He further submitted that, having regard to the fact that the appellant has already undergone 11 years and 01 month of actual imprisonment as of now and is the sole bread-winner of his family consisting of aged parents, wife and minor children, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
6. Learned APP, while strongly supporting the findings of the learned Sessions Court on the reliability of the evidence, the fatal nature of the injury and the incriminating material in the form of postmortem report, very candidly submitted that upon re-appreciation of the entire material on record, that the incident though having taken place in a sudden quarrel but with 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. Thus, he would submit to confirm the judgment and order of the trial Court and to dismiss the appeal of the appellant - convict.
7. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions, having re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, and having perused the impugned judgment with utmost care, we are of the firm opinion that this is a case where the offence committed by the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and not murder punishable under Section Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined 302 IPC.
8. The law on the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is no longer res integra. Culpable homicide is the genus and murder is the specie. All murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. The distinguishing feature is the degree of mens rea. Where the intention is to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence is murder. Where, however, the accused has no intention to cause death but has knowledge that the act done by him is likely to cause death, the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
9. In the instant case, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has examined the complainant as PW No.1-Ravjibhai Govindbhai Chauhan at Exh.9. This witness has deposed in his testimony that incident in question took place on 29/09/2014 and on that day his son while waking up early in morning went outside and returned between 8:00 and 8:30 and started quarreling with his wife who is mother of the accused and at that time complainant was at his shop. Thereafter, when he went inside the home, he saw his son running from the home carrying mortar in his hand and he found his wife lying on the ground in the pool of blood. This witness has further deposed that his son had left the home while leaving the mortar in the home. This witness has further deposed that his wife received injury on her head and she was severely bleeding and nearby neighbours were Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined called and she was taken to Songadh Government Dispensary where since the Doctor was not present, 108 Ambuleance was called and was taken to Sir T Hospital where she was succumbed to the injuries. This witness has deposed that he saw his son carrying mortar in his hand which was thrown away by him in the home. This witness has been cross-examined at length however nothing sort any such material to indicate any premeditation on the part of the accused has come on record.
10. Next witness is examined as PW No.9-Maheshbhai Makwana, at Exh.26 who is claiming to be eye-witness and has deposed in his testimony that he was residing at Songadh and Kantuben and Ravjibhai's house was situated near to his house. This witness has deposed that Kantuben was aunt of his father and his elder son Chetan was not doing anything. This witness has deposed that incident took place prior to about eight to nine months at about 7:00 to 7:30 a.m. in the morning and on that day his father was sitting in lobby of the house and at that time Kantuben put the primus near the otla of the house and Chetanbhai pushed her while coming from her back and thereafter two - three blows of mortar were inflicted and ran away while carrying mortar in his hand. This witness has further deposed that from the lobby of his house, faliya of Kantuben's residence was seen and he had seen the incident. This witness has deposed that his uncle came and found lying Kantuben and thereafter his uncle Chandubhai went to house of Kantuben and Ravjibhai came to his house from the shop. This witness has identified the accused and the muddamal weapon used in the commission of crime. This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that he had not stated in the police statement the fact that from the lobby of his house Faliyu of Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined Kantuben is seen. This witness has stated that he had stated that from the lobby of his house faliyu of Kantuben is seen; but has not stated that portion of house was seen.
11. PW No.2 - Dr. Devendrabhai Nanabhai Panchal has been examined at Exh.11. This witness has conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and opined that death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of head injury and witness has also deposed that such injuries can be sustained with the hard and blatant substance and having seen the muddamal article No.6 he has deposed that injuries sustained in column no.17 can be sustained with the same.
12. Thus, the evidence as discussed herein above clearly points to the guilt of the appellant, without there being any doubt. However, the question still remains as to whether such an act on the part of the appellant - accused is with or without any premeditation or not. Of course, the above circumstances, though sufficient to prove that the appellant caused the fatal injury, do not necessarily establish that he did so with the intention of causing death. The quarrel was sudden and over a trivial issue of making of tea and going to work. The appellant was the son of the deceased and were known to each other and residing in the same house. There is no evidence of any prior enmity or premeditation. The deceased, after receiving the injury, was taken to the nearest clinic where-from in the 108 Ambulance she was taken to the nearest Dispensary where-from she was taken to the Government Hospital where she was declared dead. Death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage on Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined account of the head injury. All these factors, taken cumulatively, clearly indicate that while the appellant certainly had the knowledge that striking a person on a vital part of the body with a weapon was likely to cause her death but he had no premeditation intention to kill the deceased.
Legal Proposition:-
13. 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 Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined 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.)"
14. The learned Sessions Court on consideration of the evidence adduced before the Court fell into error in treating the present case as one of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. It appears that the defence has also made submission that as per the evidence of the complainant, it appears that appellant - accused was aggressive in nature and habitual of frequently getting aggressive in the trivial issues and therefore, also in a sudden provocation, he could have committed an act of assault which has resulted into the crime in question. Upon a careful consideration of the entirety of the evidence and the attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that the incident took place in the course of a sudden quarrel Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/214/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026 undefined without any premeditation and in heat of passion. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had any intention to cause death of the deceased or that he intended to cause that particular injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death with the requisite knowledge that it would almost certainly result in death. The totality of the facts and circumstances brings the case within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the offence is clearly made out under Section 304 Part I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, in the following terms :-
(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 period already undergone. Since the appellant has already undergone 11 years and 01 month of imprisonment, the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
(c) The fine amount and default sentence imposed by the Sessions court shall remain unaltered.
(d) The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
(e) The bail bonds stand discharged.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (R. T. VACHHANI, J) sompura Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 26 00:55:00 IST 2026