Gujarat High Court
Mahendrabhai Naginbhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat on 5 December, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 212 of
2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=========================================
MAHENDRABHAI NAGINBHAI VASAVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) 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 : 05/12/2025
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 01.10.2016 passed by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No. 130/2013, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo 30 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 IPC. The appellant was, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution, as presented before the court, is that on the night intervening 27/06/2013 a tragic and violent incident unfolded inside the matrimonial home of the deceased Sumanben and the accused-appellant Mahendrabhai Naginbhai Vasava. It is the prosecution's contention that on the said night, a trivial domestic quarrel erupted between the husband (the accused- appellant) and his wife (the deceased Sumanben) over a minor issue concerning preparation or serving of dinner. The accused, in a fit of sudden and grave provocation fuelled by anger and allegedly harbouring unfounded suspicion regarding his wife's character or fidelity, lost all sense of reason and self-control. In this state of uncontrolled rage, he picked up a wooden stick and assaulted his wife by delivering two forceful blows directly on her head with the blunt side of the weapon. The intensity of the blows was such that they caused severe cranio-cerebral injuries, which subsequently proved fatal. When the couple's minor daughters, namely Hansaben and Shakuntalaben, who were present in the house and witnessed the horrifying assault on their mother, rushed forward in a desperate attempt to intervene, the accused, undeterred and still blinded by fury, turned his aggression towards them as well. He assaulted the elder daughter Hansaben with the Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined same wooden stick, inflicting grievous injuries upon her, and also attacked the younger daughter Shakuntalaben, causing her simple hurt. Having committed these brutal acts, the accused-appellant immediately fled from the scene of crime, leaving his injured wife and daughters behind. The deceased Sumanben was rushed to the hospital in a critical condition but, despite medical efforts, she succumbed to the severe head injuries sustained from the deadly blows inflicted by her husband.
3. The complaint was lodged by Lakhiben (sister-in-law of the deceased) leading to registration of FIR at Umalla Police Station. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to Sessions Court, Ankleshwar and registered as Sessions Case No. 130/2013. Charges were framed under Sections 302, 326, 323 IPC and Section 135 Gujarat Police Act.
4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents.
Oral Evidences:
No. Exh. Particulars
1 09 Panch Witness Naginbhai Fuljibhai Vasava
2 11 Panch Witness Bijalbhai Somabhai Vasava
3 12 Panch Witness Manjulaben Chhitubhai Vasava
4 13 Panch Witness Dharmendrabhai Ramsangbhai Makwana
5 22 Panch Witness Arjunbhai Muljibhai Makwana
6 23 Panch Witness Sureshbhai Babubhai Vasava
7 28 Panch Witness Rameshbhai Kanchanbhai Makwana
8 29 Panch Witness Ashwinbhai Gumanbhai Vasava
9 34 Panch Witness Mahendrabhai Narsinghbhai Vasava
10 35 Compliant Lakhiben Ranchhodbhai Vasava
11 37 Witness Kantibhai Khodabhai Vasava
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
12 38 Witness Maheshbhai Kantibhai Vasava
13 39 Witness Hansaben @ Ansuyaben Mahendrabhai Vasava
14 40 Witness Shankutalaben Mahendrabhai Vasava
15 41 Medical Officer Dr. Vijaykumar Vanarshibhai Parmar
16 44 Medical Officer Dr. Jigneshbhai Mohanbhai Parmar
17 47 Exh. Megistrate Ilyasbhai Hafiz Ismailbhai Patel
18 51 Circle Inspector Shanabhai Nagjibhai Vasava
19 57 P.S.O. Jesingbhai Ramjibhai
20 59 P.S.I. Maheshkumar Mangabhai Gilatar
21 65 P.S.O. Chandubhai Dhariyabhai Vasava
Documentary Evidences:
No. Exh. Particulars
1 10 Inquest Panchnama
2 14 Panchnama of the Crime scene
3 15 Panchnama of Witness Ansuya and Shankuntala's
clothes
4 27 Panchanma of Accused's clothes
5 33 Panchanama of the Deceased's clothes
6 36 Complaint
7 42 Witness Shakuntalaben's Medical Certificate
8 43 Witness Ansuyaben's Medical Certificate
9 45 Written list for the Post Mortem
10 46 Post Mortem Report
11 48 List written to the Exh. Magistrate
12 49 Dying Declaration of Ansuyaben
13 50 Dying Declaration of Shakuntalaben
14 52 List Written to the T.D.O for the Map
15 53 List Written to the T.D.O. Circle Inspector
16 54 Map of the Crime Scene
17 58 Extract from the Station Dairy
18 60 Report of the Crime Scene Visit
19 61 List of the Muddamaal returned
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
20 62 Receipt of the received Muddamaal F.S.L
21 63 F.S.L. Report
22 66 Closing Pursis
5. 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."
6. Learned advocate for the appellant-accused further submitted that the appellant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration, having completed more than 11 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.
7. 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 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 Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined transpires to attribute any adverse to the accused.
8. 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:-
9. The incident occurred inside the matrimonial home late at night when only the accused, the deceased wife and the two daughters were present. The quarrel was sudden and over a trivial matter of dinner. The accused did not bring any weapon from outside; the wooden stick was lying in the house and was picked up in the heat of passion. The medical evidence post-mortem report Exh.46 establishes that the deceased sustained two lacerated wounds on the head with underlying skull fractures and brain injury, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The wooden club recovered at the instance of the accused was found stained with blood of the deceased.
10. From the evidence on record, particularly the post-mortem report, the injury certificates, and the unequivocal testimony of the forensic expert and the doctor who conducted the autopsy and examined the injured witnesses, it clearly emerges that the deceased Sumanben had sustained two deep and extensive lacerated wounds on the left side of the head, both inflicted with Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined tremendous force by a hard and blunt object. The first injury was a straight lacerated wound measuring 12 × 1 × 1 cm, extending from a point 2 cm above the left eye towards the midline of the skull, grievous in nature, reaching up to the bone and causing an underlying fracture of the skull. The second injury was an even longer and deeper lacerated wound measuring 14 × 1 × 1 cm, running from a point 4 cm above the left ear to the midline in the left parietal region, again penetrating up to the bone with a clear fracture of the parietal bone. In addition, multiple bruises were present on the anterior chest wall in the inter-mammary region, indicative of application of blunt force on the front of the chest.
11. The injured eyewitnesses, particularly daughters Hansaben and Shakuntalaben, were also found to have sustained contusions and lacerations consistent with assault by the same blunt weapon. The doctor has categorically opined that all the injuries noted on the deceased as well as on the injured witnesses were possible by repeated heavy blows with a wooden stick, and the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused and produced in court was identified by the doctor as fully capable of causing precisely such lacerated wounds with underlying fractures. Although in cross- examination the doctor conceded that, theoretically, a fall on a hard surface could produce lacerations, the scene of offence panchnama and the site map prepared by the investigating officer do not disclose the presence of any stone, boulder, or other hard protruding object at the place of incident capable of causing such deep, linear, parallel lacerated wounds with underlying skull fractures. Thus, the defence suggestion of accidental injury stands completely ruled out. The nature, size, depth, direction, and location of the injuries particularly the two long, deep lacerated wounds on the most vital part of the body (the head), both Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined accompanied by fractures of the skull, clearly establish that the assault was executed with considerable force and violence. While the medical evidence does not conclusively prove a pre-meditated intention to cause death in the legal sense, it unambiguously demonstrates that the accused had clear knowledge that striking his wife repeatedly on the head with such a heavy wooden stick with the force employed was likely to cause death or, at the very least, bodily injury of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of nature result in death.
12. The sessions court failed to appreciate the sudden nature of the provocation and the absence of premeditation, and erroneously applied clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC as establishing intention rather than knowledge. The act of the accused, therefore, constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC, as the accused did an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. The conviction under Section 325 IPC for causing grievous hurt to daughter Hansaben by the same weapon is fully justified and requires no interference.
13. In the case at hand, the entire incident stemmed from a sudden and trivial domestic quarrel over dinner. The appellant, in a moment of uncontrolled anger, picked up an ordinary wooden stick lying in the house and struck his wife on the head. There is not an iota of evidence to suggest any premeditation, prior planning, preparation of weapon, or any intention formed in advance to cause death. The blows, though ultimately fatal, were delivered in the heat of passion without the appellant taking any undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The circumstances squarely attract Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The sessions court Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined completely misdirected itself in treating the offence as murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.
14. The medical evidence, especially the post-mortem findings of two deep lacerated wounds on the left side of the head (12 × 1 × 1 cm and 14 × 1 × 1 cm) with underlying skull fractures, tearing of meninges and brain tissue, and death due to haemorrhagic shock, clearly proves that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. By repeatedly striking a vital part (the head) with considerable force using a heavy wooden stick, the appellant must be imputed with the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. At the same time, the consistent testimony of the injured daughters and the absence of any motive or pre-existing enmity establish that the appellant acted on the spur of the moment and lost self-control owing to the sudden quarrel.
15. Upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court is satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge gravely erred in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The act of the appellant falls within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and is squarely covered by Section 304 Part I IPC, i.e., causing death by doing an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
16. Death was not instantaneous; the deceased was taken to hospital and succumbed only after some time. This further reinforces that there was no predetermined intent to kill but only a rash act committed in sudden anger. In these circumstances, altering the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC is imperative in the interest of justice. The conviction recorded by the sessions court for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined daughter Hansaben under Section 325 IPC is, however, based on cogent evidence and is maintained.
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 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 Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined '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 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. Having regard to the totality of the facts, the trivial nature of the quarrel, total absence of premeditation, familial relationship between the parties, the appellant having no prior criminal history, the incident being more than twelve years old, and crucially, the appellant having already suffered actual incarceration of over Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/212/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined twelve years and five months. We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by sentencing the appellant to the period of imprisonment already undergone under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellant has already undergone more than 11 years of actual imprisonment, which is more than sufficient punishment for an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC in the facts of the case. The sentence of three years under Section 325 IPC already stands more than covered by the period undergone.
19. 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 325 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 12 of 12 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Fri Dec 05 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:47:20 IST 2025