R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1456 of

2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

=========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

=========================================

RAVAL SHAILESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI VIRCHANDBHAI

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

=========================================

Appearance:

MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR RONAK B. RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1

=========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 17/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

1. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant–

accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 30/05/2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in

Sessions Case No. 44/2017, whereby the appellant was convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code. The learned Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine, in default

Page 1 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for the offence under

Section 302 IPC.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:

2.1On 20-06-2016 at around 12:30 PM, on the service road

adjacent to Wide Angle Cinema situated on the Mahesana town

highway, the deceased Rawal Govindbhai Dhanabhai, aged about

30 years, resident of Mahesana, was standing near his soda

rickshaw engaged in his routine vending business. At that very

time, the accused Rawal Shaileshbhai Rameshbhai, who is related

to the deceased and also a resident of the same locality, arrived at

the spot riding his motorcycle. Initially, both the deceased and the

accused appeared to be on friendly terms and indulged in light-

hearted joking, banter and mutual exchange of abuses in a playful

manner as was their usual habit.

2.2However, what started as harmless fun soon turned into a

heated quarrel when the accused began using extremely filthy,

provocative and unparliamentary abuses directed towards the

deceased, specifically referring to his mother and sister in a highly

derogatory and insulting manner. The deceased, objecting strongly

to such abusive language, refused to respond in kind or escalate

the verbal exchange further. This refusal is alleged to have

suddenly and intensely provoked the accused, who, in a fit of rage

and loss of self-control, immediately took out a folding knife having

a black handle from his pocket, pressed the button to open, and

started inflicting repeated blows on various parts of the deceased’s

body. The blows were specifically aimed at vital parts and included

the first blow at the middle portion of the stomach, followed by

Page 2 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

blows on the right shoulder, on the left side of the chest, on both

right and left sides of the abdomen, a piercing blow on the lower

part of the right hand, a blow on the palm of the left hand, and a

blow on the left side of the neck. These multiple injuries caused by

a sharp cutting and piercing weapon were alleged to have been

inflicted with the specific intention to cause death, resulting in fatal

and life threatening wounds. During the assault, when the

complainant an eyewitness and injured person in the case rushed

to intervene and separate the two, the accused also struck him with

the same knife near the palm of his right hand and continued to

hurl extremely filthy abuses, thereby disturbing public peace and

tranquility at the spot. Immediately after the incident, the injured

deceased was shifted to Mahesana Civil Hospital for emergency

treatment and, owing to the seriousness and critical nature of his

injuries, was subsequently transferred to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital

for advanced medical care. Unfortunately, despite continuous

medical efforts and treatment over several days, the deceased

succumbed to the multiple piercing injuries and their

complications, including cardiac and respiratory failure, on 28-06-

2016. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused

acted with full knowledge and intention that the nature, number

and location of the injuries caused by a sharp weapon on vital parts

of the body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause death, thereby committing the offence of murder punishable

under Section 302 IPC.

3. Upon registration of the complaint, an FIR was registered at

Mahesana City B Division Police Station being C.R. No. 134/2016

for offences under Sections 307, 324, 504 IPC and Section 135 of

the Gujarat Police Act. After the death of the injured during

treatment, Section 302 IPC was added. The investigating officer

Page 3 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

recorded statements, drew panchnamas, recovered the muddamal

knife at the instance of the accused, sent articles to FSL, collected

medical papers and filed chargesheet in the court of the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana, registered as Criminal Case

No. 9531/2016, which was later committed to Sessions Court as

Sessions Case No. 44/2017.

4. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the

appellant-accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and

proceeded with the trial in accordance with law. In order to bring

home the guilt of the accused and to establish the charges levelled

against him beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined in

all 23 witnesses, including material eyewitnesses, injured

witnesses, panch witnesses, police witnesses, and three medical

officers who had treated the deceased at different stages and

conducted the postmortem examination. The prosecution also

produced and relied upon a large number of documentary

evidences, including the FIR, panchnamas of scene of offence and

recovery of weapon, inquest panchnama, postmortem notes,

medical certificates, treatment records from Mahesana Civil

Hospital and Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, FSL reports, dying

declaration recorded by treating doctors, and other

contemporaneous documents.

4.1The learned Sessions court, in compliance of law, recorded

the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In his said statement, the accused

categorically denied all the incriminating circumstances and

evidence appearing against him on record. He pleaded complete

innocence, asserted that he had no concern whatsoever with the

Page 4 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

alleged incident, stated that he knows nothing about the incident,

and contended that a false case has been filed against him out of

enmity. He did not examine any defence witness nor did he produce

any documentary evidence in his defence.

5. In order to prove the charge of murder punishable under

Section 302 IPC and other offences originally levelled, the

prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in all and exhibited

a total of 26 documentary evidences during the course of the trial.

Oral Evidences:

Sr.

No.

Name Exh.

1Dr. Ramesh Kumar Maganbhai Shah 7

2Dr. Bhairavi Dipak Joshi 16

3Dr. Purvi Sheetalgiri Goswami 50

4Thakor Vikramji Ramsangji 12

5Thakor Rameshji Maganji 15

6Thakor Mohanji Khodaji 22

7Thakor Amratji Diwanji 25

8Raval Sanjaykumar Lilabhai 26

9Goswami Mahendragiri Santoshgiri 29

10Thakor Jitendra Parbatji 32

11Vyas Kamleshkumar Rupshankar 33

12Panchal Bhanubhai Babulal 36

13Variyani Mahjeshkumar Narandas 37

14Raval Rekhaben Govindbhai 40

15Raval Kantibhai Veljibhai 43

16Goswami Sanjaybharathi Rambharathi 44

17Goswami Sunilbharathi Kailasbharathi 45

18Chaudhary Ramesh bhai Ramjibhai 46

19Raval Rajubhai Kantibhai 49

20Desai Maganbhai Malabhai 56

21Katana Nagjibhai Gokalbhai 61

22Jadeja Satensingh Parbatsingh 68

23Trivedi Kaushikkumar Hemshankar 71

Page 5 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

Documentary Evidences:

Sr.

No.

Document Exh.

1Inquest Panchnama 6

2Complainant's Treatment Certificate 8

3Deceased Person's Treatment Certificate 10

4Crime Scene Panchnama 13

5Post-Mortem Note 17

6Cause of Death Certificate 18

7

Panchnama of Complainant's Body Condition and

Seizure of Clothes

23

8

Panchnama of Deceased Person's Body Condition and

Seizure of Clothes

27

9

Panchnama of Accused's Body Condition and Seizure of

Clothes

30

10Murder Weapon Recovery Panchnama 34

11Complainant's Complaint 38

12F.S.L. Preliminary Report 47

13Uniform Report 58

14Depute Order 59

15Special Report of the Crime 60

16Letter Regarding Sending Muddamal to F.S.L. 62

17Muddamal Dispatch Entry 63

18Receipt of Muddamal Received 64

19F.S.L. Biology Department Report 65

20F.S.L. Serology Department Report 66

21Copy of Notification/ Jahernama 67

22Letter Regarding Taking Statement of Injured Person 69

23Report of addition in Sections 70

24Report for Registering the Crime 72

25

Letter Written for Taking Statement of Deceased

Person

73

26Copy of Letter Written to Executive Magistrate for D.D. 74

6. The evidence led by the prosecution consisted principally of

the testimony of medical officers who had treated the deceased at

Mahesana Civil Hospital and Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, the doctor

who conducted the postmortem examination confirming homicidal

Page 6 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

death due to multiple piercing injuries and their complications, the

recovery of the muddamal knife at the instance of the accused, FSL

reports linking the weapon to the nature of injuries, and most

importantly, the dying declaration recorded by the treating doctors

at both hospitals wherein the deceased, while fully conscious, had

specifically named the accused as the person who inflicted the

knife blows upon him. The complainant, who was projected as an

eyewitness and injured person, turned hostile during his

examination-in-chief and did not support the prosecution version

regarding the incident or the role of the accused. However, the

prosecution placed strong reliance on the medical evidence, the

postmortem opinion, the recovery panchnama, and the dying

declaration which were proved through the testimony of the

concerned medical officers and which were argued to be admissible

and reliable under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,

as statements relating to the cause of death made by the deceased

in a conscious state before reliable witnesses. After appreciating

the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned

Sessions court recorded the finding of guilt against the accused

under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him

accordingly.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant-accused further

submitted that the appellant has already undergone a substantial

period of incarceration, having completed approximately 8 years

and 10 months of actual imprisonment till the date of arguments. It

was urged that in view of the nature of the incident, which arose

out of a trivial altercation involving initial joking, mutual exchange

of abuses and a sudden quarrel without any premeditation or prior

enmity, coupled with the prolonged period of custody already

suffered by the appellant, the sentence may appropriately be

Page 7 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

reduced to the period already undergone or to a reasonable term.

It was further submitted that the appellant is the sole earning

member of his family, and his continued incarceration would cause

irreparable hardship and suffering to his dependents who rely upon

him for their livelihood and daily needs.

8. Learned APP Mr. Ronak B. Raval, while strongly supporting

the findings of the learned Sessions Court on the reliability of the

medical evidence establishing that the multiple piercing injuries

were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the

postmortem opinion confirming homicidal death due to the said

injuries and their complications leading to cardiac and respiratory

arrest, the recovery of the muddamal knife at the instance of the

accused, the FSL report, and the dying declaration recorded by the

treating doctors at Mahesana Civil Hospital and Ahmedabad Civil

Hospital wherein the deceased categorically named the accused as

the assailant, very candidly submitted that upon re-appreciation of

the entire material on record, the incident though having taken

place in a sudden quarrel even without any premeditation, and in

the absence of any prior enmity, the Court may consider that the

weapon was carried by the accused himself and the act was

committed in the heat of passion following provocative abuses.

However, in continuation, it was submitted that except for the

suddenness of the quarrel and mutual exchange of hot words,

nothing further transpires to show that the accused took undue

advantage or acted in a cruel manner, yet the nature, number and

location of injuries on vital parts demonstrate clear intention to

cause death or knowledge that such acts were likely to cause

death.

Page 8 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

9. Having heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the

learned APP for the State at length, and having carefully

considered the entire evidence on record including the postmortem

report at Exh.-17, the opinion of Dr. Bhairavi Dipak Joshi that death

occurred due to piercing injuries and complications leading to

cardiac and respiratory arrest with injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 5 being

grievous and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death, the medical certificates and treatment records from both

hospitals, the dying declaration proved through Dr. Rameshkumar

Maganbhai Shah and Dr. Purvi Sheetalgiri Goswami wherein the

deceased, while conscious, attributed the knife blows to the

accused, the hostile complainant who did not support the

prosecution but whose initial history was also recorded, the

recovery of the knife and FSL opinion that such injuries could be

caused by the muddamal weapon, as well as the submissions

advanced on behalf of both sides, 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 sudden quarrel, mutual provocation through abusive

language, absence of premeditation, the heat of passion in which

the incident occurred, and the nature of injuries some grievous and

fatal while others simple, the act would fall within the ambit of

culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attracting Section 304

Part I or Part II of the IPC, and whether the benefit of Exception 4

to Section 300 IPC can be extended to the appellant.

9.1.As agitated by the learned advocate for the appellant, while

placing reliance upon different judgments, it is contended that the

present case rests solely on the aspect that the offence would fall

within the ambit of Sections 304 Part I or Part II of the Indian

Page 9 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

Penal Code, and would be covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of

the IPC. Accordingly, it is urged that the accused is entitled to the

benefit thereof, on the ground that the case can be classified as

culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. And in light of

submissions that the appellant had already served approximately 8

years and 10 months, the imposed sentence aligns closely with the

period undergone or up to the awarded 10 years, balancing the

gravity of the act with the mitigating circumstances of sudden

provocation. The ratio of the judgments relied upon, in a nutshell,

is as under:

(i)In the case of Major Singh v. State of Punjab , the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that intention is pivotal in deciding whether

the accused has committed culpable homicide amounting to

murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court

further observed that, along with intention, the knowledge of the

accused and the degree and manner of the crime play an important

and significant role in arriving at such determination.

(ii)In the case of Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh ,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section

304 Part II of the IPC, considering the facts and circumstances of

the case. The Court observed that where the case does not satisfy

the requirements of murder under Section 302 IPC, the conviction

can be appropriately altered to culpable homicide not amounting to

murder. Taking into account that the appellant had already

undergone more than twelve years of imprisonment, the Hon’ble

Court deemed it just and proper to sentence the appellant to the

Page 10 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

period already undergone.

(iii)In the case of Nandkumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudliar v.

State of Gujarat , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a

significant delay in death due to secondary complications such as

septic conditions, rather than the immediacy of the initial injury,

indicates an absence of immediate intention to cause death.

Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) was

converted to one under Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide

not amounting to murder), as the act was committed with

knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without the

requisite intention to kill as required for murder under Section 300

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(iv)In the case of Atul Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh ,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Exception 4 to Section 300 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860, applies to culpable homicide not

amounting to murder when the act is committed without

premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a

sudden quarrel, without the offender taking undue advantage or

acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The Court ruled that neither

the number of wounds inflicted nor the use of a knife by itself can

be a decisive factor to deny the benefit of Exception 4 and sustain a

conviction under Section 302 IPC. Finding that the High Court

committed a manifest error in being unduly influenced by these

factors, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order,

restored the Trial Court’s finding on the nature of the offence, and

convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC. Considering

the trivial nature of the provocation and the gravity of the assault

involving multiple blows with a knife, the Court held that a light

Page 11 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

punishment was not warranted and enhanced the sentence from

five years to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.

10,000, in default further imprisonment, while allowing set-off for

the period already undergone under Section 428 CrPC.

(v)In the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh ,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when an offence is committed

in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, arising from a sudden

quarrel without any premeditation, and the accused does not take

undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner, the act

squarely falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, and amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to

murder. The Court observed that where the circumstances clearly

satisfy the conditions of this Exception namely spontaneous

eruption of the altercation without prior planning and absence of

unfair exploitation or exceptional cruelty the conviction under

Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. Consequently, the offence

was reclassified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder

under Section 304 IPC, warranting modification of the conviction

and sentence accordingly.

(vi)In the case of Goverdhan & Another v. State of

Chhattisgarh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the testimony

of a sole eyewitness, if credible and natural, can be relied upon

when corroborated by other evidence, including medical reports

and the nature of injuries. Nevertheless, upon appreciation of the

overall circumstances, the Court found that the act disclosed no

premeditation or clear motive to cause death, and the assault

occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel without the requisite

intention to kill as required for murder. Accordingly, the conviction

Page 12 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was set aside

and converted to one under Section 304 IPC, thereby partly

allowing the appeal with modification in the nature of conviction

and sentence to reflect the correct legal classification of the

offence.

9.2.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the State, while supporting the conviction of the

appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, relied upon

the following judgments:

(a) Rimlabhai Poonabhai Rathva v. State of Gujarat , (b)

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Chamnlal and (c) In the case of

Anbazhagan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated on the fine distinction between

culpable homicide under Section 299 and murder under Section

300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, observing that homicide is the

genus and murder its species, with all murders being culpable

homicides but not vice versa. The Court clarified that the

distinction between Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause Thirdly of

Section 300 lies in the degree of probability of death from the

intended bodily injury: “likely” in Section 299 denotes probable,

whereas “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”

in Clause Thirdly means death is the most probable result. The

Court held that even a single injury, if intended and objectively

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, satisfies

Clause Thirdly of Section 300, rendering the offence murder under

Section 302 IPC, and it is fallacious to assume that a single injury

invariably reduces the offence to culpable homicide not amounting

to murder irrespective of circumstances. Further, the Court

distinguished “intention” from “knowledge,” holding that intention

Page 13 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

must be inferred from facts and circumstances such as the nature

of the weapon, site and nature of injuries, and opportunity

available, and cannot be equated with mere knowledge of likely

consequences, as intention requires purposeful action beyond

foresight or awareness. The framers of the IPC deliberately used

separate terms “intention” and “knowledge,” with intent to cause

bodily injury likely to cause death falling under Section 304 Part I,

and knowledge that the act is likely to cause death without such

intent falling under Section 304 Part II. Additionally, Part I of

Section 304 applies where murder is first established but the

accused is given the benefit of an Exception to Section 300,

whereas Part II applies where murder is never established at all,

and the accused need not bring the case within any Exception.

These principles must be carefully borne in mind to avoid

miscarriage of justice in adjudicating charges under Section 302

IPC.

Factual Matrix coupled with reasoning:-

10.The record demonstrates that the quarrel arose suddenly

over a trivial altercation involving joking and mutual exchange of

abuses between the accused and the deceased. The accused did not

come armed to the spot; rather, he took out a knife with a black

handle from his pocket during the heat of the moment. The

evidence indicates that the multiple blows were inflicted in a fit of

anger following the deceased's refusal to retaliate with 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.

10.1However, the blows were inflicted on vital parts of the body,

including the stomach, chest, abdomen, right shoulder, lower right

Page 14 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

hand, left palm, and left side of the neck, with considerable force

using a sharp weapon. 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 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 Exhs. 8, 10, 11 and 53, the postmortem note at Exh.-

17, and the testimony of the doctors who examined the deceased,

including Dr. Rameshkumar Maganbhai Shah at Exh. 7, Dr. Purvi

Sheetalgiri Goswami at Exh. 50, and Dr. Bhairavi Dipak Joshi at

Exh. 16 who conducted the postmortem. It clearly emerges that the

deceased Govindbhai Dhanabhai Rawal had sustained multiple

piercing and incised wounds, including a stab wound of 2.5 × 0.5

cm between the 6th and 7th ribs cutting the rib and diaphragm

reaching the abdomen with a tract length of 10 to 12 cm, another

stab wound of 4 × 0.5 cm reaching the abdomen with a tract length

of 7 cm, a stab wound of 4 × 1 cm partially cutting the left 7th rib

about 5 cm deep, an incised wound of 10 × 2 × 0.5 cm on the left

hand with exposed soft tissue and tendons, a stab wound of 2.5 ×

0.7 × 4 cm on the left arm, an incised wound of 5 × 0.5 × 0.2 cm

on the right arm, an incised wound of 12 × 3.5 × 5 cm on the lower

right arm with stitches on muscles, and a horizontal incised wound

of 3 × 0.2 × 0.1 cm on the left hand, all of which were antemortem

and accompanied by surgical wounds for treatment such as

abdominal drain and intercostal drainage.

11.1The doctor has opined that injuries Nos. 3, 4, and 5 were

grievous in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

Page 15 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

cause death, and the muddamal article No. 15 knife was identified

as capable of inflicting such wounds. Although in cross-examination

the doctor agreed that such injuries could occur in other ways, the

panchnama of the scene of offence and the FSL report do not

indicate any alternative cause, thereby ruling out the defence plea.

11.2The nature, depth and location of the injuries, particularly

those piercing vital organs leading to pus layers on the left lung

and heart, congested internal organs, and approximately 300 ml of

bloody fluid in pleural cavities, 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 the complainant Variyani

Maheshkumar Narandas at Exh.-37, and on perusal of his entire

testimony, the factum of his presence at the time of the incident

appears doubtful under the surrounding circumstances as he

turned hostile and denied knowledge of the incident or the

deceased. 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 appellant– original accused allegedly

inflicted multiple knife blows while hurling abuses, because of

which the deceased collapsed. Due to the intervention, the

complainant also sustained an injury on the right hand palm.

Immediately thereafter, both the injured complainant and the

deceased were taken to the Mahesana Civil Hospital, where the

deceased was admitted.

12.1However, as the deceased had sustained serious injuries, he

Page 16 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

was referred to the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, where, after

undergoing treatment for about eight days, he succumbed to the

injuries. Thus, the prosecution witnesses, namely the medical

officers – Dr. Rameshkumar Maganbhai Shah, Dr. Purvi Sheetalgiri

Goswami, and Dr. Bhairavi Dipak Joshi, who claimed to have

recorded history and treated or examined the deceased, when their

depositions are read together with the medical evidence, indicate

that the death of the deceased was not a natural one but a

homicidal death due to piercing injuries and complications.

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 its case has

examined 23 witnesses however, out of the said witnesses the only

injured complainant Variyani Maheshkumar Narandas at Exh.-37

who has narrated the incident but turned hostile and did not

support the case.

14.It transpires from the entire material placed for consideration

that the cause behind the incident as per the case of the

prosecution is a sudden quarrel over exchange of abuses, 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 witnesses while modifying and rectifying

its case appears to have stated that the quarrel was mutual. The

theory of the prosecution that the accused was provoked by the

deceased's refusal to abuse does not find confidence to the said

extent. Be it may as it is reverting to the following aspects. The said

fact seems to having not been proved by the prosecution beyond

the reasonable doubt be as it may be. The defence has also tried to

Page 17 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

put up the case made an endeavor to place on the record that the

injuries could occur in other ways such as falling on a broken glass

bottle however, the said fact seems to have denied by the said

witnesses and appears to have reiterated the case of the

prosecution.

15.The dying declaration recorded by the treating doctors

assume paramount importance in this case, particularly in light of

the complainant having turned hostile and not supporting the

prosecution version regarding the incident. As per the testimony of

Dr. Rameshkumar Maganbhai Shah at Exh.-7, when the deceased

Govindbhai Dhanabhai Rawal was brought to the emergency

department of Civil Hospital, Mahesana around 2:00 PM on 20-06-

2016, he was fully conscious and himself narrated the history that

"on 20/06/2016 at 1:45 PM near Wide Angle, Shaileshbhai Rawal

inflicted knife blows."

15.1Similarly, Dr. Purvi Sheetalgiri Goswami at Exh.-50 deposed

that when the deceased was received at Ahmedabad Civil Hospital

around 4:31 PM with the transfer sheet, he was conscious and

reiterated in his own words: "Today around 1 PM near Mahesana

Wide Angle Cinema, knife blows by Shaileshbhai Rawal." These

statements were not only recorded in the presence of the

respective medical officers but were also contemporaneously noted

in the treatment records and OPD case papers at Exhs. 52 and 53,

which were duly proved during the trial.

15.2Both doctors confirmed in their evidence that the deceased

was in a fit state of mind and conscious at the time of giving the

history, thereby satisfying the foundational requirements for

Page 18 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

reliability. These statements, being made by the deceased as to the

cause and circumstances of the transaction resulting in his death,

squarely fall within the ambit of Section 32(1) of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, and are admissible as dying declarations even

though the deceased may not have been under an immediate

expectation of death at the time of making them. The consistency

between the two statements recorded at different hospitals, the

absence of any motive for the deceased to falsely implicate the

accused, and the corroboration provided by the nature and location

of injuries described in the postmortem report at Exh.-17 lend

strong credence and reliability to these declarations. Thus, they

constitute direct, cogent and trustworthy evidence establishing

that the accused was the person who inflicted the fatal knife blows,

and the trial court rightly placed reliance upon them to hold the

accused guilty under Section 302 IPC.

16.While the dying declarations provide a strong evidentiary

foundation linking the accused to the crime, the surrounding

circumstances of the incident cannot be overlooked while

determining the appropriate classification of the offence. The

record shows that the quarrel erupted suddenly from what began

as mutual joking and exchange of abuses, with no prior enmity or

premeditation on record. The accused is said to have become

provoked only after the deceased refused to retaliate with similar

abuses, leading to the impulsive act of pulling out the knife from

his pocket and inflicting multiple blows in the heat of passion. The

medical evidence, though confirming that injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 5

were grievous and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause death, also reveals that several other wounds were

comparatively less severe, and some were surgical in nature for

treatment purposes. There is no material to indicate that the

Page 19 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

accused took undue advantage of the situation or acted in a cruel

or brutal manner beyond the sudden provocation. In these

circumstances, while the act undoubtedly amounts to culpable

homicide, the absence of clear evidence of pre-planned intention to

cause death, coupled with the sudden quarrel and heat of passion,

brings the case within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC,

thereby attracting punishment under Section 304 Part I IPC rather

than Section 302 IPC.

16.1The dying declarations, though reliable to prove the

authorship of the injuries, do not by themselves elevate the offence

to murder where the overall facts and circumstances demonstrate

absence of the requisite intention to kill and presence of sudden

provocation without premeditation.

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

Page 20 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

“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 ‘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

Page 21 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

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.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 following the mutual exchange of

abuses and the deceased’s refusal to retaliate in kind. Though the

multiple knife blows were fatal and inflicted on vital parts of the

body, the absence of pre-planning or deliberation does subsist. The

learned advocate for the appellant has strenuously tried to

persuade this Court to hold that the case is covered by Exception 4

Page 22 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

to Section 300 IPC : sudden fight in the heat of passion without

premeditation. While we have carefully considered the said

submissions, we are not inclined to accept that the facts fully

satisfy all the ingredients of Exception 4, particularly in view of the

number of blows and their targeting of vital regions. However, in

the alternative, even considering the incriminating circumstances

and the fact that the incident in question occurred in the spur of

the moment without any prior enmity or motive, the overall

circumstances strongly indicate that the act was committed under

grave and sudden provocation in the heat of passion.

19.The medical evidence, particularly the postmortem report at

Exh.-17 indicating multiple piercing injuries including deep stab

wounds reaching the abdomen with tracts of 10-12 cm and 7 cm,

partial cutting of ribs, perforation into pleural cavities with 300 ml

bloody fluid, pus layers on lung and heart, and congested internal

organs, establishes that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the appellant knew that

inflicting repeated blows with a sharp knife on vital parts of the

body 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 or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. The

dying declarations recorded by Dr. Rameshkumar Maganbhai Shah

and Dr. Purvi Sheetalgiri Goswami, wherein the deceased, while

conscious, specifically attributed the knife blows to the accused,

are reliable and admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian

Evidence Act. However, these statements, though proving

authorship of the injuries, do 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

Page 23 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

acted in the heat of passion.

20.This Court after properly evaluating the mitigating

circumstances hold that the ingredients as fall under section 299 of

the IPC is to be satisfied so as to establish the offence amounting to

murder under Section 302 IPC which in the case on hand seems to

be lacking as discussed in preceding paragraph. However the

circumstances, as established sudden provocation from mutual

abusive exchange, absence of premeditation, impulsive pulling out

of the weapon from the pocket, no prior enmity, and the act

occurring in a fit of rage, fit within the well recognized category of

culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part

I IPC. The medical evidence, though confirming grievous and fatal

nature of some injuries particularly Nos. 3, 4 and 5, does not

conclusively establish a deliberate intention to cause death but

clearly demonstrates knowledge that such acts were likely to cause

death. The death after eight days of treatment at Ahmedabad Civil

Hospital further supports the inference that the act stemmed from

sudden anger rather than a calculated design to kill.

21.Furthermore, the act of the appellant is not one that resulted

in instantaneous death. The deceased succumbed after undergoing

treatment for about eight days, during which period he remained

conscious enough to give consistent history statements to two

different doctors. Although the injuries were serious and sufficient

in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the delayed death

and the absence of evidence showing undue advantage taken by

the accused or any cruel or brutal conduct strengthen the inference

that the offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC rather than

Section 302 IPC. On a cumulative assessment of the evidence

including the postmortem opinion, the dying declarations, the

Page 24 of 25

R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

hostility complainant, the recovery of the knife capable of causing

such injuries, and the governing precedents, we are persuaded to

alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.

22.Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the

nature of the sudden assault, the absence of premeditation, the

heat of passion arising from mutual provocation through abusive

language, the relationship between the parties, and the long

passage of time since the incident, upon alteration of the conviction

of the appellant to Section 304 Part I IPC as above, he has already

undergone 8 years and 10 months of sentence. Thus, we sentence

accused to the period already undergone by him with fine.

23.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 rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

(c) The fine amount and default sentence imposed by the

Sessions court shall remain unaltered.

(d) The appellant shall be released only upon completion of

10 years of actual imprisonment from the date of his

arrest, if not required in any other case.

(e) The bail bonds stand discharged.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

Kaushal Rathod

Page 25 of 25