Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bhalabhai Pratapbhai Parmar on 24 February, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1368 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BHALABHAI PRATAPBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY MEHTA APP for the Appellant
MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. Here is the appeal by the State against judgment and
order of acquittal.
2. The respondent accused nos.2 to 4 have been
acquitted from all the charges whereas respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
no.1 was convicted and sentenced under Section 304
Part-II of the IPC, and acquitted for the charge of
murder.
3. Thus, by this appeal, the State has come up before
this Court challenging the judgment of acquittal under
Section 302 of the IPC.
4. Vide judgment and order of sentence dated
30.05.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.63 of 2012,
the Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad convicted and
sentenced the respondent accused Bhalabhai
Pratapbhai Parmar for the offences punishable under
Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced him to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and acquitted
the respondent accused nos.2 to 4 from all the
charges.
5. Facts in brief leading to file this appeal are as under:
5.1 The accused and the complainant PW:1 Ramesh
Parmar are related to each other and living adjacent
to each other at Village Padva, Balasinor, Dist.: Kheda.
On 22.04.2012, at about 06:30 p.m., according to the
case of the prosecution, the respondent accused
Bhalabhai caused fatal injuries to the wife of PW:1,
Radhaben, by using a cricket bat and the blow was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
inflicted on the head of the deceased. Prior to the
incident, the altercation with the PW:1 took place on
the issue of maintaining illicit relationship by the PW:1
with daughter in law of the respondent accused.
According to the say of PW:1, the respondent accused
beaten up him as he was suspecting the illicit
relationship with the daughter in law. On account of
the said altercation, the PW:1 lodged an FIR for
causing voluntary injuries against the respondent
accused and police was in search of the respondent
accused. On the day of incident i.e. 24.04.2012, again
the altercation took place between the respondent
accused and PW:1 near the Panshop of the village.
Thereafter, the respondent accused came at his house
and suddenly, taking the cricket bat in his hand, in
the heat of passions, upon sudden quarrel assaulted
the deceased Radhaben with cricket bat. It is further
alleged that the accused Champaben Pratapbhai, the
mother of the respondent accused and accused
Shardaben Bhalabhai along with Vinesh Bhalabhai,
assaulted the PW;1 husband of the deceased and his
mother Divaben (PW:15). Deceased after the incident,
became unconscious and was taken to private clinic of
Dr. Bharat Lalabhai (PW:11), and then, referred to Civil
Hospital, Balasinor. On account of the serious injuries
suffered by deceased Radhaben, she was admitted in
the private hospital viz. Nidhi Hospital at Ahmedabad
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
where she succumbed to her injuries on 24.04.2012.
The PW:1 being a husband of the deceased lodged an
FIR, against the four persons including the present
respondent - accused.
5.2 Pursuant to the FIR, the investigation had been
entrusted to PW:18 Dashrathsinh Chavda as well as
PW:23 Vimal Gamit. During the investigation, the I.O.
took visit the place of occurrence and drew the
panchnama and collected the necessary samples for
FSL purpose. He also recorded the statement of
witnesses. He also arrested the accused involved in
the offence, recovered the weapon cricket bat and
stump allegedly used by the accused. The I.O. then
obtained the treatment case papers as well as the
postmorterm note and sent the seized articles for
chemical analysis and after receiving the report
thereof, chargesheet was led before the jurisdictional
Magistrate, who committed case to the concerned
Sessions Court.
6. After due framing of charges and upon accused
pleaded not guilty, trial commenced before the
Sessions Court at Nadiad. Prosecution, in order to
prove the charge examined 23 witnesses and
exhibited 38 documents, which reads as under:-
Oral evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
PW 1 - Exh. 25 Rameshbhai Adabhai Parmar, Complainant
PW 2 - Exh. 27 Shanabhai Gandabhai Parmar, panch witness
PW 3 - Exh. 31 Bhathibhai Mohanbhai Parmar, panch witness
PW 4 - Exh. 32 Abdulrasid Mustufbhai Sheikh, panch witness
PW 5 - Exh. 37 Bharatbhai Tulsibhai Patel, panch witness
PW 6 - Exh. 39 Surajben Bhalabhai Parmar, panch witness
PW 7 - Exh. 40 Sharmishthaben Somabhai Parmar, panch witness
PW 8 - Exh. 41 Prabhatbhai Dalabhai Chauhan, panch witness
PW 9 - Exh. 43 Jashwantbhai Shanabhai Parmar, panch witness
PW 10 - Exh. 44 Baluben Bhalabhai Thakor, panch witness
PW 11 - Exh. 46 Dr. Bharatbhai Lalabhai Khant, Medical officer
PW 12 - Exh. 51 Dr. Jyoti Govindbhai Amin, medical officer
PW 13 - Exh. 55 Dr. Milan Jayantibhai Prajapati, medical officer
PW 14 - Exh. 59 Dr. Satyajit Bhimrao Dixit, medical officer
PW 15 - Exh. 64 Diwaben Adesingh Parmar
PW 16 - Exh. 67 Jayaben Rakeshkumar Gohil
PW 17 - Exh. 68 Adabhai Punjabhai Parmar
PW 18 - Exh. 69 Dashrathsinh Pravinsinh Chavda, investigation officer
PW 19 - Exh. 71 Vikramsinh Bhikhubha Zala
PW 20 - Exh. 74 Sursinhbhai Valabhai Bhamat
PW 21 - Exh. 76 Dr. Kalpesh Somchandbhai Kotaria, medical officer
PW 22 - Exh. 81 Ambalal Balabhai Mayavanshi
PW 23 - Exh. 85 Vimalkumar Parsottambhai Gamit, investigation
officer
Documentary evidence
Exh. 26 Complaint
Exh. 28, 29 Panch slips
Exh. 30 Panchanama of scene of offence
Exh. 33 to 35 Panch slips
Exh. 36 Panchanama of seizure of clothes worn by Radhaben
Rameshbhai
Exh. 38 Inquest Panchanama
Exh. 42 Panchanama of physical examination of accused
Exh. 45 Panchanama of physical examination of accused
Exh. 47 Medical certificate of Radhaben Rameshbhai issued by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
Sagar Surgical Hospital
Exh. 48 Medical certificate of Diwaben Adesingh Parmar issued
by Sagar Surgical Hospital
Exh. 49 Medical certificate of Rameshbhai Adesingh Parmar
issued by Sagar Surgical Hospital
Exh. 52 Original Medico-Legal certificate of Rameshbhai
Adesingh Parmar
Exh. 56 Case papers of Radhaben Rameshbhai Parmar issued by
Nidhi Hospital
Exh. 57 Vardhi noted by Police Station Officer, Navrangpura
Police Station, Ahmedabad
Exh. 60 Note of treating injuries of Radhaben Rameshbhai issued
by Nidhi Hospital
Exh. 61 Note made by Dr. Dixit regarding treatment of Radhaben
Rameshbhai
Exh. 72 Note by Police Station Officer, Navrangpura Police
Station, Ahmedabad regarding admission of Radhaben
Rameshbhai in ICU in semi-unconscious state
Exh. 73 Letter by PSI, Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad
Exh. 77 Yadi by Police Inspector, Balasinor for Post-mortem and
collection of blood sample from dead body of Radhaben
Rameshbhai
Exh. 78 Post-mortem report
Exh. 79 Certificate of cause of death
Exh. 80 Medical certificate of Diwaben Adesingh Parmar issued
by Vatrak General Hospital
Exh. 82 True copy of Extract dated 23.04.2012 in Station Diary
of Balasinor Police Station
Exh. 86 Yadi for drawing map of scene of offence
Exh. 87 Map of scene of offence
Exh. 88 Yadi for sending articles to FSL for analysis
Exh. 89 FSL receipt
Exh. 90 Report by Nadiad FSL mobile van
Exh. 91 Yadi by FSL to Police inspector, Balasinor
Exh. 92 FSL report
Exh. 93 Serological report
Exh. 94 Carbon copy of handing over dead body
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
respondent accused along with three persons were
questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., to which,
they stated that, they were innocent of all charges
level and had been falsely implicated the entire family
for no reason.
8. Though opportunity was extended, no evidence was
tendered from the side of the respondent accused.
9. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, relying
principally on the deposition of PW:1, PW:15 and
considering the medical evidence on record found the
respondent accused guilty of the offence, culpable
homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304
Part-II of the IPC. The Court below in absence of any
acceptable and cogent evidence, for causing voluntary
injuries to the witnesses acquitted the family
members of the respondent accused i.e. accused
nos.2 to 4 from all the charges.
10. Being dissatisfied with the sentence, the State has
come up with the present appeal.
11. Mr.Jay Mehta, learned APP appearing for the appellant
- State, has submitted that, the respondent accused
Bhalabhai Parmar assaulted the deceased Radhaben
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
with the cricket bat and the family members of the
principal accused nos.2 to 4 were present over there
and the witnesses who had tried to rescue Radhaben
were assaulted by accused nos.2 to 4 and there is a
sufficient evidence to this effect adduced by the
prosecution. Despite of these facts, the Court below
did not have considered the proved facts like, injuries
caused on the vital part on the body of the deceased
and the weapon cricket bat was used with such force
that the vital organ of the head of the deceased
suffered serious injuries, as a result of which, she fell
unconscious and never gained the consciousness and
died after 2 days which factors have not been properly
appreciated by the Court below. It is pointed out that
the injuries sustained were sufficient to cause death
and in absence of any circumstances to show that the
injuries sustained accidental or unintentional, the
presumption would be that the very injury suffered by
the deceased was intended to kill. The deceased was
nowhere in picture so far as dispute as raised in the
present case, and she was innocent and had never
entered any altercation with the respondent accused.
In such circumstances, Mr. Mehta would urge that the
condition precedent to bring the matter within
Exception 4 to Section 300 are not satisfied in the
facts of present case. The complicity of accused nos.2
to 4 who had assaulted the witnesses, would show
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
their intention to kill the deceased. The Court below
has ignored the evidence adduced by the prosecution
on this aspect and given a clear acquittal to the
remaining accused and therefore, the findings
recorded by the Trial Court appears to be
unreasonable, ignoring the relevant evidence on
record which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
12. In such circumstances, learned APP prays that there
being a merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed
and the respondent accused may be convicted and
sentenced under Section 302of the IPC.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Parthiv Bhatt, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent accused submits that,
prior to the incident the scuffle took place at the pan
shop and after half an hour, the said incident had
taken place. The PW-1, who is husband of the
deceased and complainant of the case, in his cross-
examination admitted that before half an hour to
incident, there was a scuffle with the respondent
accused. The PW-1 was having illicit relation with the
daughter in law of the accused and he was cautioned
by the respondent accused to maintain distance with
her and when he was scolded, the FIR against the
respondent accused for assault and criminal
intimidation came to be filed. In such circumstances,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
Mr. Bhatt would urge that, the view taken by the trial
Court while acquitting the accused no. 2 to 4 from all
the charges are reasonable one and conclusion
reached is based on the material on record and same
cannot be termed as perverse. So far as acquittal of
the respondent accused no. 1 under Section 302 is
concerned, Mr. Bhatt would urge that, according to
treating doctor as well as PM doctor, the deceased
Radhaben suffered sub-dural hemorrhage over both
fronto-parieto temporal regions, and cause of death
was shock as a result of head injury. PW-21, PM doctor
in his testimony has not opined that, the injuries were
sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. In such
circumstances, the manner in which the incident took
place, there was no intention on the part of the
respondent accused to cause death or intention to
cause such bodily injuries which was likely to cause
death. The parties are related to each other and due
to conduct of PW-1, who alleged to have maintained
illicit relations with the daughter in law of the accused
and when he was cautioned not to maintain
relationship, the PW-1 lodged an FIR against the
accused and therefore, prior to incident, the
atmosphere was not peaceful and on the day of
incident, before half an hour of the incident, there was
a scuffle between the accused and PW-1. Thus, there
was a sudden fight without meditation and act was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
done in a heat of passion and the accused had
inflicted single blow with the cricket bat and had not
taken any undue advantage and acted in cruel
manner. In such circumstances, Mr. Bhatt would urge
that the learned court below while acquitting the
accused under Section 302 and convicted under 304
part-I has properly evaluate the evidence on record
and conclusion arrived at are not contrary to the
evidence on record and has rightly extended the
benefit of exception to the accused. The accused had
undergone almost entire sentence of 5 years.
14. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Bhatt
prayed that, there being no merit in the appeal filed
by the State, same may be dismissed.
15. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and
have carefully gone through the records.
16. At the outset, it is relevant to note that, the accused
and the complainant as well as witnesses are near
relatives and living in the same village. It is not in
dispute that, prior to the incident, i.e. on 22.04.2012,
the PW-1 Ramesh Parmar - husband of deceased
Radhaben had filed an FIR against the respondent
accused Bhalabhai Parmar and as per the contents of
the said FIR, the witness was assaulted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
accused at his farm because of illegal relations with
the daughter in law of the accused. The police was in
search of respondent accused. The accused was of the
view that PW-1, had filed false complaint with a view
to pressurise harass him. It is also admitted fact that
on 22.04.2012, before half an hour of the incident, at
evening time, there was a scuffle between the
accused and PW-1 at pan shop of the village and said
fight was in relation with the alleged FIR filed against
the accused. In these background facts, the
respondent accused no. 1 went to his house and took
in his hand the cricket bat and inflicted a blow on the
head of deceased Radhaben. The oral evidence of PW-
1, PW-15 and PW-17 are on the same line and thus,
we deem it fit not to refer the entire evidence. PW-17,
father of PW-1, when incident took place, he went to
the nature's call and therefore, after the incident was
over, he reached at the place. The doctor PW-11,
Bharatbhai Khant, who had examined the PW-15
Divaben Parmar and PW-1 Ramesh Parmar, did not
find any visible injury on the body of the witnesses.
The medical certificates issued by him does not reflect
the visible injury to be sustained by the witnesses. In
such circumstances, the witnesses who stated that,
the accused nos. 2 to 4 assaulted them is not proved
and established. So far as deceased Radhaben is
concerned the PM doctor PW-1 in his testimony has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
not opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased
were sufficient in ordinary in course to cause death.
17. The position of law with regard to power of appellate
Court in an Appeal against acquittal is well settled.
The Supreme Court, in its various judgments, time and
again held and observed that, there is no limitation on
the appellate Court to review the evidence, but at the
same time, if on the fact as well as on law, conclusion
drawn by the trial Court, based on appreciation of
evidence and view taken by the trial Court is possible
and plausible, then the judgment of acquittal may be
interfered.
18. In light of the settled principles of law and applying
the same to the facts of present case, the findings of
fact recorded by the trial Court are based on the
evidence on record and same cannot be held to be
perverse. The Apex Court in the case of Babu Vs.
State of Kerala 2010 (9) SCC 189, while
interpreting the term 'perverse finding', held and
observed that, if the findings have been arrived at by
ignoring or excluding relevant material \or by taking
into consideration irrelevant / inadmissible material,
the finding of fact recorded by the court below can be
said to be perverse.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
19. In the facts on hand, respondent accused Bhalabhai
Parmar, was found guilty for the offence culpable
homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304,
Part(ii) of the IPC. Recently, in Anbazhagan Vs.
State represented by the Inspector of Police,
2023 AIR SC 3660, the Supreme Court had an
occasion to consider the question whether the
conviction of the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 304 should be further altered or not.
After detailed survey of the precedents on the point,
the Hon'ble Court summed up as follows :
"(1) When the court is confronted with the
question, what offence the accused could be
said to have committed, the true test is to find
out the intention or knowledge of the accused in
doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was
such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of
Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder
even though only a single injury was caused. To
illustrate : 'A' is bound hand and foot. 'B' comes
and placing his revolver against the head of 'A',
shoots 'A' in his head killing him
instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty
in holding that the intention of 'B' in shooting 'A'
was to kill him, though only single injury was
caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder
falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the
IPC. Taking another instance, 'B' sneaks into the
bed room of his enemy 'A' while the latter is
asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of
'A', 'B' forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest
of 'A' and runs away. 'A' dies shortly thereafter.
The injury to 'A' was found to be sufficient in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
ordinary course of nature to cause death. There
may be no difficulty in holding that 'B'
intentionally inflicted the particular injury found
to be caused and that the said injury was
objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. This would bring the act
of 'B' within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC
and render him guilty of the offence of murder
although only single injury was caused.
(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the
accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of
Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused
which would otherwise be murder, will be taken
out of the purview of murder, if the accused's
case attracts any one of the five exceptions
enumerated in that section. In the event of the
case falling within any of those exceptions, the
offence would be culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of
Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the
accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to
(3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence
under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as
to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the
IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the
accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part
of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but
not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC.
In that situation also, the offence would be
culpable homicide not amounting to murder
under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an
offence under Part I of that section, if the case
fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it
would be an offence under Part II of Section 304
if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of
the IPC.
(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an
accused person falls within the first two clauses
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
of cases of culpable homicide as described in
Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the
first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls
within the third clause, it is punishable under
the second part of Section 304. In effect,
therefore, the first part of this section would
apply when there is guilty intention, whereas
the second part would apply when there is no
such intention, but there is guilty knowledge.
(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that
particular injury was intended, and objectively
that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death, the requirements of
Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are
fulfilled and the offence would be murder.
(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the
following classes of cases: (i) when the case falls
under one or the other of the clauses of Section
300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions
to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not
of the higher degree of likelihood which is
covered by the expression 'sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death' but is
of a lower degree of likelihood which is
generally spoken of as an injury 'likely to cause
death' and the case does not fall under Clause
(2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is
done with the knowledge that death is likely to
ensue but without intention to cause death or
an injury likely to cause death.
To put it more succinctly, the difference
between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC
is that under the first part, the crime of murder
is first established and the accused is then given
the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section
300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the
crime of murder is never established at all.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
Therefore, for the purpose of holding an
accused guilty of the offence punishable under
the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the
accused need not bring his case within one of
the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
(6) The word 'likely' means probably and it is
distinguished from more 'possibly'. When
chances of happening are even or greater than
its not happening, we may say that the thing
will 'probably happen'. In reaching the
conclusion, the court has to place itself in the
situation of the accused and then judge whether
the accused had the knowledge that by the act
he was likely to cause death.
(7) The distinction between culpable homicide
(Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section
300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne
in mind while dealing with a charge under
Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of
unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable
homicide amounting to murder and those not
amounting to murder would fall. Culpable
homicide is not murder when the case is
brought within the five exceptions to Section
300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the
said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie
established on the evidence on record, the
prosecution must still be required under the law
to bring the case under any of the four clauses
of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge
of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge
this onus in establishing any one of the four
clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, Istly
to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be
made out and the case may be one of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder as described
under Section 299 of the IPC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
(8) The court must address itself to the question
of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to
be applied, the assailant must intend the
particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This
ingredient could rarely be proved by direct
evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference
to be drawn from the proved circumstances of
the case. The court must necessarily have
regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of
the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of
force used in causing the injury, the manner of
attack, the circumstances preceding and
attendant on the attack.
(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that
makes a culpable homicide a murder. The
intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in
the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also
makes a culpable homicide a murder if death
has actually been caused and intention to cause
such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the
act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.
(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused
results in the death of the victim, no inference,
as a general principle, can be drawn that the
accused did not have the intention to cause the
death or that particular injury which resulted in
the death of the victim. Whether an accused
had the required guilty intention or not, is a
question of fact which has to be determined on
the facts of each case.
(11) Where the prosecution proves that the
accused had the intention to cause death of any
person or to cause bodily injury to him and the
intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, then, even if
he inflicts a single injury which results in the
death of the victim, the offence squarely falls
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC
unless one of the exceptions applies.
(12) In determining the question, whether an
accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge
in a case where only a single injury is inflicted
by him and that injury is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, the
fact that the act is done without premeditation
in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the
circumstances justify that the injury was
accidental or unintentional, or that he only
intended a simple injury, would lead to the
inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence
would be one under Section 304 Part II of the
IPC."
20. Looking at the oral evidence on record, we are of the
view that, the respondent accused no. 1 had
knowledge that the person is heat with the cricket bat
on the head, then the act is likely to cause death and
when in a sudden quarrel and heat of passion, the
blow was inflicted on the head of the deceased, in our
opinion, the respondent accused guilty of offence of
culpable homicide under Section 304 Part (ii) not
amounting to murder. In such circumstances, we are
inclined to take contrary view as the view taken by the
court below is possible and plausible view and same
cannot be termed to be perverse finding while
convicting the respondent accused under Section 304,
part (II) and acquitting the remaining accused from all
charges.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1368/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
21. For the reasons aforementioned, the court below was
completely justified in convicting the respondent
accused no. 1 and acquitting the remaining accused
of the charges levelled against them and we do not
find any grounds warranting interference with the
findings recorded by the trail Court.
22. Accordingly, present appeal filed by the State lacks
merit and same deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. R&P, if any, be sent back to the
court concerned.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
P.S. JOSHI
