Holding

The High Court held that the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for murder under Section 302 IPC, and the conviction stands.

Summary

The appellant, Amarat @ Kevabhai Aahaji, was convicted of murdering his wife Tinaben after she was stabbed multiple times in the night of 5 January 2015. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of the 9‑year‑old son, Nilesh, who identified his father as the assailant, and on medical evidence showing fatal injuries to the lungs. The defence argued that the child’s testimony was unreliable, that the seizure of the knife and blood‑stained clothes violated Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and that the killing was a result of sudden provocation, warranting conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of murder. The High Court examined the credibility of the child witness, found no indication of tutoring or coercion, and held that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, satisfying the criteria of Section 300 IPC. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved murder beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 114.

Issues considered

The credibility and sufficiency of the child witness’s testimony to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the act constitutes murder under Section 300/302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
Whether the seizure and forensic examination of the knife and blood‑stained clothes complied with Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the alleged matrimonial dispute and alleged provocation negate the intention required for murder.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304

Subjects

murderchild witnessSection 302 IPCconviction appealevidence admissibilitySection 27 Evidence Actintentprovocation

Judgment

R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1222 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
AMARATBHAI @ KEVABHAI AAHAJI (DABHI)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Appellant
MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Respondent
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 16/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. This conviction appeal is directed against the judgment and order
of conviction dated 05.05.2016, passed by the learned 4th
Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa at Palanpur, in connection with
Sessions Case No. 54 of 2015, by which, the sole accused Amarat
@ Kevabhai Aahaji (Dabhi) was convicted under Section 302
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and
fine of Rs.1000/- and in default in payment of fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment of 3 months.

Page 1 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

2. The case of the prosecution, leading to conviction of the appellant
accused is as follows:

2.1 The appellant accused was tried and prosecuted by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, on the charge of killing his wife –
Tinaben. According to prosecution case, on 05.01.2015, in the
midnight, the appellant accused stabbed his wife Tina for multiple
times, as a result, she succumbed to the injuries. The incident
occurred in the house of the accused situated at village: Pathawada,
Dantiwada, Palanpur. The marriage span was more than 15 years.
Since last 3 years, the deceased Tina along with son Nilesh and two
other kids were living in Ahmedabad at her parental home, because
the appellant accused being unemployed, used to ask the wife for
bringing money from her parental home, which was the ground to
live separately and there was serious matrimonial dispute between
the husband and wife. The deceased Tina had come to the house of
the accused and she was convinced by the husband that, after
sometime they will settle at Ahmedabad and for the purpose of
bringing all household articles, she along with his son Nilesh agreed
to come to the house of the accused. On the faithful day i.e.
05.01.2015, after completion of dinner, all went to sleep in one
room. In the midnight, the accused appellant took out the knife and
stabbed multiple times on the body of the deceased. The son minor
Nilesh aged about 10 years heard the screaming of the mother and
when he woke up, he did not find light in the house, and his father –
appellant – accused was standing beside his mother. The appellant
accused at that time, explained the son Nilesh that, she was having a
pain in the chest and he will take care. The son after hearing the

Page 2 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

explanation went into sleep. In the next day morning, the son Nilesh
PW-9, saw the dead body of her mother – Tina and father was not
found in the house. He had informed his maternal uncle and others
about the incident. After arrival of the family members from the
parental side, the FIR came to be lodged with Pathawada Police
Station, against the appellant accused for the offence of murder,
which was registered as CR No. I. 04 of 2015.

2.2 The investigation was entrusted to handed over to the IO and during
the investigation, he drew the panchnama of the scene of
occurrence, arrested the accused, seized and recovered the cloths
and weapons on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused,
recorded the statement of the witnesses, sent the accused for
medical examination, forwarded the seized articles to the FSL,
obtained the reports from the FSL and after due investigation, the
chargesheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Court
framed the charges, which the appellant accused denied the charges
and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to examine the case against the accused,
examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents, as
per the below mentioned tabular.

Oral evidence :
PW 1 – Exh.10 Kalubhai Gomabhai Chauhan, panch witness
PW 2 – Exh.12 Natvarbhai Nenaji Bhand, panch witness

Page 3 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

PW 3 – Exh.21 Kantilal Talkaji Pujani Koli
PW 4 – Exh.22 Baldevbhai Cheharabhai Dabhi
PW 5 – Exh.27 Hardaji Sajanji Koli
PW 6 – Exh.31 Kanubhai Chelaji Chauhan, Complainant
PW 7 – Exh.33 Kishorbhai Kanubhai Chauhan
PW 8 – Exh.34 Rohitbhai Kanubhai Chauhan
PW 9 – Exh.35 Nilesh Amaratbhai Dabhi
PW 10 – Exh.36 Dr. Sureshbhai Dajabhai Patel
PW 11 – Exh.40 Sunitraben Sonaji Punamaji Marvadi, panch
witness
PW 12 – Exh.41 Ranchhodbhai Navalbhai Chauhan
PW 13 – Exh.42 Dr. Navinbhai Hemabhai Chaudhary
PW 14 – Exh.45 Faljibhai Raghnathbhai Chaudhary
PW 15 – Exh.47 Navinbhai Jivabhai Bhagora
PW 16 – Exh.50 Nanjibhai Premjibhai Chhaya
PW 17 – Exh.61 Vanrajsinh Raghuvirsinh Chavada

Documentary evidence :

Exh.11 Inquest Panchnama
Exh.13 Panch slip A1
Exh.14 Panch slip A2
Exh.15 Panch slip A3
Exh.16 Panch slip A4
Exh.17 Panchnama of place of offence
Exh.18 Discovery Panchnama
Exh.19 Panch slip A12
Exh.20 Panch slip A13
Exh.23 Panch slip A7
Exh.24 Panch slip A5
Exh.25 Panch slip A6
Exh.26 Panchnama of deceased clothes and Knife
Exh.28 Panchnama of state of body of accused
Exh.32 Complaint
Exh.37 PM Report
Exh.39 Letter regarding handing over of blood sample for
forensic investigation to the Head constable of
Pathavada Police station

Page 4 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

Exh.38 PM Yadi
Exh.43 Injury certificate of accused
Exh.44 Yadi for medical examination of accused
Exh.46 Acknowledgement of handing over of dead body of
Teenaben
Exh.48 Suchipatra
Exh.49 Report of grievous offence
Exh.51 Inquest yadi to Executive Magistrate
Exh.52 Form B for PM
Exh.53 Forwarding letter
Exh.54 Acknowledgement of receiving of dead body for
cremation
Exh.55 Yadi for call detail of Mobile No. 9909863645
Exh.56 Finger print report
Exh.57 Forwarding letter FSL
Exh.58 Yadi for map of place of offence
Exh.62 Receipt of articles by FSL
Exh.63 Receipt of articles by FSL
Exh.64 FSL report
Exh.65 Serological report
Exh.66 Serological report

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant accused
was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and his defense was total
denial and despite of the opportunity given to him, he did not
adduce any evidence in his defense.

6. The learned trial Court after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, as well as the submissions made on behalf of the parties,
found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him as indicated above.

7. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the judgment of
conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with present

Page 5 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

appeal.

8. Evidence adduced by the prosecution:

We would like to have a cursory look at the evidence
adduced by the prosecution through its witnesses:

8.1 Dr. Suresh Patel (PW.10): This witness being a Medical
Officer, Pathawada CHC, had conducted post-mortem on the body
of the deceased. During the post-mortem, the witness had noticed
the following external and internal injuries:

External Injuries:
1. Left Hand:
1. Incised wound of 5x1x1 cm in inner aspect of hand
2. Incised wound of 5x1x2 cm in inner aspect of hand
3. Incised wound between middle and ring finger
4. Incised wound of 5x1x2 cm in exterior aspect of
forearm
5. Small incised wound at dorsum of left hand

2. Right Hand:
1. Incised wound of 5x1x3 cm on right
axilla
2. Incised wound of 5x1x2 cm on upper arm
anterior aspect
3. Incised wound of 5x1x3 cm on Right
shoulder
4. Incised wound of 5x1x4 cm on inner
aspect of axilla weapon injury on right side of
chest ‘S’ shaped, 15 cm deep in blood staired
stabbed, 5x1x15 cm deep on the right chest in

Page 6 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

upper inner quadrant of the right breast in 3rd
Intercostal space

Internal Injuries:

1. # of 3rd rib & dislocation of constrochordal junction
in 3rd ICS
2. Right side skin, chest anterior, and muscle pierced
3. Right side pierced and pale, stained with blood
4. Pale & pierced incised at middle lobe
5. Right side filled with blood and blood clotting of 1-1.5
ltrs

Cause of death: Death due to Hemorrhagic shock due to
injury to right lung”

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death due to
hemorrhagic shock on account of injury sustained on right lung.
The weapon knife was found in the chest of the deceased and same
was handed over to the police constable and accordingly, by way
of panchnama, the weapon as well as blood stained clothes of the
deceased being seized and recovered by the police. It is further
opined by the doctor that, all the injuries found on the body of the
deceased could be possible by sharp edge weapon and upon seeing
the knife from the court record, the witness agreed to the
suggestion asked to him that, the injuries could be possible with
this weapon. Nothing material being asked by the defense to
substantiate the opinion of the cause of death and the weapon
knife.
8.2 Nilesh Dabhi (PW.9): This witness is the son of the deceased as
well as the appellant-accused and at the time of incident, his age

Page 7 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

was 10 to 11 years old. The trial court made an inquiry about his
competency to understand the proposed questions as well as the
court proceedings on the aspect of administering the oath before
recording his evidence. The trial court was satisfied about the
maturity of the witness, as a result, without administering the oath,
his evidence was recorded. It is not in dispute that, before the
incident, the deceased and her three kids, due to matrimonial
dispute, had been living at Ahmedabad with the maternal
grandfather and others. As a part of compromise, it was decided
between the husband and wife that, they would take the house on
rent in Ahmedabad and start living independently. In order to settle
at Ahmedabad, the deceased was called at Village: Pathawada to
bring back the household things, as a result, on 05.01.2015, by
public transport, the deceased along with present witness Nilesh
reached at Pathawada in the afternoon. After completion of dinner
at about 8:00 p.m., the appellant-accused and son Nilesh went into
sleep together in the cot, whereas, the deceased took her position at
the floor of the house and went to sleep. In these admitted
background facts, now let us examine the oral evidence of witness
with regard to what happened on the fateful night.

The witness Nilesh has stated in his chief-examination that,
in the late night, he had heard the screaming of his mother and he
woke up and tried to switch on the light, but, it could not turn on
and he could visualize the face of the appellant-father who was
standing near the cot and after his wake up, the father appellant
told that, his mother was having a chest pain and that is why she is

Page 8 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

screaming and he should not worry about it and asked him to sleep
on the cot. The witness has further stated that, thereafter he went
into sleep and in the morning, when he woke up, he saw the dead
body of his mother lying on the floor with multiple injuries on her
body and had seen one knife in her chest. The witness has further
stated that, his uncle Mohanbhai give him solace and convinced
that, his mother has been killed. The witness has further stated that,
his uncle informed his maternal grandparents and others about the
incident and later on, after his preliminary inquiry by the police,
the FIR at the instance of his maternal grandfather (PW.6) came to
be registered with Pathawada Police Station. The witness has
further stated that, he had narrated the entire incident to his
grandparents, maternal grand uncle and others. The witness is able
to identify the knife from the court records.

In the cross-examination, it was tried by the defense that the
deceased has relations with someone and living in live-in-
relationship at Surat. However, the witness has not admitted the
said defense and his evidence in the cross-examination on the
aspect of incident has not been shaken.

8.3 Kanu Chelaji Chauhan (PW.6): This witness is the father of
the deceased and he is resident of Ahmedabad. In his chief-
examination, the witness has stated that, on the day of incident, his
daughter had proceeded to Village: Pathawada as the appellant-
accused wants to settle the matrimonial dispute and had expressed
his willingness to live at Ahmedabad in a rented house. The

Page 9 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

deceased daughter and son Nilesh for the purpose of bringing back
the household things, had gone to Pathawada at the house of the
appellant-accused. The witness has further stated that, since last 6
to 7 years, the marriage life of his daughter was disturbed and he
had made every possible attempt to settle their lives and also
helped financially to the accused. The witness has further stated
that, the elder brother of the accused informed him about the
incident and after receiving the information, he along with other
family members came to Village: Pathawada and met his nephew
(PW.9) Nilesh and being an eye witness, he narrated the entire
incident to him. On the basis of such information, he being a father
of the deceased, it is stated by him that, he lodged an FIR with
Pathawada Police Station which he has produced at Exh.32. The
witness is identifying the accused in the court. In the cross-
examination, the defense has tried to establish that, the deceased
does not want to live with the appellant-accused because of her
live-in-relationship with third person. However, the witness has not
admitted the said things. In the cross-examination, the questions
were being asked, on the aspect of settlement through community
leader and same replied positively by the witness. However, on the
information received by him on the aspect of incident, his evidence
is not shaken in cross-examination.

8.4 Rohit Chauhan (PW.8) & Kishor Chauhan (PW.7): Both
these witnesses are the brothers of the deceased and sons of the
complainant (PW.1). The witnesses are not eye witness of the

Page 10 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

incident and they are deposing against the accused whatever facts
disclosed by their nephew (PW.9).

8.5 Dr. Navin Chaudhary (PW.13): This witness was posted as
Medical Officer with CHC, Pathawada and being a Medical
Officer, he had examined the appellant-accused after his arrest on
07.01.2015. The accused-appellant was referred to witness with
Police Yadi and upon his examination, the witness has noted that,
there was a cut mark on right index finger of his hand. The
certificate thereof is produced by the witness at Exh.43.

8.6 Nanjibhai Premjibhai Chhaya (PW.16): This witness had been
entrusted with the investigation of the case as at relevant time, he
was serving as PSI with Pathawada Police Station. The witness has
stated in his chief-examination that, after registration of the
offence, he came into charge of investigation of the case and
during the investigation, he went to the place of occurrence and
obtained necessary samples by drawing the panchnama, and also
did the proceedings of P.M. of the deceased. The witness had
stated that, he arrested the accused and during the custody and
upon his disclosure statement, seized and recovered the blood stain
clothes of the accused, recovered and seized the knife allegedly
found on the body of the deceased by the doctor, recorded the
statements of the witnesses, sent the seized articles to the FSL and
after receiving the report, the chargesheet for the offence of murder
and offence of cruelty was being filed against the accused-
appellant. In the cross-examination, except denial, nothing fruitful

Page 11 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

brought on record to substantiate the allegations made against the
accused. The I.O. in the cross-examination, was not agreed with
the defense theory that, deceased was having affair with someone
and that is why, he was killed by her lover.

Submissions:

9. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Pratik Barot appearing for and
on behalf of the appellant-accused and Mr. Ronak Raval, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

10. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned counsel while assailing the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has urged that:

(a) Prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt
as it is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. In the
present case, the available witness (PW.9) though he was present
in the room where the incident occurred, he did not with all
certainty has stated that, his father was the author of the crime and
therefore, his evidence, in absence of any corroboration from the
independent source, does not inspire confidence and on the basis of
his sole testimony, the conviction is not sustainable in eye of law.

(b) The learned trial court grossly erred while convicting the accused
without appreciating the evidence in right prospective. The age of
PW.9 at relevant time, was admittedly between 9 to 10 years. The
child witness (PW.9) before the incident, was under influence of
his maternal grandparents and maternal uncle as the witness was

Page 12 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

living with them at Ahmedabad and in that view of the matter, his
evidence shows that, the child was acting under the influence of
the other witnesses and the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled
out and therefore, his testimony without independent
corroboration, cannot be accepted as truthful and basis for the
conviction.

(c) That, the discovery and seizure of the clothes in terms of Section
27 of The Evidence Act has not been proved as procedure
prescribed in the law. The panch witnesses of discovery of the
clothes (Exh.18) have not supported to the prosecution case. The
I.O. of the case failed to depose the exact words spoken by the
accused about admitting the factum of clothes and also failed to
prove the contents of the panchnama and therefore, the FSL
evidence on the aspect of matching of blood group with respect to
clothes pointing finger to the involvement of the accused cannot be
relied and acted upon for corroboration to the evidence of PW.9.

(d) The recovery of knife over the body of the deceased has also been
not proved as the panchas of the panchnama (Exh.26) have not
stated the contents of the panchnama and the Head Constable who
had produced the knife, allegedly obtained from the P.M. Doctor,
has not been examined which clearly shows that, the recovery of
knife has not been proved in accordance with law and on that
aspect, the FSL evidence cannot be considered and admitted in
evidence.

(e) That, in the present case, the appellant is charged with offence of
murder on account of dispute and differences with his wife over his

Page 13 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

unemployment and demand of money, which resulted into act of
cruelty and harassment. The trial court acquitted the accused from
the charge of cruelty. There was specific defense that, the deceased
during 3 to 4 years, lived at Surat with another person and after the
settlement and arrival of the deceased at the matrimonial home, the
third person, as a part of revenge, committed the offence of
murder. Thus, on the day of incident, there was no motive on the
part of the appellant-accused to kill the deceased and therefore, in
absence of motive, the charge of murder is not sustainable in law.

11. In such circumstances as referred above, Mr. Pratik Barot, learned
counsel prayed that, there being merits in this appeal and same
may be allowed and further requested that, the order of conviction
and sentence be set aside and appellant may be acquitted of charge
of murder.

12. Alternatively, it was submitted by Mr. Barot that, there was
matrimonial dispute on the aspect of unemployment of the accused
and on day to day household expenses, the dispute being arose
between the parties and that is why, the deceased deserved the
husband – appellant and used to stay at parental home. In such
circumstances, when there is a single fatal injury of the lungs
which shows that, the act was not intended to cause death and it
was result of grave and sudden provocation and in hit of passion,
without premeditation, upon a sudden quarrel, the act was done. In
that view of the matter, it was submitted that, the offence
committed by the appellant amounted to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II Indian

Page 14 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

Penal Code and further requested to set aside the sentence of life
imprisonment and alter the conviction from Section 302 to Section
304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

13. On the other hand, while opposing the appeal, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval, contended that, the accused-
appellant called the deceased from Ahmedabad to his village and
in the midnight, stabbed the deceased multiple times. At the time
of incident, there was no provocation on the part of the deceased,
nor any dispute arose on the aspect of household expense. In such
circumstances, considering the injury which was caused on the
vital part of the body and other injuries would establish that, the act
was intended to done to cause death of the deceased. The weapon
knife was found from the lungs of the deceased. The accused in the
midnight, after the incident, when the child witness (PW.9) woke
up in anxiety, he had falsely convinced the child witness that the
deceased was having a chest pain. In such circumstances, the
injuries found on the body are sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death and the accused intended to inflict that
particular injury and it was not his defense that, it was intended to
inflict on the other part of the body. On this aspect, the testimony
of PW.9 is sufficient to prove the charge of murder as except PW.9
and the accused, no one was present in the house and so far as
defense part is concerned, the accused failed to mention the name
of specific person with whom the deceased was having extra
marital affair. In such circumstances, it was submitted that, the
evidence of child witness does inspires confidence and nothing
brought on record to suggest that on account of tutoring by

Page 15 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

someone, or with bias, he is deposing against the accused. There
was no any explanation of the accused that, he was not present at
the home and therefore, non-explanation of special circumstances
by the accused would further strengthen the prosecution case.

14. In such circumstances, the State counsel has submitted that, the
prosecution has successfully proved the charge of murder against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, trial court has
not committed any error while holding the accused guilty for the
offence and thus, it was prayed that, there being no merits in the
appeal and same may be dismissed.

15. We have heard at length learned counsel for the respective parties,
perused the impugned judgment and case records.

16. The prosecution case hinges upon the sole testimony of PW.9 –
Nilesh Dabhi. The witness is son of the appellant. It is not in
dispute that, the death was not homicidal in nature and therefore,
the prosecution in our opinion, proves and establishes that, the
death of the deceased was homicidal.

17. In the facts of the present case, the relationship of the parties is not
in dispute. On the day of incident, 05.01.2015, in the afternoon, the
deceased Tina along with son Nilesh aged about 9 years, came to
Village: Pathawada as the appellant-accused called them so that,
they can settle in Ahmedabad for which the household things are
necessary to transport from village to Ahmedabad and for that
purpose, she had been called by the accused. The accused-
appellant was having an independent house in the area of
“Harijanvas” at Pathawada Village and except appellant-accused,

Page 16 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

no one of his family members were residing with him. Admittedly,
on the day of incident, the evening meal cooked by the deceased
and at the time of taking dinner, no quarrel was being arise on the
aspect of money matter or other things which issues were the core
of the matrimonial dispute and after taking meal, all happily went
into sleep. The deceased preferred to sleep on the floor, whereas
the appellant and child witness (PW.9) had took their sleep on cot.

18. In the aforesaid admitted background facts as referred in para-17 of
this judgment, the question that falls for our consideration as to
whether the appellant-accused had caused fatal injury to the
deceased or not.

19. As noted, the prosecution case hinges upon the sole testimony of
PW:9 Nilesh Dabhi, who is the child witness, aged about 9 years.
The Trial Court before recording his evidence, made inquiry about
his competence to understand the sanctity of oath to be
administered and to understand the majority level, questions were
being asked to witness and after satisfying on the aspect of his
maturity, recorded reasons in brief and proceeded to record
evidence without administering the oath to him. Therefore, the
Trial Court has followed the procedure while recording the
evidence of child witness. It is settled position of law that the
evidence of child witness has to be subjected to close scrutiny and
can be accepted only if the Court comes to a conclusion that the
child understands the question put to him and he is capable of
giving rational answers. A child witness by reasons of his tender
age is pliable witness. He can be tutored easily either by threat,

Page 17 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

coercion or inducement. Therefore, the Supreme Court in its
various judgments, held and observed that the Court must be
satisfied that the attendant circumstances do not show that the child
was acting under the influence of someone or was under threat or
coercion. The evidence of child witness may require corroboration,
but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the Court and
there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the Court can
rely upon his evidence. The evidence of child witness and its
credibility would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The
only precaution which the Court has to bear in mind while
assessing the evidence of child witness is that the victim must be
reliable one because the law recognizes the child is a competent
witness.

20. In light of the aforesaid law, and applying to the facts of the
present case, we are of the opinion that the evidence of Nilesh
Dabhi – PW:9 being a son of the deceased is truthful and reliable
and his conduct at the relevant time and after the incident, was
most natural and nothing being found that he is telling lie under the
emotion or under the pressure of complainant and others. Upon
close scrutiny of the evidence, it transpires that despite of his
presence at the place, he could not intervene because the appellant
accused was very much presence at the place and light was off and
the father appellant asked him to go to sleep and he was convinced
that his mother was screaming because of chest pain as told to him
by the accused appellant. Even otherwise, any child being aged
about 9 years, in a situation like this, would not have dared to
confront the appellant father, even after knowing the alleged act of

Page 18 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

killing. We take a notice of the fact that in the midnight, except
father and PW:9, no one was present in the house. The presence of
the appellant accused has not been denied by him. Even otherwise
also, his presence is proved and established by the evidence of
PW:9. In the midnight, if the wife would have suffered the chest
pain, then the natural conduct would be to take her nearby the
hospital or to seek necessary assistance from the neighbourhood.
The appellant accused had pleaded that the third person with whom
deceased was having relations, had come in the night and killed
her. If the theory of the defence believed to be true, then why the
husband appellant did not try to save her from the clutches of third
person. No any complaint against the third person being lodged by
him. On the contrary, leaving the dead body, the accused after the
incident, putting the knife in the chest, ran away from the place of
occurrence. Even he was having opportunity to inform his in-laws
about causing fatal injuries by third person. In such circumstances,
there is no reason why the witness son PW:9 would tell lie against
the appellant accused. It is not the prosecution case that in the
midnight, after hearing the hue and cry, the persons from the
neighbourhood, came at the place of incident. In such
circumstances, it is difficult for the prosecution to get independent
corroboration to the evidence of PW:9 child witness.

21. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the evidence of child
witness on the aspect of his presence at the place and the facts
about seeing the appellant accused in the midnight in the room
where the deceased was sleeping and hearing the screaming of
mother as stated are truthful, reliable and does inspire confidence

Page 19 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

that his evidence having a ring of truth and in absence of any
material contradiction or improvement on the aspect of presence of
the appellant and the incident of midnight, the prosecution
succeeded in proving the facts that at the commission of the crime,
the deceased and the appellant along with PW:9 found in the one
room where the incident took place and the very house belongs to
the accused appellant. In such circumstances, now the burden shift
on the accused to explain how the wife received injuries. The
accused failed to offer any explanation about such injuries by the
deceased and the defence of killing by third person is found to be
false and considering his conduct after incident, indicates that the
appellant accused is the responsible for the commission of the
crime.

22. Thus, therefore, the result of the aforesaid discussion would be that
the prosecution has proved and established that on 05.01.2015 in
the night hours, the deceased was stabbed to death by accused
appellant and motive is apparent on record that there was a
matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and even
otherwise, when the appellant armed with dangerous weapon was
present and he is found to be an author of the crime, the
establishment of any motive is absolutely in consequential.

23. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the
accused appellant is guilty for the offence of murder or death cause
was culpable homicide not amount to murder under Section 304
Indian Penal Code ?

Page 20 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

24. We have carefully examined the oral as well as medical evidence.
Since the death of the deceased Tina is not denied and it has been
proved on the basis of the record that, the appellant accused had
caused death of his wife by stabbing her multiple times with the
weapon knife. The blood stained cloths and the weapon knife
matches with the blood of the deceased. In such circumstances, the
next question for consideration, whether trial Court was justified in
convicting the appellant accused for the murder as defined under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?

25. Before proceed further, we may refer the necessary penal provision
like Section 300. Section 300 provides that culpable homicide is
‘murder’, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death or if it is done with the intention of
causing such bodily injury, as the offender knows to be likely to
cause death or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury and the said injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to cause death or the accused knows that,
it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, caused
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

26. It is the prosecution to prove the case against the accused that he has
committed ‘murder’ as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Pe-
nal Code. It is settled position of law that, to render the conviction
under murder, the case must fall within the provisions of Clauses I,
II and III and IV of Section 300 and must now fall within any one of
the five exceptions attached thereto.

27. In the present case, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to

Page 21 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

injuries on the right lungs. So far as external injuries are concerned,
five incise wounds found on the left hand of the deceased and five
incise wounds presence on the right hand with an injury of disloca-
tion of shoulder. So far as internal injuries are concerned, the PM
doctor noted multiple ribs fractures and the rupture of lungs and the
injury found deep incised upto the middle lob. Thus, it can be said
that, the fatal injuries found on the vital part of the body and the
lungs were completely torn up and deceased was collapsed on the
spot. The injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death. In these background facts, the defense has submitted
that, there was a single fatal blow and considering the matrimonial
dispute and the financial dispute for day to day livelihood, in a hit of
passion and sudden quarrel, the act was done and therefore, it was
emphasized that, act was not done with intention of causing such fa-
tal injury. In order to gathered the intention or guilty knowledge, the
surrounding circumstances and the manner in which the murder was
executed required to be considered. In the facts of the present case,
the incident of murder occurred on 05.01.2015 in the midnight. The
appellant accused and minor son PW-9 were sleeping on the cot and
the deceased went into sleep and preferred a floor of the house and
in the same room, all were sleeping. Admittedly, no any other per-
sons were living in the house. The appellant was unemployed and
there was a matrimonial dispute on the aspect of day to day liveli-
hood and that is why, the deceased had deserted the husband – ap-
pellant and chosen to live with the at parental home. The appellant
under the guise of settlement, called the deceased at village:
Pathawada. On the day of incident in the noon, the deceased and her

Page 22 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

minor son PW-9, came to village: Pathawada from Ahmedabad so
that, for the settlement at Ahmedabad, they could bring back the
household things with them. In the night hours, there was no quarrel
arose on any of the issue and the deceased was not aware about the
intention of the accused. The time of the offence was midnight. The
appellant used the weapon knife and abruptly stabbed the deceased
for multiple times and one of the blow directly hit the lungs. In such
circumstances, the reasonable inference could arise that, the act was
done with an intention to cause death and causing such bodily
injury, which was likely to cause death and the injuries were
intended to be inflicted were sufficient in ordinary course to cause
death and inflicting the blow on the lungs, it can be presumed that
the accused knew the probable result of his conduct and therefore, in
our opinion, it cannot be said that, on the fateful night, due to matri-
monial dispute, the appellant accused deprived of power of self con-
trol by grave and sudden provocation or without any premeditation
in a sudden fight in hit of passion, upon sudden quarrel, the fatal in-
juries were being caused.

28. For the discussions as mentioned hereinabove, we come to a conclu-
sion that, the act of the accused fall within the clause thirdly and
fourthly of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code and would not fall in
any exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and same is
read as under:

“Section 300 : xxxxxx

Secondly, .........…

Thirdly, : if it is done with intention of causing bodily injury

Page 23 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted
is sufficient in the ordinary course of action to cause death

or

Fourthly, - if the person committing the act knows that, it is
so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability, cause
death or such bodily injury as it likely to cause death and
commit such an act, without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injuries as aforesaid.”

29. The one of the contentions raised is that, there was a single blow
found on the lungs of the deceased and the admitted facts of matri-
monial dispute as described in the charge, had been contributory fac-
tor and same may be considered for alteration of the sentence. We
are not impressed with the submission as it is settled position of law
that, there cannot be said as a rule of universal application that
whenever one blow is given, application of Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code will be ruled out and that, even a single blow delivered
with a dangerous weapon on the vital part of the body, would make
the offence of murder on a peculiar facts of the each case. In the
present case, as discussed above, the act was premeditated and that
is why, the accused chosen the peculiar time for committing the of-
fence and that too, when the deceased was defenseless and was in a
sleeping mode.

30. In view of the aforesaid discussions, after re-analysis and re-appreci-
ation of the evidence and on perusal of the impugned judgment of
conviction, we are satisfied that, prosecution has proved its case
with sufficient oral and documentary evidence, beyond all reason-

Page 24 of 25
R/CR.A/1222/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/02/2026

able doubt, that the appellant was the author of the crime and the
trial Court has rightly found the appellant accused guilty for act of
murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the
IPC. We do not find any scope for interference with the findings of
conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

31. In the result, this conviction appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 1222
of 2016 stands dismissed. R&P, if any, be sent back to the trial
Court forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
P.S. JOSHI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/02/2026 15:24:18

Page 25 of 25