Holding

The Court held that the facts constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, and accordingly altered the conviction and reduced the sentence.

Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) for stabbing his relative during a sudden quarrel, based on medical evidence, post‑mortem report, and dying declarations linking him to the injuries. He appealed, arguing the incident was a heat‑of‑passion assault without pre‑meditation, invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and seeking reduction of his life sentence. The High Court examined the nature of the injuries, the appellant’s knowledge that the blows were likely fatal, and the absence of intent to kill, noting the delayed death and lack of undue advantage. It concluded that the act amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, not murder under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, the conviction was altered to Section 304 Part I and the sentence reduced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, with the fine unchanged. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

The appropriate classification of the offence: murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
Whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies given the sudden quarrel and heat of passion.
The relevance and admissibility of dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
The extent of the appellant’s intention versus knowledge of likely death.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 374, s. 428
Gujarat Police Acts. 135
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 32(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 299, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304, s. 304 Part I, s. 304 Part II, s. 307, s. 324, s. 504

Subjects

murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderSection 302 IPCSection 304 IPCdying declarationsudden provocationheat of passionexception 4 to Section 300criminal appealconviction alteration

Judgment

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:

2.1 On 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.

2.2 However, 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.

4.1 The 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.
Name Exh.
No.
1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Maganbhai Shah 7
2 Dr. Bhairavi Dipak Joshi 16
3 Dr. Purvi Sheetalgiri Goswami 50
4 Thakor Vikramji Ramsangji 12
5 Thakor Rameshji Maganji 15
6 Thakor Mohanji Khodaji 22
7 Thakor Amratji Diwanji 25
8 Raval Sanjaykumar Lilabhai 26
9 Goswami Mahendragiri Santoshgiri 29
10 Thakor Jitendra Parbatji 32
11 Vyas Kamleshkumar Rupshankar 33
12 Panchal Bhanubhai Babulal 36
13 Variyani Mahjeshkumar Narandas 37
14 Raval Rekhaben Govindbhai 40
15 Raval Kantibhai Veljibhai 43
16 Goswami Sanjaybharathi Rambharathi 44
17 Goswami Sunilbharathi Kailasbharathi 45
18 Chaudhary Ramesh bhai Ramjibhai 46
19 Raval Rajubhai Kantibhai 49
20 Desai Maganbhai Malabhai 56
21 Katana Nagjibhai Gokalbhai 61
22 Jadeja Satensingh Parbatsingh 68
23 Trivedi Kaushikkumar Hemshankar 71

Page 5 of 25
R/CR.A/1456/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026

Documentary Evidences:

Sr.
Document Exh.
No.
1 Inquest Panchnama 6
2 Complainant's Treatment Certificate 8
3 Deceased Person's Treatment Certificate 10
4 Crime Scene Panchnama 13
5 Post-Mortem Note 17
6 Cause of Death Certificate 18
Panchnama of Complainant's Body Condition and
7 23
Seizure of Clothes
Panchnama of Deceased Person's Body Condition and
8 27
Seizure of Clothes
Panchnama of Accused's Body Condition and Seizure of
9 30
Clothes
10 Murder Weapon Recovery Panchnama 34
11 Complainant's Complaint 38
12 F.S.L. Preliminary Report 47
13 Uniform Report 58
14 Depute Order 59
15 Special Report of the Crime 60
16 Letter Regarding Sending Muddamal to F.S.L. 62
17 Muddamal Dispatch Entry 63
18 Receipt of Muddamal Received 64
19 F.S.L. Biology Department Report 65
20 F.S.L. Serology Department Report 66
21 Copy of Notification/ Jahernama 67
22 Letter Regarding Taking Statement of Injured Person 69
23 Report of addition in Sections 70
24 Report for Registering the Crime 72
Letter Written for Taking Statement of Deceased
25 73
Person
26 Copy 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.

10.1 However, 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.

11.1 The 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.

11.2 The 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.

12.1 However, 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."

15.1 Similarly, 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.

15.2 Both 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.

16.1 The 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
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/02/2026 12:43:14

Page 25 of 25