Holding

The Court held that the evidence proved the appellant inflicted grievous injuries with a sharp weapon but failed to establish the intent required for murder, so the Sec. 302 IPC conviction was set aside and replaced with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 304 Part II IPC.

Summary

The appellant Sunil @ Kaliya Bharatbhai Gupta was convicted of murder (Sec. 302 IPC) and a provision of the Bombay Police Act, while the original complainant Devendrakumar Shankarlal Oswal secured acquittals for co‑accused in related cases. Both the prosecution and defence presented extensive oral and documentary evidence, including eyewitness testimony, forensic serology, and physics reports linking the appellant's clothing and a muddamal chopper to the fatal injuries. The trial court accepted the complainant's eye‑witness account despite inconsistencies and upheld the murder conviction. On appeal, the High Court examined the reliability of the sole eyewitness, applied the principle that a witness’s partial unreliability does not invalidate the entire testimony, and considered whether intent to kill was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Finding that the evidence established the appellant’s role in inflicting grievous, non‑vital injuries but did not demonstrate the requisite intent for murder, the Court set aside the Sec. 302 conviction and substituted it with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 304 Part II IPC, imposing a sentence of roughly seven years already served. The appeals filed by the complainant seeking to overturn the acquittals of co‑accused were dismissed.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the complainant's eyewitness testimony to sustain a conviction under Sec. 302 IPC.
Whether the forensic and medical evidence establishes intent to cause death, qualifying the offence as murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The applicability of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in assessing partial unreliability of a witness.
The correct sentencing provision when murder conviction is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Acts. 135(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 372, s. 374(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304 Part II

Subjects

murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderSection 302 IPCSection 304 Part II IPCforensic evidenceeyewitness reliabilityfalsus in uno, falsus in omnibusappealconviction modification

Judgment

R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 804 of 2012
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1182 of 2011
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1183 of 2011

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
SUNIL @ KALIYO BHARATBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 804 OF 2012
MR BHARAT B. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE With MR VAIBHAV A
VYAS(2896) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1182 AND 1183 OF 2014
MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK(3689) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 13/01/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated
30.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5,
City Civil and learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case
No.199/2011, whereby the appellant-accused came to be convicted for
the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – accused has

Page 1 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

preferred Criminal Appeal No.804 of 2012 under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. Whereas, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.04.2011
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, City Civil
and learned Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.255/2010
with Sessions Case No.256/2010 has been assailed, whereby the
respondent-accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant –
complainant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 2011 and
Criminal Appeal No.1183 of 2011 under Section 372 of the Code.

3. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same incident and
involve connected accused persons, they have been heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are as
under:

4.1. The complainant - Devendrakumar Shankarlal Oswal, a resident of
Ahmedabad, was running a business in a rented shop situated at Nirant
Complex, CTM Road, from the landlord, viz. Mansingh Tilakdhari
Thakur. There was a dispute regarding vacation of the premises, leading
to prior threats and complaints. On a previous occasion, the landlord and
his associates had allegedly broken into the premises and removed goods,
resulting in a police complaint and arrest of some accused, who were later
released on bail. The complainant had shifted residence but continued the
business at the shop. The landlord and his associates continued to issue
threats to vacate the shop.

Page 2 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

4.2. On 20.03.2006, some of the accused in the acquittal cases allegedly
threatened the complainant not to open the shop. On 21.03.2006, further
threats were issued to the complainant and a nearby vendor. On
22.03.2006, at about 13:30 hours, while the complainant was at the shop
and had stepped out briefly to get change for a customer who had come to
sell scrap, the appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No.804 of 2012
along with two others (who are absconding) arrived on a motorcycle,
entered the shop, and inflicted multiple stab wounds on the customer with
a sharp-edged weapon, causing his death. The complainant witnessed the
incident upon returning and informed the police. The deceased was taken
to L.G. Hospital, where he was declared dead at about 14:40 hours.

4.3. A complaint was lodged at GIDC Vatva Police Station for offences
under Sections 302, 452, 212, 323, 504, 506(2), 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, registered as C.R.
No.I-58/2006. Investigation ensued, including recovery of the weapon,
clothes, blood samples, and forensic analysis. Some accused were
arrested immediately, while others later or remain absconding. Charge
sheets were filed separately due to staggered arrests. The case against the
appellant-accused in Criminal Appeal No.804 of 2012 was committed to
the learned Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Case No.199/2011.
The cases against the respondent-accused in Criminal Appeal Nos.1182
of 2011 and 1183 of 2011 were committed and registered as Sessions
Case No.255/2010 and Sessions Case No.256/2010, which were tried
together.

4.4. In Sessions Case No.199/2011, upon conclusion of evidence, the
learned Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default

Page 3 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

one month simple imprisonment) and Section 135(1) of the Bombay
Police Act (one month rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, in
default seven days simple imprisonment), sentences to run concurrently.
In Sessions Case No.255/2010 with Sessions Case No.256/2010, the
learned Sessions Court acquitted the accused of all charges.

5. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before
the learned Sessions Court. During the course of the trials, the
prosecution examined witnesses and produced documents as detailed
below for each case:

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.804 OF 2012

~:: Oral Evidence ::~
Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
Devendrakumar Shankarlal Oswal – Complainant
1. 8
PW-1
2. Rehanabanu Majidkhan Pathan – PW-2 12
3. Shankarlal Bhagwandas Oswal – PW-3 13
4. Rasikbhai Kantibhai Thakkar – PW-4 16
5. Mahendrabhai Manilal Gilat – PW-5 18
6. Manoj Ambalal Makwana – PW-6 20
7. Harishbhai Tolaji Chaudhary – PW-7 21
8. Gautam Nathalal Prajapati – PW-8 22
9. Lokesh Shivcharan Gupta – PW-9 23
10. Indraprakash Janakprakash Mishra – PW-10 25
11. Dr. Bhargav Becharbhai Zaveri – PW-11 26

Page 4 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.

12. Abhimanyu Dineshkumar Singh – PW-12 28
13. Vasantaben P.K. Swami Yadav – PW-13 29
14. Mukeshkumar Abhirajbhai Chaudhary – PW-14 30
15. Umang Ashwinbhai Shah – PW-15 32
16. Jyotindra Amrutlal Upadhyay – PW-16 34
17. Nathubhai Parmabhai Parmar – PW-17 50

~:: Documentary Evidence ::~
Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
1. Complaint 9
2. Panchnama of physical condition of accused 17
Panchnama of seizure of accused's clothes and
3. 19
weapon
4. Copy of post-mortem note 27
5. Copy of complaint 31
6. Copy of SIM card bill 33
7. Report of charge officer 35
8. Panchnama of scene of offence 36
Panchnama of seizure of motorcycle and mobile
9. 37
phone
10. Panchnama of seizure of accused's blood sample 38
11. Yadi from L.G. Hospital 39
12. Post-mortem form 40
13. Notification regarding prohibition of arms 41

Page 5 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
14. Certificate regarding treatment of deceased 42
15. Dispatch note for muddamal to FSL 43
16. Letter regarding receipt of muddamal at FSL 44
17. Acknowledgment of return of muddamal from FSL 45
18. FSL report 46
19. Serological report 47
20. Physics report 48
21. Certified copy of FIR 51

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1182 AND 1183 OF 2012

~:: Oral Evidence ::~

Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
1. Devendrakumar Shankarlal Oswal Jain 18
2. Gautambhai Somabhai Patel 20
3. Sunil alias Sushil Ishwardas Khatvani 22
4. Sengal Rajendra Ramanlal 23
5. Rasikbhai Kantibhai Thakkar 24
6. Sanjaybhai Mohanlal Solanki 26
7. Alpesh Ramanbhai Patel 27
8. Radheshyam Amarnath 29
9. Dr. Bhargav Becharbhai Zaveri 35
10. Kishor Shantilal Rajput 38

Page 6 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
11. Nileshbhai Maheshbhai Koshti 42
12. Mahendrabhai Manibhai Gilatar 44
13. Manojkumar Ambalal Makwana 46
14. Mavjibhai Jetaji Thakor 47
15. Mayurbhai Bharatbhai Kapadiya 49
16. Laxmanbhai Hemrajbhai Rabari 50
17. Gautambhai Nathabhai Prajapati 51
18. Shankarlal Bhagwanji Oswal Jain 52
19. Lokesh Shivcharan Gupta 53
20. Indraprasad Janakprasad Mishra 54
21. Harishbhai Tolaji Chaudhary 55
22. Raghuvir Jivandas Bava 56
23. Mahendrasinh Jasvantsinh Sisodia 59
24. Nathubhai Parmabhai Parmar 62
25. Manilal Kohyabhai Maliwala 64
26. Rehanabanu Majidkhan Pathan 67
27. Jyotindra Amrutlal Upadhyay 68
28. Rajen Mahendrabhai Desai 84

~:: Documentary Evidence ::~
Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
1 Original complaint 19
Panchnama of seizure of clothes from deceased's
2 21
body and blood sample after PM

Page 7 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
Panchnama of physical condition of accused Jaiveer
3 25
and Sunil
Panchnama of seizure of mobile from accused
4 28
Jaiveer
5 Panchnama of scene of offence 30
6 Post-mortem note 36
7 Police yadi for post-mortem/post-mortem form 37
Panchnama of search of accused Atul and Ravi and
8 seizure of Bajaj Discover motorcycle, Panasonic 43
mobile and Nokia mobile
Panchnama of seizure of clothes and weapon from
9 45
accused Sunil
Panchnama of seizure of helmet from accused
10 48
Jaiveer
Yadi from Vatva Police to Executive Magistrate for
11 identification parade (exhibit given for signature 57
only)
Panchnama of identification parade of accused
12 58
Vishal alias Bhikhu
Copy of notification by City Police Commissioner
13 60
regarding prohibition of arms
Complaint presented by witness Nathubhai
14 63
Parmabhai Parmar
Certified copy of complaint given by witness
15 Shankarlal Bhagwanji Oswal Jain to witness Manilal 64
Kohyabhai Maliwala
16 Report under Section 157 of the Code 69
17 Inquest panchnama 71
18 Panchnama of seizure of blood sample from accused 72

Page 8 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

Sr.
Particular Exh.
No.
Sunil
Panchnama of seizure of mobile from accused Hitesh
19 73
Barot
20 Yadi from L.G. Hospital 74
21 Dispatch note for muddamal to FSL 75
22 FSL acknowledgment 76
23 Letter regarding receipt of muddamal at FSL 77
24 FSL report 78
25 FSL serological report 79
26 FSL physics report 80
27 FSL scene examination report 82

6. Mr. Bharat B. Naik, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.804 of 2012 submitted that the impugned judgment
of conviction does call for interference as the same is based solely on the
testimony of the complainant, who is an interested witness having deep-
rooted enmity with the landlord and his associates, providing a strong
motive for false implication. It was contended that the complainant's
version suffers from material inconsistencies regarding the description of
the motorcycle, the number and nature of injuries inflicted, and the
sequence of events, particularly his brief absence to fetch change and
immediate sighting of the entire assault upon return, which appears
improbable. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that no
independent witness corroborated the presence or act of the accused, and
the nearby shopkeeper referred to in the deposition was not examined by
the prosecution. Emphasis was laid on the fact that several panch
witnesses turned hostile and denied knowledge of the recoveries,

Page 9 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

rendering the panchnamas of the weapon, clothes, and blood samples
wholly unreliable and inadmissible. It was argued that the forensic
reports, even if accepted, suffer from a broken chain of custody due to
delayed recoveries and lack of corroboration, and do not conclusively
link the muddamal to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned
Senior Advocate vehemently contended that in the absence of motive
against the deceased (an unrelated customer), absence of test
identification parade, and failure to recover the motorcycle described by
the complainant, the chain of circumstantial evidence remains
incomplete. It was further submitted that the medical evidence does not
rule out alternative possibilities, and the conviction under Section 135(1)
of the Bombay Police Act is unsustainable as possession and public
carrying of the weapon stand unproven. Relying on settled principles that
conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of an interested
witness and that every reasonable doubt must ensure to the benefit of the
accused, the learned advocate urged that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal by setting
aside the impugned judgment.
6.1 Mr. Naik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant,
however, confined his arguments to the issue of sentence. It is submitted
that the learned Sessions Court erred in imposing a sentence of life
imprisonment, as the facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the
offence committed by the appellant does not amount to murder. It is
further submitted that, the act would at the highest fall within the
category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable
under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the Indian Penal Code. In view of
the above submissions, Mr. Naik prayed that the appeal deserves to be
allowed to the limited extent of modification of sentence, and that the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned
Sessions Court be suitably altered in accordance with law.

Page 10 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

7. The learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal
Nos.1182 of 2011 and 1183 of 2011 submitted that the impugned
judgments of acquittal require interference, primarily relying upon the
deposition of the complainant, which establishes prior threats, conspiracy,
and involvement of the accused in the offence. The medical evidence
confirms fatal injuries, and the chain of circumstances points to their
guilt. It was contended that the learned Sessions Court erred in acquitting
the accused despite sufficient evidence.

8. The learned advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.804
of 2012 submitted that the impugned judgment requires interference as
the testimony of the complainant is unreliable, there are contradictions in
medical evidence, no independent corroboration, and the recovery of
weapon is doubtful. It was contended that the learned Sessions Court
erred in convicting the accused solely on the basis of interested testimony
without sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt.
8.1 The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State submitted that
the conviction is well-founded on the eye-witness account, corroborated
by medical, forensic, and recovery evidence, warranting no interference.

9. Having heard the learned advocates for both sides and perused the
depositions of the witnesses, documentary evidence, and the judgments of
the learned Sessions Court, it appears that the testimony of the
complainant, who is the key eye-witness, is credible regarding the direct
act of stabbing by the convicted accused but insufficient to establish
conspiracy against the acquitted accused.

10. The prosecution has produced the panchnama for seizure of the
accused-appellant’s clothes and weapon at Ex. 19, which, as per the

Page 11 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

prosecution, was prepared on the basis of information given by the
accused-appellant. According to the prosecution, acting on this
information, the police recovered the clothes allegedly worn by the
accused-appellant at the time of the offence and the weapon allegedly
used in the offence, and the panchnama has been exhibited.

11. The panch witnesses Mahendrabhai Manilal Gilat (PW-5, Ex. 18)
and Manoj Ambalal Makwana (PW-6, Ex. 20) did not support the
prosecution case and turned hostile, but they admitted that the signatures
on the panchnama are theirs. The prosecution case is that the
investigating officer prepared the panchnama on the basis of voluntary
information given by the accused-appellant stating that he had given the
offence time clothes and the muddamal weapon to Vasantaben. The
police then went there and recovered the said articles in the presence of
panchas. The prosecution states that the truthfulness of this recovery and
panchnama is proved by the oath testimony of the investigating officer
Jyotindra Amrutlal Upadhyay (PW-16, Ex. 34). The prosecution further
relies upon Vasantaben P.K. Swami Yadav (PW-13, Ex. 29), who stated
that in 2006 the police came to her house, searched the premises, and
took her signature on a paper. On this basis, the prosecution asserts that
the police searched Vasantaben’s house, drew the panchnama at Ex. 19,
and lawfully recovered and seized the accused-appellant’s clothes and the
muddamal weapon. The investigating officer thereafter forwarded the
seized articles, marked as J (accused’s shirt), K (accused’s pant), and L
(muddamal chopper), to the FSL under dispatch note Ex. 43.

12. During investigation, the prosecution obtained the serological
report (Ex. 47) and the Physics Department report (Ex. 48) from the FSL.
As per Ex. 47, human blood of “AB” group was found on Sample A
(blood-stained soil from the scene), Sample C (blood-stained plastic piece

Page 12 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

from the scene), Sample I (deceased’s shirt), Sample F (deceased’s pant),
Sample G (deceased’s underwear), and Sample H (deceased’s blood
sample). The same “AB” group human blood was also found on Sample J
(accused’s shirt), Sample K (accused’s pant), and Sample L (muddamal
chopper), i.e., the articles recovered based on the accused-appellant’s
information. The prosecution contends that this forms scientific evidence
connecting the accused-appellant with the offence.

13. As per Ex. 48, the FSL Physics Department opined that the cut
marks on Sample I (shirt) and Sample F (pant) could have been caused by
Sample L (chopper). The prosecution therefore contends that the cut
marks on the deceased’s clothes match the muddamal chopper recovered
pursuant to the accused-appellant’s disclosure from Vasantaben’s house,
and that the presence of the deceased’s “AB” group blood on the chopper
and on the accused-appellant’s clothes further strengthens the link
between the accused-appellant and the offence.

14. It is stated that there is no inquest panchnama at Ex. 14 in the
exhibited documentary record, and that the prosecution has tendered the
panchnama of the scene of offence at Ex. 36, while the condition of the
body is otherwise described in the post-mortem documents. The deceased
was identified as Majidkhan Munir Khan Pathan, and the description of
the body and clothing is stated to be consistent with the post-mortem
examination, namely that the deceased was wearing a cream-coloured
checkered shirt and a chocolate-coloured pant, both blood-soaked and
bearing sharp weapon cut marks, and that injuries were present on the left
upper arm and the back of the left thigh. On this basis, it is asserted that
the deceased, aged 24, resident of Khanwadi, Ramol Road, suffered sharp
weapon injuries on the left upper arm and left thigh causing
corresponding cut marks on the shirt and pant, and that, as per Ex. 48,

Page 13 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

these cut marks were caused by the muddamal chopper Sample L
recovered pursuant to the accused-appellant’s disclosure from
Vasantaben’s house, thereby supporting the case that the injuries were
inflicted by the accused-appellant using that chopper.

15. The prosecution relies upon the oath testimony of the post-mortem
doctor Dr. Bhargav Becharbhai Zaveri (PW-11, Ex. 26) and the post-
mortem note Ex. 27. The doctor stated that on 23.03.2006 the body was
brought vide yadi and that the deceased was a 24-year-old male. The
doctor described the clothes on the body, including a blood-stained long-
sleeved shirt with a 4 x 3 cm “L”-shaped cut on the upper left sleeve, a
blood-stained and mud-soiled brown pant with 2 large cut marks on the
left side below the waistband (one 28 cm below and the other 34 cm
below), and blood-stained brown underwear. He noted rigor mortis, post-
mortem lividity on the back, and swelling of the left scrotal area. The
doctor noted external injuries including (1) a 3.5 x 1.5 cm incised wound
up to the muscle on the back of the left upper arm, and (2) 2 gaping
incised wounds on the upper outer left thigh separated by about 5 cm, one
measuring 1.5 x 0.5 cm and about 1 cm deep, and another similar injury
below. He stated that these injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also described internal
findings, including pale organs, stomach contents of about 200 ml,
swelling of the left testicle, and that about 50 ml blood sample was
collected, sealed, and handed over to the police. He opined that death was
due to haemorrhagic shock from the injuries and that the injuries
described in Column 17 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. On being shown the muddamal chopper (Article 27), he
stated that the Column 17 injuries and the cut marks on clothing could
have been caused by it.

Page 14 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

16. In cross-examination, the doctor stated that no weapon was shown
to him earlier for opinion, that incised wounds and stab wounds are
different, that he cannot certify with certainty that the injuries were
caused by the muddamal weapon, that death occurred about 12 hours
prior to the post-mortem, that he had no treatment details, that the injuries
in Column 17 were not on a vital part, and that with timely and adequate
treatment the deceased could have survived. The defence therefore
contends that the doctor cannot definately say the muddamal caused the
injuries, that the injuries were not on vital parts, and that death may not
have resulted from them and could have been prevented with treatment. It
is stated that this defence contention deserves acceptance because the
corresponding cut marks on the deceased’s clothes are supported by the
FSL Physics report as being caused by the muddamal chopper, but the
claim regarding possible survival with timely treatment is not speculative
and can be treated as evidence showing lack of intention to cause death. It
is further stated that the doctor has still clearly opined that the Column 17
injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. On an overall reading of PW-11 (Ex. 26), Ex. 27, Ex.
47, and Ex. 48, it is asserted that the death occurred in the ordinary course
of nature due to the injuries described in Column 17 caused by the
muddamal chopper, but that the accused-appellant’s role is supported by
the scientific evidence showing the deceased’s “AB” group blood on the
scene samples, the deceased’s clothes, the accused-appellant’s clothes,
and the muddamal chopper recovered pursuant to the accused-appellant’s
disclosure, yet without proving intent to murder.

17. The prosecution case further states that the sole eyewitness is the
complainant Devendrakumar Shankarlal Oswal (PW-1, Ex. 8), but that on
overall consideration his testimony is not wholly true, reliable, or fully
credible on all material particulars, though it cannot be rejected entirely,

Page 15 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

and therefore it requires corroboration by independent evidence as per
settled law. It is stated that the accused-appellant is implicated and the
use of the muddamal weapon is supported by the scientific and medical
evidence, and therefore the complainant’s testimony can be accepted only
to the extent it is corroborated.

18. The complainant stated that he lives at Ramol and runs a scrap
shop at Nirant Park Society, C.T.M., that the shop was taken on rent from
Mansingh Tilakdhari Thakur on deposit of Rs. 1,15,000/- and monthly
rent of Rs. 3,000/-, and that there were earlier disputes, threats, and
complaints connected with the shop. It is stated that on scrutiny of this
part of the complainant’s testimony, there is no specific role attributed to
the present accused-appellant, and that regarding other accused, there is
no evidence proving the alleged threats beyond reasonable doubt,
including lack of corroboration by the cart-puller and lack of supporting
complaint leading to arrest, and that civil litigation and cross-complaints
show enmity over shop possession but do not by themselves prove
criminal conspiracy with the present accused.

19. As regards the incident, the complainant stated that at about 13:30
Majidkhan Pathan came with scrap worth Rs. 30/-, that the complainant
went to Jayeshbhai’s shop for change, and that at that time Sunil Kaliya
and 2 associates came on a black Pulsar motorcycle, assaulted Majidkhan
with a sharp chopper, beat him, took his cart, and fled. He stated that he
called on 100, police came quickly, he went to L.G. Hospital, the doctor
declared Majidkhan dead, and thereafter he lodged the complaint at Ex. 9
and showed the scene to the police. The prosecution states that the fact
that the deceased had gone to sell scrap is supported by the deceased’s
wife Rehanabanu Majidkhan Pathan (PW-2, Ex. 12), who stated that the
deceased left with plastic scrap around 11-12 noon, that around 14:00

Page 16 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

they received news of assault, and that he was taken to L.G. Hospital and
declared brought dead, and she admitted in cross-examination that up to
the point of going from the scene to the hospital and back home she did
not know how the incident happened.

20. Based on this, the defence argues that if the complainant truly
witnessed the incident and went to the hospital where the deceased’s wife
and relatives also came, he would naturally have disclosed who assaulted
the deceased and what happened. Since the deceased’s wife admitted that
she had no knowledge of how the incident occurred up to that point, the
defence claims this indicates there was no such disclosure, and therefore,
considering prior enmity, the complainant may have fabricated facts and
deposed falsehoods. It is stated that this defence argument cannot be
brushed aside, because the absence of any natural disclosure at the
hospital gives grounds to doubt whether the complaint version is wholly
true, and it is suggested that even if the present accused injured the
deceased in a scuffle using a sharp weapon, the complainant may have
added false details to implicate co-accused, making his testimony
unreliable except to the extent supported by other evidence.

21. It is therefore stated that the complainant’s evidence should be
accepted only to the limited extent that the present accused-appellant
Sunil @ Kaliya Bharatbhai Gupta inflicted grievous injuries on the
deceased on the upper left arm and inner thigh with a muddamal chopper-
like weapon, causing corresponding cut marks on the deceased’s shirt
sleeve and pant, and that the deceased’s blood was found on the
muddamal chopper and on the clothes worn by the accused-appellant, and
these articles were recovered from Vasantaben’s house pursuant to the
disclosure panchnama supported by Vasantaben’s testimony. Beyond this
limited extent, it is stated that the remaining facts in the complaint and

Page 17 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

testimony are not supported by corroborative evidence and are not
acceptable even beyond reasonable doubt. It is also stated that, as per the
certified copy, the complainant avoided answering certain unfavourable
questions, and therefore it is argued that he answers only favourable
questions and evades unfavourable ones, which further creates doubt
about his reliability.

22. We have carefully examined how the learned Sessions Judge
evaluated the evidence. While doing so, the Judge divided the evidence
into two parts one relating to the complainant’s direct testimony and the
other relating to the remaining evidence. Such a method, even when
considered in light of the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, does
not weaken the conviction. On an independent reading of the
complainant’s testimony, along with the well-reasoned findings of the
trial court, it is evident that the inconsistencies pointed out relate only to
minor and peripheral details. These do not amount to material
contradictions and do not affect the basic version of the assault or the
manner in which the incident occurred. The learned Sessions Judge
correctly separated the reliable part of the testimony, for which sound
reasons are recorded and supported by the evidence on record, from the
portions that were found to be unreliable or exaggerated. It is well settled
that if a witness is not fully trustworthy, the court is not required to reject
the entire testimony. The court may accept the truthful and reliable part
and discard the rest. In the present case, this exercise has been carried out
properly, without any arbitrariness or legal error, and the appreciation of
evidence does not suffer from any defect that would weaken the
prosecution case. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in the following decisions.

23. In Saheb, S/o Maroti Bhumre Etc. v. State of Maharashtra

Page 18 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

[Criminal Appeal Nos. 313 of 2012 and 314 of 2012] reported in 2024 (0)
AIJEL-SC 74038, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that maxim falsus in
uno, falsus in omnibus is only a rule of caution and has not assumed
status of a rule of law in Indian context, an attempt must be made to
separate truth from falsehood and where such separation is impossible,
there cannot be a conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while
evaluating the credibility of the sole eyewitness (the widow of the
deceased) in a case involving offences under Sections 148, 149 and 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, held that although the maxim falsus in
uno, falsus in omnibus is only a rule of caution and not a rule of law in
the Indian context, a sincere effort must be made to separate truth from
falsehood. However, where such separation is rendered impossible owing
to pervasive inconsistencies such as contradictory statements regarding
the sequence of assault, absence of adequate moonlight for clear
identification, embellishments in court deposition vis-à-vis the initial
complaint, and inexplicable omission to attribute any role to certain
accused despite their alleged prominent entry the entirety of the testimony
falls into the realm of uncertainty. In such circumstances, no conviction
can be sustained on the solitary testimony, and the accused are entitled to
the benefit of doubt, resulting in their acquittal notwithstanding prior
incarceration.

24. In Rama Devi v. State of Bihar and Others [Criminal Appeal Nos.
2623 of 2014, 2631 of 2014, 2632 of 2014 and 2640 of 2014] reported in
2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74101, the Supreme Court, interpreting Section 3 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reiterated that the maxim falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus does not occupy the status of a rule of law and is
merely a rule of caution which guides the court in weighing evidence in
the given circumstances. Where a witness is found to have given
unreliable evidence in part, it becomes the duty of the court to diligently

Page 19 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

scrutinise the remaining evidence, sifting the grain from the chaff.
Reliable portions may still be acted upon, particularly when the
substratum of the prosecution case remains intact. The entire body of
evidence should be discarded only in exceptional cases where truth and
falsehood are so inextricably intertwined as to be indistinguishable. This
approach ensures that partial infirmities do not automatically vitiate the
prosecution case unless the core is irreparably damaged.

25. As an alternative argument, the learned Senior Advocate for the
appellant-accused submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted
as true and the evidence of the main eyewitnesses, who claims to have
seen the incident, is taken at face value, a close examination of his
testimony shows important contradictions about how the offence actually
occurred. Although the learned Sessions Judge noticed these
contradictions, they were completely ignored, and reliance was placed
only on those parts of the testimony that supported the prosecution, while
the remaining parts were disregarded. It was further argued that the
accused had no intention to cause harm to the deceased, who was
admittedly a stranger to him, and that the prosecution has neither proved
nor even alleged any motive. Therefore, even assuming that the incident
occurred as claimed, and considering only the nature and manner of the
injuries, the act attributed to the appellant does not satisfy the legal
requirements of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

26. It is settled position of law that, while determining the issue of
culpable homicide or murder, the courts have to keep in focus the key
words used in Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC. The difference between
murder and culpable homicide has been succinctly explained in the case
of State of A.P. vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in the scheme of the IPC, culpable

Page 20 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

homicide is the genus and murder its species; all murders are culpable
homicides, but not vice versa. The IPC recognizes three degrees of
culpable homicide for proportionate punishment: the gravest form
(murder under Section 300, punishable under Section 302 IPC), culpable
homicide of the second degree (punishable under the first part of Section
304 IPC), and the lowest type (punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC).
Section 300 specifies when culpable homicide amounts to murder and
when, under the exceptions, it is culpable homicide not amounting to
murder under Section 304 IPC.

27. After referring to the aforesaid decision, the difference between the
two terms was further elucidated in Rampal vs. State of U.P. (2012) 8
SCC 289. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the safest
approach to interpreting and applying Sections 299 and 300 IPC is to
focus on the key words in their clauses, and that courts should consider
the issue in three stages: first, whether the accused's act caused the death;
second, whether it amounts to culpable homicide under Section 299; and
third, if it does, whether it falls under any Exception to Section 300,
making it culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under
Section 304 IPC (or under Part II if intention is absent but knowledge is
present). The Court further clarified that Section 304 divides the offence
into cases of intentional causing of death (Part I) and unintentional but
knowing causing of death (Part II), with the latter attracting optional
imprisonment up to 10 years.

28. Recently, in the case of Chunni Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
(AIR 2025 Supreme Court 2370), the Supreme Court, after referring to
the observations in Rayavarapu Punnayya and Rampal (supra), has held
that one of the key criteria to determine whether the act amounts to
murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder is the presence or

Page 21 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

absence of intention of the offender. If intention to cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or clear knowledge that the act is
imminently dangerous and likely to cause death (without excuse), is
established, it falls under Section 300 IPC attracting Section 302. On the
other hand, if the intention is not so clear, the case falls under the less
stringent category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
punishable under Section 304 IPC.

29. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case and on appreciation of the evidence on record (including oral
evidence of PW-1 to PW-17 and documentary evidence Exhs. 9 to 51),
none of the clauses of Section 300 IPC are attracted. Accordingly, we set
aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the
sentence of life imprisonment, and instead convict the appellant under
Section 304 Part II IPC In these circumstances, the ends of justice would
be met by sentencing the accused to the sentence already undergone i.e.
around 7 years (6 years and 10 months as per the jail remarks on record).

30. As discussed, though the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is
a rule of caution and not a rule of law in India, the Court must separate
truth from falsehood. Here, the sole eyewitness (complainant PW-1, Exh.
8) is not wholly reliable, showing material contradictions and
improvements regarding the role of co-accused, sequence of events, and
details not initially disclosed (including lack of natural disclosure to the
deceased's wife at the hospital). These, coupled with prior enmity, raise
doubts about aspects like premeditation or multiple assailants. Where
truth and falsehood are interwoven on crucial issues, conviction for
murder under Section 302 IPC cannot be based solely on such testimony.

31. However, the core prosecution case – that the accused-appellant

Page 22 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

inflicted grievous injuries with the muddamal weapon – is corroborated
by scientific evidence (Serological report Exh. 47, Physics report Exh.
48), recovery panchnamas (Exh. 19), post-mortem (Exh. 27), and medical
evidence indicating grievous but non-vital injuries with possibility of
survival if treated timely. This sustains culpability with knowledge,
entitling the benefit of doubt on intent for murder, altering the conviction
to Section 304 Part II IPC.

32. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is merely a rule of
caution. Where a witness (PW-1) is unreliable on particulars (e.g.,
associates' involvement), the Court must scrutinise the rest, acting on
reliable corroborated portions. Here, exaggerations on
conspiracy/multiple assailants are rejected, but the substratum – grievous
injury by sharp weapon, corroborated by FSL/reports, medical evidence,
and recovery – sustains conviction without proving intent (non-vital parts,
no repeated blows). Thus, Section 302 IPC conviction is converted to
Section 304 Part II IPC.

33. For the reasons aforementioned, Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2012
filed by the appellant Sunil @ Kaliya Bharatbhai Gupta is partly allowed.
He is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to the
rigorous imprisonment (already undergone) i.e. around 7 years (6 years
and 10 months as per the jail remarks on record). The conviction under
Section 302 IPC is set aside, and the appellant is convicted and sentenced
as above.

34. Regarding appeals by the original complainant (PW-1), no ground
exists to interfere with the learned Sessions Court's acquittal of original
accused nos. 2 and 3. The role of accused no. 2 (pipe injury on
complainant's leg) was not mentioned in the complaint, no visible injury

Page 23 of 24
R/CR.A/804/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2026

on complainant, and over-implication suspected for accused no. 3
(absence of expected blood stains). The acquittal view is plausible and
based on record; no exceptional grounds to interfere.

35. In result, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1182 and 1183 of 2011, preferred
by the original complainant are dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 804 of
2012 preferred by the appellant-accused is partly allowed in above terms.
Bail bonds shall stand canceled and the sureties discharged. The records
be transmitted to the learned Sessions Court forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MITESH VIJAYBHAI PANCHAL(HCD0065), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/01/2026 13:33:55

Page 24 of 24