Holding

A single, forceful blow with a knife that penetrates a vital organ constitutes murder under IPC s.302; the cross‑case is irrelevant to the offence.

Summary

Manubhai Atabhai and his brothers attacked the complainant's son, Danabhai, during a dispute over a wall. Manubhai stabbed Danabhai in the stomach with a six‑inch knife, causing a deep wound that penetrated the liver, a vital organ, and the victim died instantly. The trial court convicted Manubhai under IPC s.304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), but the Gujarat High Court altered the conviction to s.302 (murder). On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a single, forceful blow with a knife to a vital organ constitutes murder and held that it does, noting that a single blow does not automatically limit the offence to s.304 Part I and that the cross‑case was irrelevant. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s conviction under s.302 and dismissed the appellant’s challenge.

Issues considered

Whether a single, forceful blow with a knife causing injury to a vital organ amounts to murder under IPC s.302 or to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304 Part I.
Whether the existence of a cross‑case (counter‑case) is relevant in determining the nature of the offence.
Whether the intention required for murder can be inferred from the weapon used, the part of the body struck, the force employed and the surrounding circumstances.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Act, 1951s. 135
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304 Part I

Subjects

murderculpable homicide not amounting to murdersingle blowintentionvital organ injuryIPC s.302IPC s.304 Part Icross case relevanceweapon and force

Judgment

MANUBHAI ATABHAI A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT

JUNE 21, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

... -! Penal Code, 1860:

ss.302 and 304 Part I-Deceased was attacked with a knife-Trial
Court convicted accused under s.304 Part I-High Court convicted him C
under s. 302-0n appeal, held: Injury was caused just below stomach and
had affected vital part of the body-Knife had gone as deep as 6cm in the
body showing that blow was given with great force-Single blow does not
automatically bring in application of s.304 Part I-Order of High Court does
not suffer from any infirmity. D

-- Prosecution case was that there was a dispute regarding construction
of wall between the properties of complainant and that of accused persons.
Both sides had lodged complaints before the date of incident. On the date of
incident, the appellant and his father and brothers who were other accused
came to the house of complainant and started giving abuses. The complainant E
came out of the house and inquired of reasons of his giving abuses. The
appellant also came on the spot with an open knife, A-3 came there with an
axe and A-4 had an iron pipe in his hand. Deceased, son the complainant also
came out of house and tried to pacify them. Appellant gave a knife blow in the
stomach of deceased. The complainant intervened and A-3 gave an axe blow
...... on head of complainant and A-4 gave a pipe blow which was received by F
complainant on his left hand. Thereafter, appellant and accused persons left
the place of incident. Deceased was taken to hospital where he was declared
dead. Trial Court convicted the appellant under s.304 Part I IPC while
acquitting the other accused. High Court convicted appellant under s.302
IPC. G
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that two facts have been noted
by the trial court to record conviction under s.304 Part 1 IPC they are: (1) -
a single blow was given and no attempt was made to give second blow. (2) There
was a cross case registered and that finding the prosecution version to be
1115 fl
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A inadequate, three accused persons were acquitted by the trial court which "'as
upheld by the High Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The injury was 3cm x 2cm x 6cm about 6 cm. below sternum
B and 8 cm above umbilicus. There was corresponding internal injury causing
incised wound of2 cm on the interior border of the liver. Doctor had opined
that the liver is a vital organ of the body and the injury found on the person
of the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. ~ -...
(Para 7) (1118-F-G)

C 2. The nature of intention has to be gathered from the kind of weapon
used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the
circumstances attendant upon death. The accused had used a knife, the blade
of which had a length of 6 inches. The injury was caused just below the
stomach and had affected a vital part i.e. liver. Knife had gone as deep as 6
D cm. in the body which clearly is indicative of the fact that blow was given with
great force and the outcome of the injury was that the deceased expired
instantaneously. Merely because a single blow was given that does not ...._. -
automatically bring in application of s.304 Part I IPC.
(Paras 8 and 9) [1118-G-H; 1119-A-B)

E 3. The cross case has really no relevance for determining as to the
nature of offence. The order of the High Court does not suffer from any
infirmity to warrant interference. [Para 10 and 11) [1119-C-D)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 636-637
of2002.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.06.2001 of the High Court of ,r ._.
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 872 and 1034 of 1995.

Shree Pal Singh and Rahul Singh for the Appellant.

Abhishek Mishra and Hemantika Wahi for the. Respondent.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Challenge in these appeals is to the
judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, disposing of two
criminal appeals. The appeal filed by the appellant (for the sake of convenience
H described as 'A-2') was dismissed; the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat
MANUBHAI ATABHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT (PASA YAT. J. ( 1117

-~ was allowed altering his conviction for offence punishable under Section304 A
part I of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC') to Section 302 IPC while
maintaining the conviction for offence punishable under Section 135 of the
Bombay Police Act, 1951 (in short the 'Police Act'). The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amerli in Sessions Case No. I 04 of 1992 directed acquittal
of Atabhai (A I). Kanubhai (A3) and Rambhai (A4) (hereinafter for the sake
of convenient described as 'Al, A3 & A4').
B

2. As noted above, both the State and the present appellant filed
>
appeal. By order dated 18.4.1996 High Court dismissed the State's appeal so
far as A 1, A3 & A4 are concerned.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as under: c
Complainant Samnatbhai Thobhanbhai stays in Harijan- Vankarvas at
Kodinar. He had only one son namely Danabhai and they we.~ staying
together. The accused, his father and brothers were the neighbours of the
complainant. They had some dispute regarding construction of a wall between
D
their respective properties. Both sides had lodged complaints prior to the
-........ incident. The accused had planned to construct a wall and apprehending
some civil litigation had also lodged a caveat in the court and had then
·r
proceeded with construction of the wall. On June 9, 1992, at about 6.30 7.00
a.m., Atabhai Tabhabhai came to their house and started giving abuses. The
complainant, therefore, went out and inquired of Atabhai Tabhabhth the E
reason for giving abuses. This provoked Atabhai Tabhabhai and he sta:rt.ed
giving more and more abuses and picked up a quarrel. Around that time,
Manubhai Atabhai, the appellant, came to the spot with an open knife,
Kanubhai Atabhai came there with an axe and Rambhai Atabhai had an iron
pipe in his hand. By the time these developments took place, Danabhai, son
F
_.I of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') came out from
the house and tried to cool down Atabhai Tabhabhai. However, Atabhai
Tabhabhai and his sons Manubhai Atabhai, Kanubhai Atabhai and Rambhai
Atabhai got annoyed. Upon provocation of Atabhai Tabhabhai, Manubhai
Atabhai gave a knife blow in the stomach of Danabhai the deceased. The
complainant intervened and therefore Kanubhai Atabhai gave an axe blow on G
the head of the complaint and Rambhai Atabhai gave a pipe blow which was
received by the complainant Samatbhai Thobhanbhai on his left hand. Atabhai
Tabhabhai had caused injury on the left thigh of the complaint with a stone.
- -<(
Wife of Danabhai namely Valiben and Samatbhai Thobhanbbai and Girdharbbai
G.ovindbhai also reached the place of incident soon thereafter and the
H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20071 7 S.C.R.

A assailants. therefore. went away. Deceased Danabhai, Samatbhai and the y-.
complainant were taken to the hospital where the deceased Danabhai was
declared dead. On the basis of the FIR lodged by Samatbhai Thobhanbhai,
offence was registered at C.R.No.85/92 at Kodinar Police Station, the case was
investigated upon and charge sheet was filed. Accused persons pleaded
B false implication.

4. The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of the eye witnesses
and recorded conviction, as noted above, of A2, the present appellant while
directing acquittal of A 1, A3 & A4.High Court found that the case is clearly
one to which Section 302 IPC is applicable and on erroneous premises the trial
C court had convicted the appellant under Section 304 part I IPC.

5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that two facts have been noted by the trial court to record conviction under
Section 304 Part l IPC they are: (1)-a single blow was given and no attempt
was made to give second blow. (2) There was a cross case registered. It is
D also submitted that finding the prosecution version to be inadequate, three
accused persons were acquitted by the trial court which was upheld by the
High Court.

6. In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that the trial
court's judgment was clearly unsustainable and it had proceeded on erroneous
E premises and, therefore, High Court had rightly direct conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC. The distinction between Sections 302, 304
Part 1 and 304 Part II IPC has been highlighted by this Court in several cases.
The confusion is caused if courts loose sight of the true scope and meaning
of the terms used by the legislature in Sections 300 and 304.

F 1. In the instant case the injury was 3cm x 2cm x 6cm about 6 cm. below
sternum and 8 cm above umbilicus. There was corresponding internal injury
causing incised wound of 2 cm on the interior border of the lever. Doctor
had opined that the lever is a vital organ of the body and the injury found
on the person of the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
G cause death.

8. The nature of intention has to be gathered from the kind of weapon
used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the
circumstances attendant upon death. In the instant case the accused had
used a knife. the blade of which had a length of 6 inches. The injury was
H caused just below the stomach and had affected a vital part i.e. liver. Knife
MANUBHAIATABHAI v. STATEOFGUJARAT[PASAYAT.J.J 1119

had gone as deep as 6 cm. in the body which clearly is indicative of the fact A
that blow was given with great force and the outcome of the injury was that
the deceased expired instantaneously. The deceased as it is admitted was
trying to pacify the parties and there was no part played by him in the
exchange of words which was taking place.

9. Trial court's conclusions are very confusing. For recording conviction B
under Section 304 Part I IPC, the High Court recorded that it was a case of
exercise of right of private defence and only one blow was given and there
was a counter case. If it was really a case of exercise of right of private
defence, there could not have been any conviction much less under Section
304 Part I IPC. Merely because a single blow was given that does not C
automatically bring in application of Section 304 Part I IPC.

10. Trial court did not consider the various aspects highlighted by this
Court in cases relating to single blow. The cross case has really no relevance
for determining as to the nature of offence.
D
11. Above being the position the order of the High Court does not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.

12. Appeals are dismissed.

D.G. Appeals dismissed. E