Fatal Injury Was Not Intended, Only Knowledge Can Be Attributed: Gujarat High Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide

“The act of the accused cannot be said to have been done with the intention to cause death… the case falls under Section 304 Part II, not Section 302 IPC”, - In a significant modification of a murder conviction, the Gujarat High Court set aside the life imprisonment awarded under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II. A Division Bench comprising Justices Ilesh J. Vora and Sandeep N. Bhatt held that though the accused inflicted a fatal injury on a police constable while resisting arrest, the act lacked the necessary intention to qualify as “murder” under Section 300 IPC.

The Court concluded that, “The appellant is not liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC… the offence established is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.”

The case dates back to December 2004, when police officials attempted to arrest the appellant—an accused in multiple robbery and abduction cases. During a planned raid in the village of Kesarvadi, the appellant was intercepted by a team of police officers, including constable Mandalbhai Desai. As the constable tried to apprehend him, the appellant stabbed him with a knife, causing injuries to his left wrist and elbow. Despite being rushed to the hospital, the constable succumbed to his injuries.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 333, and 186 read with Section 114 IPC, awarding life imprisonment.

“Knife Blow Was Not Intended to Kill, But Act Was Likely to Cause Death”: Court Dissects the Intention

While the conviction was challenged in appeal, the appellant’s counsel confined arguments only to the quantum of sentence and not to the conviction per se. The High Court noted that the fatal injury was not directed at a vital organ and occurred in a scuffle during an attempt to escape arrest.

Justice Vora, delivering the judgment, reasoned: “It is not established that there was an intention on the part of the accused to inflict that particular injury or to cause such bodily injury as would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”

The Court held that although the accused did not intend to cause death,

“While inflicting the knife blow, it can be presumed that the accused had knowledge that his action is likely to cause death.”

“Prosecution Failed to Establish Ingredients of Section 300 IPC”: Court Applies Landmark Tests on Murder vs Culpable Homicide

Applying the jurisprudence developed in Rayavarapu Punnayya v. State of A.P., Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. and the recent 2023 ruling in Anbazhagan v. State, the High Court reiterated that intention and not merely the result must guide the classification of the offence:“Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then the offence is murder under Section 300 Clause Thirdly.”

However, in this case: “The injuries were not inflicted on a vital part of the body… and the postmortem doctor did not opine that major blood vessels were ruptured.”

The Court held that the act did not meet the threshold of murder under Section 300 IPC and instead fell under Section 304 Part II IPC—culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal in part by converting the life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC into 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC. The fine of ₹5,000 was upheld, and the Court directed the immediate release of the appellant if not required in any other case.

Justice Ilesh J. Vora concluded: “The prosecution failed to prove that the act of causing death falls in any of the clauses under Section 300 IPC… Accordingly, the conviction is altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.”

Date of Decision: April 30, 2025