MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
C. K. Thakker
Judgment Date: 2008-10-14
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of. The Supreme Court altered the conviction to 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) while upholding the 307 IPC conviction. The sentence was fixed at six years’ custodial imprisonment, considering the time of occurrence and the appellant’s youth. The appellant was directed to surrender to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of by the Supreme Court with modifications to the conviction and sentence, including surrender to custody.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mahindra Mulji Kerai Patel

Respondents

State of Gujarat

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.K. Dholakia
• Ashish Dholakia
• Adarsh Priyadarshini
• Promila

Counsels for Respondents

• Hamantika Wahi
• Pinky
• K. Enatoli Serna
• Somanath

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appeal arises from a Gujarat High Court judgment altering an acquittal of the appellant and convicting him under sections 302 and 307 IPC for a homicide that occurred on 18 December 1989, when the grandmother of the girl and the complainant’s mother refused a marriage proposal. In the trial court, the accused was convicted under sections 324 and 452 IPC. The High Court later convicted him under sections 302 and 307 IPC, prompting this Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court examines whether the accused, aged about 19 at the time, caused homicidal death by a single fatal injury inflicted with a weapon described as a small dharia. The Court notes that the death resulted from a single injury and considers the nature of the weapon and surrounding circumstances, holding that the appropriate conviction is under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than 302 IPC, while upholding the conviction under 307 IPC. On sentence, given the 1989 occurrence and the appellant’s youth, the Court imposes a custodial sentence of six years to meet the ends of justice and directs disposal of the appeal. The appellant must surrender to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence; the appeal is disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part II IPCPenal Code, 1860 - s. 302 IPCPenal Code, 1860 - s. 307 IPCPenal Code, 1860 - s. 324 IPCPenal Code, 1860 - s. 452 IPCPenal Code, 1860 - s. 506(2) IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court erred in convicting under sections 302 and 307 IPC. The weapon used was described as a small dharia and the medical evidence (PW2) does not definitively establish that the injuries could cause death in the ordinary course. There was premeditation in the exchange of words, but the number of injuries is not determinative for a murder conviction. On these facts, the appellant urged that the proper offence is 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Given the age of the accused (about 19) and the time elapsed since 1989, the appellant sought a sentence consistent with justice and a remitting of the matter to a primarily lesser conviction rather than murder.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent State defended the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the evidence supports a conviction under 302 IPC for homicidal death and under 307 IPC for an attempt to murder. The presence of a single fatal injury, the weapon’s alleged nature, and surrounding circumstances were cited as establishing a grave offense. The Doctors’ testimony supported the conclusion that death could follow from the injuries, and the premeditation over the marriage dispute was relied upon to justify the harsher verdict. The State urged that the High Court’s analysis be maintained and the appellant’s conviction for 302 IPC upheld while 307 IPC remained intact.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

~ /, A # [2008] 14 S.C.R. 432 ## MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL )....-· _v._ STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 2001) B ## OCTOBER 14, 2008 · [DR. ARIJIT PASAVAT AND C. K. THAKKER, JJ.] _.j.__ _Penal Code, 1860_ - ss. _304 Part (//), 302 and 307_ - _Homicidal death of one and injuries to other_ -: _Refusal of grand_ c _[mother and mother ][of ][the girl ][to ][the ][marriage proposal given ][by ] boy-accused_ - _One injury inflicted which lead to the death of grand mother and serious inj4ries caused to other_ - _Conviction ulss. 302 and 307 by High Court_ - _Correctness of_ - _Held: There_ was _pre-mediation over exchange of words_ - _Consider-_ D _[ing the evidence, nature ][of ][injury inflicted, the weapon used and ] surrounding factors, conviction altered to one uls. 304 Part-(//)_ - _Conviction u/s. 307 maintained_ - _Occurrence took place 20 years ago_ - _Accused_ was _aged 19 years at relevant time_ - _In the interest of justice, custodial sentence of six years awarded._ E According to the prosecution case, the deceasedgrand mother of the girl and the complainant-mother of the girl refused the .marriage proposal given by the appellant. As a result, the appellant inflictea single injury to the deceased leading to her death and caused serious injuF[ries ][to ][the complainant. Investigation ][was ][carried out. Ap- . ] pellant was tried for offences punishable u/ss. 302, 307 and 506(2) IPC. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused u/ss. 324 and 452 IPC and imposed imprisonment for two years and one year respectively G[with ][fine. Respondent-State challenged the acquittal ][of ] accused in respect of offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC. High Court analysed the evidence of PW1-complainant and PW 2-doctor and convicted the accused u/ ss. 302 and 307 IPC. Hence the present appeal. 432 H -,I... I ~ ... \ I t- _i_ , ~ >-l . ---', A . ..-. ' -: . . ~ .1.-: # MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL v. STATE 433 OF GUJARAT Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Considering the evidence, and taking note of the nature of the injury that was inflicted the appropriate conviction would be u/s. 304 P·art-(11) IPC. The background facts show that there was pre-meditation over B exchange of words, one injury leading to the death was inflicted. Though in all cases the number of injuries is not the determinative factor for attracting s. 302 IPC, in the instant case, considering the nature of weapon used and surrounding factors, the convictions is altered. The conviction of the High Court u/s. 307 IPC does not warrant any[c ] interference and is accordingly upheld. [Para 2] [435-B-C] -+- _A'-_ 1.2 As regard the question of sentence, the occurrence took place on 18.12.1989 that too over a matter concerning the refusal of the deceased and the informant to D the marriage proposal. He was about 19 years of age at the relevant point of time. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the custodial sentence of six years would meet the ends of justice. [Para 2] [435-E] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 2001 E From the final Judgment and Order dated 7. 7 .1998/ 11.18.1998 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Crl. Appeal No. 40 of 1991 F S.K. Dholakia, Ashish Dholakia, Adarsh Priyadarshini and Promila for the Appellant. Hamantika Wahi, Pinky, K. Enatoli Serna and Somanath for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. The appellant faced trial for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ,IPC') for H 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1 G H A having caused homicidal death of one Kunverba Kanji (hereinafter referred to as the ,deceased') and causing injuries to Jasuben Premji, the complainant. The occurence took place on 18.12.1989 at about 7 p. m. The background of the occurence was that the appellant was supposedly in love with the grandB[daughter ][of ][the deceased i.e. the daughter ][of ][the complainant ] Jasuben Premji. As the two ladies objected to the proposal of marriage given by the accused, he took out his anger on the two ladies and took the life of one and caused serious injuries to the other. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed c[charge sheet, the trial was held as the accused pleaded inno-] cence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, KL!tch at Bhuj was of the view that the accused was guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to D[undergo S.I. for six months. The accused was also found guilty ] of offence punishable under Section 452 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for two months. Questioning the correctness of the order, the State preferred an appeal in terms of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short E ,Code'). Primary challenge was to the acquittal of the accused in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 IPC. The High Court on analysis of the evidence, more particularly that of PW1, the complainant and PW2, the Doctor, came to hold that the trial court was not justified in directing the acF quittal of the accused in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The High Court also said that the accused was guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Questioning the correctness of the order passed by the High Court, the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC the High Court lost sight of the fact that the weapon which was purportedly used was a small dharia (FAGA). The medical evidence also does not make out a case for con- _I--_ ~j- ~-f-- x._ ;...l ~ f ... ' MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL _v._ STATE OF GUJARAT [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 435 ' --( _j, \ _A'_ viction in terms of Section 302 IPC. Reference is made to the A evidence of the Doctor PW2 to contend that there was no definite opinion as to whether the injury inflicted could have caused death in the ordinary course. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court. 2. Considering the evidence, and taking note of the nature[B ] of the injury that was inflicted, we are of the considered view that appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part(II) IPC. The background facts show that there was pre-,meditation over exchange of words, one injury leading to the death was inflicted. Though in all cases the number of injuries is not[c ] the determinative factor for attracting Section 302 IPC, in the instant case, considering the nature of weapon used and surrounding factors, the conviction is altered. The conviction of the High Court under Section 307 IPC does not warrant any interference and is accordingly upheld. Coming·to the question of D sentence , it needs to be noted that occurence took place on 18.12.1989 that too over a matter concerning the refusal of the deceased and the informant to the marriage proposal. He was about 19 years of age at the relevant point of time. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the custoE dial sentence of six years would meet the ends of justice. The appellant was released pursuant to the order dated 10.05.2002. He shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence. F 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.J. Appeal disposed of.