Holding

The conviction was altered to section 304(II) IPC, the conviction under section 307 IPC was upheld, and a six‑year custodial sentence was imposed.

Summary

The appellant Mahindra Mulji Kerai Patel, aged 19, killed the grandmother of a girl and injured the girl's mother after they rejected his marriage proposal. He was initially convicted by the trial court under sections 324 and 452 of the IPC. The State appealed, and the Gujarat High Court substituted the conviction with sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder). On further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the nature of the injury, the weapon used and the surrounding circumstances, and held that the facts amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304(II) IPC, while upholding the conviction for attempted murder under section 307. Considering the offender’s youth and the peculiar facts, the Court imposed a six‑year imprisonment. The appeal was disposed of with the conviction altered and the sentence confirmed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate IPC provision—section 302 (murder) or section 304(II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)—that fits the facts of the case?
Whether the conviction under section 307 IPC for attempted murder should be upheld.
Whether the sentence of six years' imprisonment is justified in view of the offender's age and the circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304(II), s. 307, s. 324, s. 452, s. 506(2)

Subjects

murderculpable homicideattempted murderpremeditationsentencingIPCcriminal appealmarriage proposal refusalage of offender

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 432 ~
/,

A MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL )....-·
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 2001)
OCTOBER 14, 2008 ·
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAVAT AND C. K. THAKKER, JJ.]
.j._
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304 Part (//), 302 and 307 - Ho-
micidal 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 - Convic-
tion ulss. 302 and 307 by High Court - Correctness of - Held: .,.
There was pre-mediation over exchange of words - Consider-
ing the evidence, nature of injury inflicted, the weapon used and
D
surrounding factors, conviction altered to one uls. 304 Part-(//)
- Conviction u/s. 307 maintained - Occurrence took place 20
-,I...
years ago - Accused was aged 19 years at relevant time - In
the interest of justice, custodial sentence of six years awarded.
I
E According to the prosecution case, the deceased- ~

grand mother of the girl and the complainant-mother of
...
\
I
the girl refused the .marriage proposal given by the appel-
lant. As a result, the appellant inflictea single injury to the
deceased leading to her death and caused serious inju- t-
F ries to the complainant. Investigation was carried out. Ap- . ,i
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
with fine. Respondent-State challenged the acquittal of
G
accused in respect of offences punishable u/ss. 302 and
)7
307 IPC. High Court analysed the evidence of PW1-com-
plainant and PW 2-doctor and convicted the accused u/ >-l •
ss. 302 and 307 IPC. Hence the present appeal.

H 432
MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL v. STATE 433
OF GUJARAT
---',
.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 Considering the evidence, and taking note
of the nature of the injury that was inflicted the appropri-
ate conviction would be u/s. 304 P·art-(11) IPC. The back-
ground facts show that there was pre-meditation over
exchange of words, one injury leading to the death was B
. '
..-. inflicted. Though in all cases the number of injuries is not
the determinative factor for attracting s. 302 IPC, in the in-
-:
stant case, considering the nature of weapon used and
surrounding factors, the convictions is altered. The con-
viction of the High Court u/s. 307 IPC does not warrant any c
interference and is accordingly upheld. [Para 2] [435-B-C]
1.2 As regard the question of sentence, the occur-
rence took place on 18.12.1989 that too over a matter con-
cerning 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 E
No. 925 of 2001
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
A'-
F
S.K. Dholakia, Ashish Dholakia, Adarsh Priyadarshini and
Promila for the Appellant.
Hamantika Wahi, Pinky, K. Enatoli Serna and Somanath
for the Respondent.
G
..
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.1.-:
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.

A having caused homicidal death of one Kunverba Kanji (herein- I-- "
after 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 grand-
B 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 ~j-

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 1
>---
of the view that the accused was guilty of offence punishable \---
under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo impris-
onment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to
undergo S.I. for six months. The accused was also found guilty
D
of offence punishable under Section 452 and was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in ~-f--

default, to undergo S.I. for two months. Questioning the correct-
ness of the order, the State preferred an appeal in terms of Sec-
tion 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
E ,Code'). Primary challenge was to the acquittal of the accused f

in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 and 307
IPC. The High Court on analysis of the evidence, more particu-
larly that of PW1, the complainant and PW2, the Doctor, came
to hold that the trial court was not justified in directing the ac-
F quittal of the accused in respect of offence punishable under x._
Section 302 IPC. The High Court also said that the accused
was guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Ques-
tioning the correctness of the order passed by the High Court,
the present appeal has been filed.
G
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while ...'
convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Sections ;...l
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-
H
.... MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL v. STATE 435
OF GUJARAT [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

--( viction in terms of Section 302 IPC. Reference is made to the A
evidence of the Doctor PW2 to contend that there was no defi-
nite opinion as to whether the injury inflicted could have caused
death in the ordinary course. Learned counsel for the respon-
dent 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
_j,
that appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part-

-
(II) IPC. The background facts show that there was pre-,medita-
'
tion 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 sur-
rounding factors, the conviction is altered. The conviction of the
High Court under Section 307 IPC does not warrant any inter-
ference 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 custo- E
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.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. F
\
A'

N.J. Appeal disposed of.