CASE NAME: Nandakumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar v/s State of Gujarat
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2014
DATE : 10 November 2025
QUORUM: Justice N.V. Anjaria
FACTS
The judgement in the instant case arose from an appeal filed by the appellant before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2000. In which thereby the High Court confirmed the judgment and order dated 31.01.2000 of the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.25 of 1999, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504, IPC, 1860 and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
The brief facts of the case are as follows, during an internal quarrel between the appellant and his brother, the appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased when he intervened. Later at night, the appellant went to the house of the deceased and inflicted stab injuries by knife on the deceased on the left side of the back and on the right hand. He was taken to the hospital where his statement was recorded with regard to who inflicted the stab wound. On the basis of the statement, FIR was registered at that time for the offence under Sections 324 and 504. After around 13 days from the discharge. he was readmitted again and died receiving the treatment in the afternoon of 26.06.1998. The cause of death was indicated to be Septicemia and thereby the charge for the offence under Section 302, IPC was added.
ISSUES
- Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for the offence of murder.
- Whether the act of the appellant amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, thus attracting Section 304 IPC instead.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 299 of IPC, 1860 defines culpable homicide as causing death by doing an act with the intention of causing death; or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
- Section 300 defines Murder as a specific form of culpable homicide that is graver in nature due to the degree of intention or knowledge involved.
- Section 302 prescribes the punishment for murder as death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
- Section 304 prescribes the punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
- Section 504 deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT :
The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses other than the two witnesses who were relatives of the deceased therefore, interested witnesses. It was further contended that there existed no causal link between the injuries and death since the deceased died thirteen days after the incident due to septicemia. It was submitted that the prolonged gap between injury and death diluted the inference of homicidal intent and that the death resulted more from infection than from the stab wounds themselves. It was further pointed out that the act took place in a sudden fit of anger, without premeditation, deliberation, or motive to kill. Thereby the appellant’s conduct constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 of IPC, rather than an offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC.
RESPONDENT:
The Respondent contended that the statements of the eye witness were trustworthy, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. Their presence at the scene was natural, and the defence failed to establish any reason to doubt their credibility. Further, the stab injury inflicted below the abdomen, which pierced vital internal organs, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as affirmed by the post-mortem report. The time lapse of thirteen days between the injury and death did not dilute the culpability of the accused. The deceased had died due to septicemia directly arising from the stab wounds, and this establishes a continuous causal connection between the appellant’s act and the death. It was argued that the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment were proper and required no interference.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court observed upon considering the arguments advanced and the documents submitted, that the appellant used a knife and inflicted serious injuries on the body of the deceased and there was an element of impulse, anger and self-provocation on part of the appellant. It has to be concluded that the accused was liable to be attributed with the knowledge that the injuries which he was to inflict by using the weapon in hand, would be sufficient to result in death in ordinary course.
It was observed that the two ingredients namely the infliction of bodily injury on the deceased was caused intentionally and secondly that it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, are satisfied, the offence would amount to murder under section 300, IPC . There may be circumstances which may emerge from the facts and evidence of a given case that the offence becomes ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. Referring to its previous precedents including Kesar Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753, Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, the Court reiterated that if an injury is inflicted with the knowledge and intention that it is likely to cause death, but with no intention to cause death the offence would fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304.
It could be concluded that the intention to cause death was missing. The appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC. The other attending aspects which may be relevant in judging the nature of the offence committed by the appellant were that the injuries did not result in instantaneous death of the deceased. The death of the deceased was after 13 days and not only that he died while under treatment in the hospital but he had developed septic conditions in the injuries suffered by him. The cause of death was medically identified as ‘Septicemia’.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant deserves to be converted from under Section 302, IPC to under Section 304 Part I, IPC. The act on part of the appellant has to be treated as ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ falling under Section 304 Part I, IPC. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, IPC is set aside and the same is converted into one under Section 304 Part I, IPC. The sentence of 14 years already undergone by the appellant shall be treated as sufficient and subserve the interest of justice.
CONCLUSION
It could be concluded that the distinction between murder and culpable homicide rests entirely on the degree of intention and knowledge. Where the act arises from sudden provocation or impulsive anger, without preplanned intention to kill, and death ensues later due to complications, the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case is a setting example of the same and the Supreme Court’s judgement converting the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, crystallised the principles of criminal law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY : AMYUKTA RAJAGOPAL
Click here to read more: Nandakumar @ Nandu Manilal Mudaliar v:s State of Gujarat
