Dying Declaration Proves Assailant, Not Intention To Kill: Gujarat High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide
The Gujarat High Court modified a murder conviction into culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that although the dying declaration established the accused's role in causing injuries, the overall circumstances reflected absence of intention to kill.Allowing the appeal partly, the Division Bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice R.T. Vacchani specifically observed:“While the...
The Gujarat High Court modified a murder conviction into culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that although the dying declaration established the accused's role in causing injuries, the overall circumstances reflected absence of intention to kill.
Allowing the appeal partly, the Division Bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice R.T. Vacchani specifically observed:
“While the dying declarations provide a strong evidentiary foundation linking the accused to the crime, the surrounding circumstances of the incident cannot be overlooked while determining the appropriate classification of the offence. The record shows that the quarrel erupted suddenly from what began as mutual joking and exchange of abuses, with no prior enmity or premeditation on record. The accused is said to have become provoked only after the deceased refused to retaliate with similar abuses, leading to the impulsive act of pulling out the knife from his pocket and inflicting multiple blows in the heat of passion...The dying declarations, though reliable to prove the authorship of the injuries, do not by themselves elevate the offence to murder where the overall facts and circumstances demonstrate absence of the requisite intention to kill and presence of sudden provocation without premeditation.”
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) by the trial court.
As per the prosecution case, argued by APP Ronak Raval, the deceased sustained burn injuries following an altercation with the accused. The prosecution relied heavily on multiple dying declarations through the testimony of the medical officers who treated the victim and the FSL report which connected the accused's weapon to the injuries which caused death. The dying declarations consistently attributed the act to the accused, the state said. The trial court treated these declarations as sufficient to establish guilt for murder and convicted the accused accordingly.
The defence argued that the accused had already undergone 8 years and 10 months of incarceration till the date of arguments, urging the Court to reduce sentence to time served or grant a reasonable sentence in light of such prolonged incarceration. Further, Advocate Prateek Barot highlighted the “trivial” nature of the quarrel which led to the incident and urged that it was a result of sudden provocation without any premeditation.
After examining the evidence, the High Court noted that the dying declarations were consistent and trustworthy to establish that the accused caused the injuries. However, the Court emphasised that the nature of the incident and surrounding circumstances were crucial in determining whether the offence amounted to murder.
Examining the prosecution evidence, the Court further observed “the prosecution in support of its case has examined 23 witnesses however, out of the said witnesses the only injured complainant Variyani Maheshkumar Narandas at Exh.-37 who has narrated the incident but turned hostile and did not support the case.”
The Court held that although the injuries were serious and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the delayed death and the absence of evidence showing undue advantage taken by the accused or any brutal conduct strengthen the inference that the offence falls under Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide) IPC rather than Section 302 (murder) IPC.
Given that the act was not pre-meditated, the Court thought it fit to modify the conviction to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and modified the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.
Since the accused had already undergone approximately 8 years and 10 months of incarceration, the Court directed that he be released upon completion of ten years' actual imprisonment.
Case Title: Raval Shaileshbhai Rameshbhai Virchandbhai v. State of Gujarat
Case No.: R/Criminal Appeal (against conviction) No. 1456 of 2018
Appearance: Mr. Pratik B. Barot for the Appellant; Mr. Ronak B. Raval, APP for the State