The Supreme Court reclassified the offense from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. The Court held that while the appellant had the knowledge his act was likely to cause death, the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intention to kill, which is essential to constitute murder under Section 300 IPC.
Facts Of The Case:
On June 12, 1998, an altercation occurred between the appellant, Nandkumar, and his brother. Rajesh, the nephew of Louis Williams (the deceased), intervened, during which the appellant allegedly injured Rajesh with a knife. Later that night, the appellant went to the residence of Louis Williams. A further incident ensued, resulting in the appellant inflicting multiple stab wounds on Williams, including a serious injury to the abdomen. Williams was taken to the hospital, treated, and initially discharged after surgery. However, he was readmitted and died on June 26, 1998, approximately thirteen days after the assault. The cause of death was recorded as septicemia stemming from the injuries. The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC by the trial court, which was upheld by the High Court. In appeal, the Supreme Court examined the nature of the injuries, the lack of premeditation, and the thirteen-day interval before death. It concluded that while the appellant had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, the specific intention to kill was not established. Consequently, the conviction was altered from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
Procedural History:
The case originated with the filing of an FIR (C.R. No.I-107/98) for offenses under Sections 324 and 504 IPC following the stabbing incident on June 13, 1998. After the victim’s death on June 26, 1998, a charge under Section 302 IPC was added. The City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.25 of 1999, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 504 IPC on January 31, 2000. His appeal (Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2000) was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on December 4, 2009, which confirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellant then filed Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2014 before the Supreme Court of India, which granted leave on June 13, 2014. In its final judgment dated November 10, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, altering the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC while maintaining the conviction under Section 504 IPC.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Boosts Payout for Minor’s Permanent Disability in Kerala Accident
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Supreme Court meticulously distinguished between ‘culpable homicide amounting to murder’ and ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder.’ The Court noted that while the appellant used a knife to inflict serious injuries, including a potentially fatal abdominal wound, the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of intention to cause death as required for murder under Section 300 IPC. The sequence of events, stemming from a prior altercation, and the fact that the victim succumbed to septicemia after thirteen days of treatment indicated a lack of premeditation. The Court held that the appellant possessed the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, but not the specific intention to kill. Consequently, the offense was reclassified from Section 302 IPC to the lesser offense under Section 304 Part I IPC, categorizing it as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The sentence of 14 years already undergone was deemed sufficient.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC (murder). The offense was instead held to fall under Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) as the act was committed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without the intention to kill. The conviction under Section 504 IPC was maintained. Considering the appellant had already undergone approximately 14 years of imprisonment, the Court held this period to be sufficient sentence for the offense under Section 304 Part I IPC. His bail bond was discharged, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: NANDKUMAR @ NANDU MANILAL MUDALIAR vs. STATE OF GUJARAT Criminal Appeal No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1266 OF 2014 Date of Judgment: NOVEMBER 10, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice N.V. ANJARIA and Justice K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Download The Judgement Here