The Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed that the intention to cause death under Section 300 IPC may be inferred from the nature of weapons used and the部位 of injuries inflicted, even in cases involving closely related witnesses and delayed FIRs. This ruling clarifies the legal standard for distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Indian Penal Code.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a fatal assault on Bharatbhai Salat on 27 January 2014, outside his home in Vapi, Gujarat. The deceased was attacked by four family members - Ramesh Salat (A1), Manoj Salat (A2), Amir Salat (A3), and Gopi Salat (A4) - allegedly over a longstanding dispute regarding Rs. 10,000 claimed by A1 as litigation expenses from the deceased’s father, PW-4. The attack occurred around 10:30 - 10:45 PM, resulting in multiple head injuries that caused hemorrhagic shock and death.
Procedural History
- 27 January 2014: Incident occurred; deceased taken to Daman Government Hospital, declared dead.
- 28 January 2014: FIR registered at Vapi Town Police Station after police advised jurisdictional transfer.
- 2014 - 2017: Investigation conducted; chargesheet filed under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 IPC.
- 26 September 2017: Additional Sessions Court, Valsad, convicted A1 and A2 for murder under Section 302 IPC; acquitted A3 and A4 of murder but convicted A3 under Section 323 for injuries to witnesses.
- 2018 - 2021: Appeals filed by A1 and A2 against conviction; State appealed against acquittal of A3 and A4.
Relief Sought
A1 and A2 sought acquittal or, alternatively, reduction of conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, citing delay in FIR, lack of independent witnesses, and inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence. The State sought confirmation of the murder conviction and rejection of the acquittal of A3 and A4.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the injuries inflicted with a dagger and iron rod on the head of the deceased, resulting in fatal hemorrhagic shock, established the intention to cause death under Section 300 IPC, or whether the act amounted only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for A1 and A2 argued that:
- The prosecution failed to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
- The delay of five hours in lodging the FIR, without adequate explanation, rendered the testimony suspect.
- The witnesses were closely related to the deceased and therefore interested, making their evidence unreliable.
- Medical evidence did not corroborate ocular testimony: the PM report indicated blunt force injuries (iron rod) on the parietal bones, while the prosecution claimed a dagger caused the fatal wounds.
- The acquittal of A3, who allegedly used an iron pipe on the chest, created a parity issue: if A3 was not guilty of murder, neither should A2, who allegedly used an iron rod.
- The dispute was over Rs. 10,000 owed to A1, not the deceased, suggesting the act was in sudden heat of passion, not premeditated murder.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that:
- The testimony of PW-4 (father), PW-5 (wife), and PW-6 (minor daughter) was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence.
- The injuries were on vital parts of the head, inflicted with dangerous weapons, satisfying the triple test under Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab for Section 300 IPC.
- The delay in FIR was explained by the need to transport the deceased to hospital and follow police jurisdictional advice.
- The acquittal of A3 and A4 was justified as their injuries were not on the head and did not contribute to death.
- The presence of multiple witnesses, even if relatives, does not invalidate testimony if their version is internally consistent and corroborated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, applying the principles laid down in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab to determine whether the act fell within Clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. The Court held that the intention to cause death need not be proven directly; it may be inferred from the nature of the weapon, the part of the body targeted, and the force applied.
"The question, so far as the intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness, but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion."
The Court found that the use of a dagger and iron rod on the parietal region - vital areas of the skull - was not accidental. The PM doctor confirmed that the external incise wounds (dagger) and internal fractures (iron rod) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court rejected the defense’s claim of inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, noting that the doctor explicitly stated both types of weapons could cause the injuries observed.
The Court also dismissed the argument that the delay in FIR undermined the prosecution’s case. It held that the five-hour delay was reasonably explained by the need to transport the deceased to hospital and follow jurisdictional instructions from Daman police. The Court emphasized that delay alone cannot vitiate a conviction where eyewitnesses are credible.
Regarding the acquittal of A3 and A4, the Court held that their roles were distinct: A3 inflicted injuries on the chest and witnesses, not the head, and thus could not be held liable for murder. The principle of parity did not apply because the nature and location of injuries differed materially.
The Court further upheld the credibility of the child witness, PW-6, noting that the trial court had properly assessed her maturity and found no evidence of tutoring. Her testimony aligned with the other witnesses and was corroborated by medical findings.
The Verdict
The appellants A1 and A2 lost their appeals. The Court upheld their conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 114 IPC, holding that the injuries were inflicted with the intention to cause death as defined under Section 300 IPC, Clause Thirdly. The acquittal appeal by the State against A3 and A4 was also dismissed, as their roles did not meet the threshold for murder. All sentences were confirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Intention Is Inferred From Weapon and Target
- Practitioners must argue that intention under Section 300 IPC is not dependent on direct confession or motive, but on objective factors: weapon type, location of injury, and force applied.
- In cases involving blunt or sharp weapons striking the head, neck, or chest, courts will presume intention unless the accused proves otherwise.
Closely Related Witnesses Are Not Inherently Unreliable
- The mere fact that witnesses are family members does not render their testimony suspect.
- Courts will assess credibility based on internal consistency, corroboration with medical evidence, and absence of motive to falsely implicate.
- The burden shifts to the defense to show fabrication, not merely to highlight familial ties.
Delay in FIR Is Not Fatal if Reasonably Explained
-
A delay of up to five hours, where the complainant was attending to a medical emergency and following police instructions, is not fatal to the prosecution case.
-
Courts will accept explanations tied to logistical or procedural necessities, especially in rural or jurisdictionally complex areas.
-
Practitioners should emphasize the natural conduct of the complainant: seeking medical aid first, then reporting to the correct jurisdiction.
-
Avoid relying on delay as a standalone ground for acquittal; instead, focus on contradictions in testimony or lack of forensic corroboration.
