MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 14-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 432 
~ 
/, 
A 
MAHINDRA MULJI KERAI PATEL 
)....-· 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal No. 925 of 2001) 
B 
OCTOBER 14, 2008 · 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAVAT AND C. K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304 Part (//), 302 and 307 - Ho-
.j._ 
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-
D ing the evidence, nature of injury inflicted, the weapon used and 
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 
... 
\ 
the girl refused the .marriage proposal given by the appel-
I 
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 
G with fine. Respondent-State challenged the acquittal of 
accused in respect of offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 
307 IPC. High Court analysed the evidence of PW1-com-
)7 
>-l 
• 
plainant and PW 2-doctor and convicted the accused u/ 
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 B 
exchange of words, one injury leading to the death was 
' 
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 
F 
A'-
S.K. Dholakia, Ashish Dholakia, Adarsh Priyadarshini and 
Promila for the Appellant. 
Hamantika Wahi, Pinky, K. Enatoli Serna and Somanath 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
. . 
~ 
.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 Addit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.