Assault Was With Knowledge But Without Intention To Cause Death: Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide

The Court held that the case fell within Section 304 Part I, as the facts did not disclose the mental element required to sustain a murder conviction.

The Apex Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court affirming a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The case involved a physical assault arising out of a sudden quarrel in which the injured later succumbed due to septicemia.

A Bench comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria, while adjudicating the matter, held: “It would not be correct to presume or view in respect of the conduct on part of the appellant that the appellant acted with premeditation to kill or that he acted in assailing the deceased with an intention to cause death. The degree of the offence committed could not be said to be partaking the act of murder as defined under Section 300, IPC, since 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.”

Advocate Mithilesh Kumar Singh represented the appellant, while Advocate Deepanwita Priyanka appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The prosecution’s case was that a quarrel occurred between the appellant and the victim at a community gathering, where the appellant assaulted the victim with a knife-like weapon, causing abdominal injury. The victim underwent treatment and initially showed signs of recovery; however, several days later, complications arose due to infection, leading to death from septicemia.

A charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, and the Trial Court convicted the appellant of murder. The High Court upheld the conviction. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The defence argued that the incident was sudden, there was a single blow, and the weapon used was not of such a nature as to conclusively establish intention to kill. The prosecution maintained that the abdominal injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court, upon hearing the matter, noted that the medical evidence clearly recorded septicemia as the cause of death, recognising it as a complication arising post-injury rather than as a direct and immediate fatal wound.

Explaining the distinction between murder and homicide not amounting to murder, the Bench remarked that “where the two ingredients namely that the infliction of bodily injury on 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. 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”.

The Court, upon examining the facts of the case, observed: “the attack by the appellant remained with the knowledge but without intention to cause death. Admittedly, the death of the deceased was after 13 days. Not only that he died while under treatment in the hospital but he had developed septic conditions in the injuries suffered by him.”

Consequently, the Court held that “in the context of the above parameters as to what would constitute murder under Section 302, IPC and under what circumstances the ‘culpable homicide’ would not amount to murder, recollecting the basic facts of the present case, looking to the kind and nature of injuries referred to above which is available from the medical evidence, it could not be said that the injuries were not of the nature which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and substituted it with a conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Further, taking note of the fact that the appellant had already undergone more than 14 years of custody, including remission, the sentence was treated as undergone, and the appellant was ordered to be released, if not required in any other case.

Cause Title: Nandu Manilal Mudaliar v. The State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1302)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR, Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Manju Singh, and Ashutosh Tiwari

Respondent: Advocates Deepanwita Priyanka, Swati Ghildiyal, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment