- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ranjitsinh Chandrasinh Atodaria v. State Of Gujarat
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Ranjitsinh Chandrasinh Atodaria (Accused 1), and three of his brothers were tried for the murder of their sibling, Jitendrasinh. The dispute stemmed from possession of a rented house in Vadodara for which the deceased had been paying rent during the appellant’s absence. On the night of 2 November 1979, a quarrel erupted near the Javernagar bus-stand after the accused allegedly demanded possession of the house. During the altercation, Accused 1 stabbed the deceased once in the neck while Accused 2–4 restrained him; a second, superficial knife injury was sustained by their brother, PW 2, who witnessed the incident.
The trial court acquitted all four accused. On the State’s appeal, the High Court upheld the acquittal of Accused 2–4 but convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The present appeal to the Supreme Court is brought under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of PW 2, an injured eyewitness who is also the appellant’s brother.
- Whether the facts establish the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, given the single stab wound inflicted during a sudden quarrel.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The prosecution depends almost entirely on PW 2’s testimony; given discrepancies in his account, it is unsafe to rely on him without independent corroboration.
- The injury sustained by PW 2 was superficial and, according to the medical opinion elicited in cross-examination, could have been self-inflicted, casting doubt on his presence and credibility.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first affirmed PW 2’s presence at the scene, rejecting the suggestion that his injury was self-inflicted and finding his eye-witness account trustworthy. Nevertheless, the Court analyzed the nature of the incident:
- The stabbing occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel over house possession, corroborated by PW 3’s testimony about the dispute.
- Only a single stab wound was inflicted; while it severed major arteries and proved fatal, the Court was not convinced the appellant intended to cause that specific fatal injury.
- Because intention to inflict an injury “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death” could not be inferred, the mental element required for murder under Section 302 IPC was absent.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the appropriate conviction should fall under Section 304 Part II IPC, which covers culpable homicide where death is caused without the specific intent to kill but with knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
Holding and Implications
Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Practical effect: the life sentence imposed by the High Court is reduced to a determinate ten-year term, with immediate release directed if the appellant has already served that period (subject to verification). The judgment turns on the factual assessment of intent; it sets no new legal precedent beyond reaffirming principles distinguishing murder from culpable homicide.
1. This is an appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. Ranjitsinh Chandrasinh Atodaria, original Accused 1 is the appellant before us. He along with three others was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 114 IPC. The trial court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court confirmed the acquittal of A-2 to A-4 but convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence of committing the murder of Jitendrasinh, the deceased in the case.
2. The material facts are as follows: Accused 1 and 2, brothers of the deceased and Jashvantsinh (PW 2) were formerly residing at Village Sagdol. Thereafter the appellant came to reside at Vadodara and hired a house in Atul Society. Thereafter other brothers also came to reside with him in that house. In 1975 the appellant was involved in a murder case and had to stay in jail for nearly one year. After he was released from jail, he went to stay at Village Sagdol and stayed there for about one year. After that he came to Vadodara and hired another house. During this period, brothers of the accused including the deceased and PW 2 stayed in the house in Atul Society. The rent was being paid by the deceased in the absence of the appellant. The appellant, however, demanded Rs 5000 to Rs 7000 from the deceased as the house stands in his name as a tenant. The deceased refused to purchase the house on those terms. Thereafter the appellant demanded the possession of the house and the deceased and his brothers had some misunderstandings in this context.
3. On 2-11-1979 PW 2 had gone to Javernagar Bus-stand for purchasing bidi. While returning he saw that the four accused were sitting near the culvert of Javernagar Society. At about 9 p.m the deceased was going towards the bus-stand. On seeing him all the four accused went towards him and asked him to hand over the possession of House No. B-20 in Uma Society. Thereupon a quarrel ensued. During the said quarrel A-2 to A-4 caught hold of the deceased and A-1 is alleged to have inflicted a knife-blow on the neck of the deceased. PW 2 also came there in the meantime and witnessed the occurrence and when he tried to intervene a second blow dealt by the appellant caused an injury on his thumb. Thereafter the accused left the place.
4. PW 2 took the deceased in the autorickshaw to the hospital. In the hospital he died at about 10.30 p.m The doctor who examined the injured deceased declared him dead. An information was sent to the police. The Head Constable recorded the complaint of PW 2 and a case was registered and the investigation was taken up. The Police Inspector of Vadodara City after receipt of the information went to the scene of the occurrence, seized bloodstained earth and other articles and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW 2 was also sent for medical examination.
5. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found on the deceased an abraised contusion on the right maxillary region and one stab wound 1½″ × ½″ on the neck and 1½″ away from medial end of the clavicle. On internal examination, the doctor found that common carotid and sub-cranial vessels were cut piercing the left side chest pleura. The doctor opined that death was due to this injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On PW 2 the doctor found a linear cut superficial over the root of the left thumb. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid. The plea of the accused is one of denial.
6. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW 2 who was no other than the brother of the deceased as well as of the appellant. PW 3 was another witness who spoke about the presence of PW 2. PW 3, however, did not actually witness the occurrence. The learned trial Judge held that PW 2 was an interested witness and an independent corroboration is necessary and also pointed out some discrepancies regarding the actual time of occurrence. The learned trial Judge felt hesitant to place the conviction on the basis of the evidence of PW 2 and accordingly acquitted all the accused. The High Court, however, held that PW 2's presence at the scene of the occurrence cannot be doubted inasmuch as he was also injured and that his evidence is trustworthy and the Court need not insist on any corroboration. Since the appellant alone was attributed with the overt act which resulted in the death, the High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC.
7. In this appeal the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution case rests mainly on the evidence of sole eyewitness, PW 2. His evidence should be wholly reliable and in the instant case in view of the discrepancies PW 2's evidence cannot be made as the sole basis and the injury found on him was also superficial one and it could have been self-inflicted as opined by the doctor.
8. We have gone through the evidence of PW 2. He is the brother of the deceased as well as of the appellant. The whole incident took place because of a quarrel that proceeded. The dispute was regarding a house which had been under the occupation of the brothers sometime or the other. PW 2 in his evidence has categorically stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, namely, the other brothers. It is not even clear whether the other accused were aware that the appellant was even armed with a knife during the quarrel at 9.30 p.m or 10 p.m when the occurrence took place. The doctor found only one stab injury which unfortunately was on the neck because of the blow landing there. Under these circumstances it becomes very difficult to hold that he intended to cause that particular injury which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death by the doctor. The cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage because of the cut of carotid and other surrounding arteries. PW 2's evidence, namely, that there was a quarrel is also supported by the evidence of PW 3. The evidence of these two witnesses indicate that there was sudden quarrel and fight ensued. Therefore, the intention to cause that particular injury cannot be spelt out from the act committed by the appellant. So far as the presence of PW 2 is concerned, we are satisfied that he must have been there and witnessed the occurrence and his injury cannot be held to be self-inflicted. It is only an opinion of the doctor while answering the suggestion made to him.
9. For all the above reasons we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder. Instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. If the appellant has already served out the sentence he may be released. But this is subject to the verification.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert