CASE NAME	Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, (2003) 9 SCC 322
CITATION	AIR 2003 SC 2855, 2003 AIR SCW 3596, 2003 CRILR(SC&MP) 740, (2003) 3 KHCACJ 473 (SC), (2003) 9 ALLINDCAS 915 (SC), 2003 (4) SLT 653, (2003) 6 JT 189 (SC), 2003 (8) SRJ 264
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat
APPELLANT	Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak
RESPONDENT	State of Gujarat
DECIDED ON	25th July 2003

INTRODUCTION

The case of Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak vs State of Gujarat, which was pronounced by the Gujarat High Court on 25 July 2003, explores the complex application of criminal law principles under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and procedural aspects under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision investigates the evidentiary thresholds necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in severe criminal offenses, the necessity of demonstrating mens rea (criminal intent), and the limits of individual culpability.

The interpretation of the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of Indian criminal jurisprudence, is a significant aspect of the case. The court emphasized that the prosecution is responsible for the burden of proof, and any benefit of doubt must be granted to the accused. This principle is consistent with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty and prohibits their restriction without a fair and equitable legal process.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasizes the significance of credible evidence in the pursuit of conviction. The court examined the reliability of witnesses, the consistency of their testimonies, and the admissibility of circumstantial evidence. It underscored the necessity of a sequence of circumstances that is so comprehensive that it precludes any alternative hypotheses beyond the accused’s guilt.

Procedural safeguards under the CrPC, including the recording of statements, the examination of witnesses, and adherence to fair trial principles, are also examined in the case. The absolution of the accused can result from any deviation from these established procedures, which can taint the trial process. This decision reinforces judicial standards in the evaluation of criminal cases and demonstrates the balance between prosecutorial zeal and the rights of the accused, a critical tenet of an equitable legal system.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the city of Surat, Dahiben (PW1) and the deceased were residing in house No. 7/1427 in Dhastripuara. Her two sons, Narendra and Dhanesh (PW3), were also present. The accused-appellant had taken his young daughter to his in-law’s residence approximately 10 days prior to the date of the incident and had subsequently confined her there. Upon his return, the deceased reprimanded him for abandoning a small child at a remote location. The accused was enraged by this intrusion into his personal life, which resulted in a series of disputes, initially verbal and later physical. Afterward, at approximately 1:30 p.m. on the date of the incident, the accused-appellant confronted the deceased at a temple, stating that he was prepared to engage in a physical altercation. This led to a verbal altercation and a physical altercation. They were divided by the resident of the locality and PW1. Naranbhai (PW8), a friend of the deceased, visited the deceased’s residence in the evening and informed Dahiben that, due to the ongoing dispute within the household, he would accompany the deceased to a movie. 

PW1 concurred, and the decedent and PW8 attended a late-night film. Upon their return, PW8 and the deceased retired to the verandah of the residence, while PW1 and 3 opted to sleep within the premises. At approximately 4:00 a.m., PW1 exited the building upon hearing cries for assistance. During this time, PW3 also awoke and accompanied his mother outside the residence. They observed the deceased in a state of hemorrhaging. Additionally, they discovered that the accused-appellant had struck the deceased. PW1 addressed him by name and inquired as to the rationale behind his actions. If there were any issues, they could be resolved in the morning. 

Upon hearing this, the appellant promptly fled. PW-1 went outside and requested assistance from their neighbors. Numerous individuals visited her residence. The deceased was transported to the hospital, where he passed away at approximately 4:45 a.m. At 5:15 a.m., the police station received the initial information report. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, a charge document was issued. In the end, the matter was brought to trial by the esteemed Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. The prosecution’s version was supplemented by the examination of ten witnesses. The testimony of PWs 1 and 3 was deemed credible, and as previously mentioned, the learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused. The High Court did not intervene in the appeal.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the appellant is liable under Section 302 IPC or is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant

• The appellant’s learned counsel argued that the Trial Court and the High Court overlooked certain critical aspects of the case. The crime was committed by PW1 and PW8, as the deceased was not fond of their illicit relationship. The deceased was assaulted on the night of the incident, and his life was terminated. The evidence of PW2, who recanted his statement during the investigation, was heavily relied upon. 
• The submission was that the evidence of such a witness should not be entirely discarded, and that the portion of the evidence that is beneficial to either the prosecution or the defense can be considered. The evidence of PW1 is obviously ruled out by the presence of Dhanesh (PW3) at the location. 
• Furthermore, the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of Dr. Rajivbhai (PW7), unequivocally establishes that the injury purportedly inflicted by the accused could not have been caused by the weapon that was purportedly used in the assault. The absence of PW3’s name in the FIR raises concerns regarding his presence.
• Although PW1 claimed that her clothing and those of PW8 were blood-stained, the police did not seize the apparels when they attempted to transport the deceased in an injured state to the hospital. This has been acknowledged by the Investigating Officer. It was noted that the testimony of witnesses unequivocally demonstrated that the night was pitch-black and that visibility was nonexistent. Therefore, the assertions of PW1 and PW3 that they observed the accused-appellant assaulting the deceased are categorically untenable. 
• It was also argued that Exception 4 to Section 300 is obviously applicable if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, as the alleged assaults were committed during a quarrel. The prosecution’s assertion regarding the crime’s motivation is too fragile to be accepted. 

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent

• • In contrast, the learned counsel for the State of Gujarat argued that the Trial Court and the High Court have both rejected the version of the alleged illicit relationship between PW1 and PW8 as a fiction and a figment of the imagination. 
  • Despite the incisive cross-examination, the evidence of PW1 and PW3 has remained unshaken. Their evidence has been appropriately relied upon by the tribunals below. The ocular evidence has been appropriately acknowledged, and medical evidence is in no way at odds with it. 

• The case is unambiguously encompassed by Section 302 of the IPC, and Exception 4 to Section 300 is not applicable. The determination of whether or not an offense has been committed is not contingent upon motive.

JUDGMENT

In the current case, the court evaluated the relevance of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Exception 4 is applicable when death is caused by (a) an abrupt fight, (b) lack of premeditation, (c) the offender does not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight is with the deceased.

The court noted that a “fight” under Exception 4 entails mutual provocation and combat, in which both parties share some responsibility. It necessitates that the situation arise in the midst of passion, without the opportunity for emotions to subside. The IPC does not provide a definition for “fight,” and the determination of whether a quarrel is abrupt is contingent upon the specific circumstances of each instance. Furthermore, it is insufficient to demonstrate the absence of premeditation or the presence of a sudden conflict; the offender must also not have acted with excessive cruelty or taken unfair advantage.

The court determined that the established factual context did not satisfy these criteria in the current case. The perpetrator was found to have acted in a malicious or unusual manner or taken undue advantage. As a result, the court determined that Exception 4 was inapplicable and dismissed the appeal as lacking merit.

CONCLUSION

The significance of meticulously scrutinizing the conditions for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is emphasized by the judgment. The court’s analysis is consistent with the principle that a “sudden fight” only reduces culpability when specific criteria are satisfied, thereby guaranteeing fairness in criminal liability. The case underscores the importance of mutual provocation and the absence of premeditation in the application of this exception. Nevertheless, the offender’s behavior during the altercation, particularly the absence of malice or undue advantage, continues to be of paramount importance. The court reinforces the delicate balance between the gravity of criminal acts and the mitigating factors by emphasizing that equity and proportionality in the offender’s actions are prerequisites, even in a sudden quarrel.

In summary, the exception is rendered inapplicable by the court’s determination that the offender acted with undue advantage or malice. This decision reinforces the importance of courts thoroughly examining the factual matrix of each case to ascertain whether the legal standards for exceptions to culpable homicide are legitimately met. It conveys a clear message that offenders whose actions exceed the bounds of equity cannot be protected by exceptions, even in cases of sudden provocation. The judiciary’s dedication to maintaining the integrity of justice by employing legal principles in a subtle manner is evidenced by the dismissal of the appeal.