Man Dies After Neighbour’s Fist Blows In Row Over Adopted Son: Gujarat HC Upholds 302 Acquittal, Says Injuries And Intent Were Unproved

Following a dispute the previous day, the deceased questioned the accused about telling the deceased’s adopted son not to sit in his house. The prosecution alleged that the accused then struck the deceased several times with his fists; the deceased collapsed and was declared dead at hospital.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 323 IPC but acquitted him of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 378(1)(3) CrPC.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal under Section 302 IPC warranted interference in the State’s appeal.

Whether the evidence established the intention or knowledge required for culpable homicide or murder, particularly where the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was not examined.

Sections 299 and 300 IPC distinguish culpable homicide and murder by reference to the accused’s intention or knowledge and the nature of the act and injury.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not disturb a reasonable view supported by the evidence; interference is warranted where, among other grounds, the acquittal is perverse, materially overlooks evidence, or the only conclusion available is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court applied the principles stated in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67.

The Court considered the incident a sudden quarrel, with no evidence that the accused had arrived intending to injure or kill the deceased. It held that the alleged fist blows did not, in the circumstances, establish the intention or knowledge required under Sections 299 or 300 IPC.

The doctor who performed the post-mortem was not examined; the evidence of another doctor concerning the recorded injuries was based on the post-mortem report and did not, in the Court’s view, prove those injuries.

The trial court’s assessment was therefore a possible view, not one warranting appellate interference under the principles governing appeals against acquittal.

The trial court’s conviction under Section 323 IPC was not the subject of the appeal and remained undisturbed.