The Gujarat High Court on October 14, 2025, commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering his neighbour by setting him on fire, converting it to life imprisonment. The Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice P. M. Raval held that the trial court failed to follow established legal principles for awarding capital punishment, including providing a proper pre-sentence hearing and recording “special reasons” for the extreme penalty.
In its judgment, the High Court acquitted the convict’s brother of the murder charge due to a lack of evidence of common intention but upheld his conviction for causing simple injury. The case stemmed from a dispute over the alleged theft of petrol from a motorcycle.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case began on August 24, 2019, when the deceased, Pankaj Pandurang Patil, accused his neighbours, brothers Naresh Kori (A1) and Pradeep Kori (A2), of stealing petrol from his bike. The confrontation escalated, and Pankaj slapped Pradeep Kori. Family members of the deceased intervened, during which Naresh Kori allegedly assaulted the deceased’s father, Pandurang Patil (PW:7), with an iron pipe and kicked his grandmother, Suman Patil (PW:9).
The matter was temporarily resolved but flared up again at about 9:30 PM the same night. The prosecution alleged that during the second altercation, Pradeep Kori poured kerosene on Pankaj Patil and set him on fire. Pankaj was rushed to L.G. Hospital, Ahmedabad, with what doctors later determined to be 92-94% second and third-degree burn injuries.
Before succumbing to his injuries on September 4, 2019, Pankaj gave two dying declarations—one to an Executive Magistrate and another to the police, which was recorded as the First Information Report (FIR). Based on these, the Additional Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, convicted both brothers under Sections 302 (Murder) and 323 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt) of the Indian Penal Code and, on April 1, 2023, sentenced them to death. The sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation, and the brothers filed an appeal against their conviction.
Arguments Before the High Court
On behalf of the Appellants (the Kori brothers), advocate Mr. R.M. Parmar argued that the trial court had erred in its judgment. He contended that the two dying declarations were unreliable and inconsistent. He pointed out that the first declaration implicated both brothers generally for pouring petrol, while the second specifically accused Pradeep Kori of using kerosene. He argued that given the deceased’s 92-94% burn injuries, including to his mouth and neck, he would not have been in a fit state to give a coherent statement. Furthermore, he highlighted that the doctor who certified the deceased’s fitness was never examined in court.
Mr. Parmar also submitted that there was no evidence to prove Naresh Kori shared a common intention to murder, and the unfortunate incident was the result of a sudden quarrel provoked by the deceased, not a premeditated act of murder.
Representing the State of Gujarat, Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi countered that the dying declarations were consistent in material particulars, truthful, and reliable. He argued that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind, which was supported by the fact that he survived for nine days after the incident. Mr. Dabhi asserted that the non-examination of the certifying doctor was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as the officials who recorded the statements had satisfied themselves of the deceased’s mental fitness.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously analysed the evidence, particularly the two dying declarations. The bench, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Paniben vs. State of Gujarat, found no serious infirmities in the declarations. The Court observed that despite the severe burns, the deceased lived for about nine days, and there was no evidence of mental impairment. The bench held that the declarations inspired confidence and were recorded without any tutoring or prompting.
On the Role of Naresh Kori (A1): The Court found that “so far accused Naresh Kori is concerned, in both the dying declarations, he has not been assigned any specific role.” The specific act of pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire was alleged only against Pradeep Kori. The Court concluded that “in absence of any evidence with regard to sharing common intention by the accused to kill the deceased, the conviction of Naresh Kori for killing the deceased is not sustainable in the eye of law.” However, his conviction under Section 323 IPC for injuring the deceased’s father was upheld.
On the Role of Pradeep Kori (A2): The Court found the charge of murder under Section 300 of the IPC proved against Pradeep Kori. It relied on the dying declaration stating that he brought a kerosene can and set the deceased on fire. The Court determined that the act was intentional and “so imminently dangerous which in all probability will cause death,” bringing it under the definition of murder.
On the Imposition of the Death Penalty: The High Court found the trial court’s decision to award the death sentence to be procedurally and substantively flawed. The bench noted that the murder, while heinous, arose from a “petty issue” that “took ugly mode.” It observed, “it cannot be said that the act was done in a pre-planned way and in a diabolically manner or the murder has been committed with extreme brutality.”
The judgment heavily criticized the trial court’s sentencing process, stating it violated the mandate of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held:
“The Trial Court after pronouncing the judgment of conviction, should have adjourned the case for further hearing on the sentence of capital punishment because under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., it is mandatory for the Court to hear the accused and provide sufficient opportunity to the accused for furnishing the necessary information on mitigating circumstances before passing the order of capital punishment.”
The High Court further found that the trial court failed to assign “special reasons” for awarding death, as required by Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. The judgment noted the absence of any criminal antecedents for Pradeep Kori and the possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation. Concluding that the death penalty was “disproportionate” and “unwarranted,” the Court commuted the sentence.
Final Decision
The Gujarat High Court delivered the following verdict:
- The death sentence awarded to Pradeep Kori is commuted to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 323 IPC.
- Naresh Kori is acquitted of the charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. His conviction under Section 323 IPC for causing injury is upheld. He is to be set free, having already undergone the sentence for this offence.
- The death sentence confirmation case stands dismissed, and the criminal appeals are partly allowed.
