Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1498 (RAJ)

Vijay Pal S/o Handman Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-08-22

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, RAVI CHIRANIA

body2025
ORDER : 1. All the aforesaid matters, have arisen out of the common judgment dated 06.08.2016, passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.3, Bikaner, in Session Case No.47/2012 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the accused Vijay Pal from offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- & in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s RI and acquitted the accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram and Balwant from the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC. 2. Criminal Appeal No.764/2016 filed by accused Vijay Pal against his conviction. Whereas, Criminal Appeals No.855/2016 and 242/2018 filed by the complainant as well as State against acquittal of the respondents-Satpal, Bhupram and Balwant. 3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 08.05.2010, complainant Omprakash (PW/1) submitted a written report at Police Station Chhatargarh, to the effect that on hearing commotion and cries raised by his father, he along with Rajiram proceeded to the vicinity of one Brijlal Bishnoi. There, they observed the accused persons assaulting his father. Specifically, the accused-Vijaypal strangling his father’s neck, while the other accused were physically assaulting him. On raising hue and cry, the accused persons fled the scene. Due to the strangulation, his father succumbed his injuries. 4. On the said report, Police registered the FIR No.60/2010 and started investigation. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused Vijay Pal for offences under Sections 302 , 201 R/w 34 of IPC. Subsequently, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by complainant Omprakash, upon which cognizance has taken against rest of accused and charges for offence under Sections 302 or 302/34 IPC were framed against them. They denied the charges and sought trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case. 6. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, three witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. 7. They denied the charges and sought trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case. 6. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, three witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. 7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 06.08.2016 acquitted the accused Satpal, Bhupram and Balwant from the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC, however, convicted and sentenced accused Vijay Pal for the offence under Section 302 IPC as aforesaid. Hence, the State and the complainant are challenging the acquittal of the accused Satpal, Bhupram & Balwant and accused Vijay Pal is challenging his conviction. 8. Learned counsel representing the accused Vijay Pal, as well as counsel for the accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram, and Balwant have jointly submitted that there exists no discernible motive for the alleged offence. It was argued that the prosecution's claim in respect of the motive that four months prior to the incident, a quarrel occurred between the parties which was later on resolved through compromise, therefore, it is insufficient to establish any motive. They contend that PW/1 Omprakash and PW/5 Rajiram are not eyewitnesses to the incident in question; rather, they have falsely been implicated by the prosecution. Furthermore, the counsel submitted that, according to PW/1 Omprakash's statement, he explicitly stated that approximately 30 to 40 persons were present at the time of occurrance. He also clarified that he did not inform the police about the incident. There are significant contradictions between the testimonies of PW/1 Omprakash and PW/5 Rajiram. In light of these facts, counsel contended that the trial court has erred gravely in convicting the accused Vijay Pal of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, he may be acquitted from the said offence or in alternatively, he may be convicted for the offence under Section 304 PART I of IPC. Counsel further submits that since the occurrence is related to the year 2010 and the accused appellant- Vijay Pal has so far suffered a sentence of about fifteen years, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the accused appellant- Vijay Pal for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Counsel further submits that since the occurrence is related to the year 2010 and the accused appellant- Vijay Pal has so far suffered a sentence of about fifteen years, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the accused appellant- Vijay Pal for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Additionally, the Counsel contended that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents-Satpal, Bhupram, and Balwant of the offence under Section 302 /34 of IPC. 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently contended that the allegations of strangulation have been appropriately levelled against the accused Vijay Pal, and that the motive has been sufficiently established. This is corroborated by the statement of Omprakash, who testified that approximately four months prior, a quarrel occurred between the parties. Thus, the trial court rightly convicted the accused- Vijay Pal for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that, despite the availability of substantial evidence implicating the accused persons Satpal, Bhupram, and Balwant for the offence under Section 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , the learned trial court erroneously acquitted them of these charges. It is argued that the trial court, in delivering the impugned judgment, failed to consider the evidence and pertinent aspects of the case from a proper perspective. The court’s decision to acquit Satpal, Bhupram, and Balwant from the offences under Section 302 /34 IPC constitutes a grave error. Therefore, the impugned judgment warrants to be modified, and the accused- Satpal, Bhupram, and Balwant, ought to have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC. 10. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the case. 11. The eye witnesses of the case in their evidence have specifically corroborated the allegation contained in the FIR and have stated that on the fateful day 07.05.2010, the accused appellant- Vijay Pal had strangled his father’s neck and the said act resulted to his death. As per the postmortem report Ex.P/6, the cause of death is asphyxia due to manual strangulation ante- mortem and sufficient to cause death is ordinary course of nature. 12. As per the postmortem report Ex.P/6, the cause of death is asphyxia due to manual strangulation ante- mortem and sufficient to cause death is ordinary course of nature. 12. Now the question arise for consideration is whether the accused appellant- Vijay Pal falls within the ambit of Section 304 PART I of IPC, as argued by counsel for the appellant. 13. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 300 of IPC which reads as under :- "300. Murder--.Except in the case hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-- Secondly--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-- Thirdly--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-- Fourthly--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. xxx xxx xxx Exception 4--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. .........." 14. Explanation--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. .........." 14. The thin line difference between the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 PART I , IPC has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various authoritative pronouncements :- In Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja vs State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444 , Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :- “Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre- meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302 , are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 PART I /II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302 . It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302 , are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 PART I /II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302 . The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention.” 15. In Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2011) 9 SCC 462 while altering the conviction of the accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 PART I , IPC, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- “20. In order to hold whether an offence would fall under Section 302 . In Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2011) 9 SCC 462 while altering the conviction of the accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 PART I , IPC, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- “20. In order to hold whether an offence would fall under Section 302 . or Section 304 Part 1 IPC, the courts have to be extremely cautious in examining whether the same falls under Section 300 IPC which states whether a culpable homicide is murder, or would it fall under its five Exceptions which lay down when culpable homicide is not murder and in this category further b lays down that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self- control by giving sudden provocation causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. 21. While examining the case of the appellant in the light of the settled legal position that culpable homicide would not amount to murder if the c offender was deprived of the power of self-control on account of grave and sudden provocation, I am of the view that the appellant's case will have to be treated to be a case falling under the Fourth Exception of Section 300 and hence would be a case under Section 304 PART I of the Penal Code for more than one reason deduced from the evidence on record. 22. In the first place, the deceased Laxmi Devi had been cutting grass for d fodder in the field of the appellant Ajit Singh and when Ajit Singh reprimanded the deceased and her companion not to spoil his kinnu crop, the deceased started an altercation with the appellant and abused him which provoked the appellant Ajit Singh to order his companion Anil Kumar (since acquitted) to bring kassi (spade) which instruction was carried out by Anil Kumar and thereafter Ajit Singh inflicted two blows on the deceased Laxmi Devi. However, she did not die instantly and was taken to the hospital where she underwent treatment for four days and finally succumbed to the injuries. However, she did not die instantly and was taken to the hospital where she underwent treatment for four days and finally succumbed to the injuries. From this it can be safely inferred that although the appellant Ajit Singh had the intention and knowledge to cause grievous injury on the deceased which could have resulted into the death of the deceased, yet it cannot be inferred without doubt that the intention of the appellant Ajit Singh was necessarily to f cause death and not merely to cause grievous hurt as he did not inflict repeated blows on the deceased and the deceased in fact had survived for four days after the assault. In addition to this, it has also come in evidence that PW 6 informant had chased the appellant but the appellant did not pursue by entering into further scuffle with the prosecution party. Besides this, the case of the prosecution regarding common intention to commit murder already g stands negatived by the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order as the plea of common intention to commit murder is no longer existing since the co- accused Anil Kumar was acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 /34 IPC by the High Court. Thus, the common intention to kill the deceased will have to be treated as missing in the prosecution case and only individual liability of the appellant giving fatal blows will determine whether the charge would be sustained under Section 302 IPC or would it fall under Section 304 PART I IPC. 23. On an analysis of the case of the prosecution in the light of the evidence on record, I am clearly of the view that the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained but considering the intensity and gravity of the assault which led finally to the death of the victim Laxmi Devi he would certainly be held guilty under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and hence I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the same is altered to his conviction under Section 304 PART I IPC. Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment shall be reduced to a period of ten years under Section 304 PART I IPC. Thus, the appeal stands partly allowed to this extent.” 16. Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment shall be reduced to a period of ten years under Section 304 PART I IPC. Thus, the appeal stands partly allowed to this extent.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Goverdhan vs State of Chhatisgarh , (2025) 3 SCC 378 , has observed as under :- “116. It is also noticeable that the circumstances under which the assault took place and the reason for causing the injuries by the appellants and the motive behind their assault has not come out clearly. Even the sole eyewitness, Lata Bai (PW 10), the mother of the deceased testified that her son was having visiting terms with the accused persons as they were residing in the same locality and she cannot tell why the quarrel occurred suddenly. It has not been established clearly that it was premeditated and the assault was pre-planned with the intention to kill the deceased. Any prior enmity between the appellants and the deceased has not been established. Thus, the motive for committing the crime has not been clearly established and proved. 117. However, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had caused the death of the deceased fully knowing that the bodily injuries caused by the appellants were likely to cause death as the appellants were armed with deadly weapons, we are inclined to convert the conviction of the appellants from Section 302IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC. Accordingly, we convict the appellants under Part I of Section 304 IPC.” 17. Upon examination of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the postmortem report Ex.P/6 indicates that the strangulation was the primary cause of death. 18. Furthermore, the circumstances under which the assault occurred, including the motivations behind causing the injuries, there is no evidence to suggest that the assault was premeditated or carried out with a deliberate plan to kill the deceased. The absence of evidence indicating premeditation is a significant factor. 19. Considering the absence of proof of premeditation, the act can be characterized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, aligning with the provisions of Section 304 PART I of the IPC. Thus, we are of the opinion that the actions of the accused demonstrated a reckless disregard for human life rather than an outright intention to murder. 19. Considering the absence of proof of premeditation, the act can be characterized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, aligning with the provisions of Section 304 PART I of the IPC. Thus, we are of the opinion that the actions of the accused demonstrated a reckless disregard for human life rather than an outright intention to murder. The nature and extent of the injuries, coupled with the circumstances of the incident, support this conclusion. 20. In view of the aforesaid aspects and upon assessment of evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of guilt recorded by learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law because there is a clear cut absence of premeditation or motive to kill deceased-Lekh Ram and it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the prayer of accused appellant- Vijay Pal to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 PART I , IPC. 21. Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant- Vijay Pal for the offence under Section 302 IPC is quashed and set aside and hereby altered to the offence punishable under Section 304 PART I , IPC. 22. So far as the accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram & Balwant are concerned, having examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we noted that they assaulted the deceased- Lekh Ram. Witness Dr. Shyam Sunder Nagal (PW-03), who prepared the postmortem report of deceased- Lekh ram, has specifically deposed that the deceased- Lekh ram died due to strangulation. 23. On an overall appreciation of the statements of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence including the postmortem report of the deceased, we are of the view that deceased died due to injury caused by the accused-appellant Vijay Pal and not by the injuries caused by accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram & Balwant. Thus, there is no evidence available on record which prove offences under Sections 302 /34 IPC against the accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram & Balwant. 24. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed error in acquitting the accused respondents-Satpal, Bhupram & Balwant for offence under Section 302 /34 IPC. 25. However, considering the fact that the accused appellant-Vijay Pal is still in judicial custody since his arrest i.e. more than fifteen years. 24. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed error in acquitting the accused respondents-Satpal, Bhupram & Balwant for offence under Section 302 /34 IPC. 25. However, considering the fact that the accused appellant-Vijay Pal is still in judicial custody since his arrest i.e. more than fifteen years. Thus, while maintaining conviction of the accused appellant- Vijay Pal for offence under Section 304 PART I IPC, his sentence for the said offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount is waived, if not deposited. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 26. Consequently, the criminal appeal No.764/2016 preferred by the accused Vijay Pal is partly allowed and the criminal appeal No.855/2016 preferred by the Complainant as well as criminal appeal No.242/2018 preferred by the State are hereby dismissed. 27. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant- Vijay Pal is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court within a period of one month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 28. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.