Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1525 (RAJ)

Rama S/o Nagji Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2025-09-04

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, RAVI CHIRANIA

body2025
Judgment : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Instant criminal jail appeal has been received by post on behalf of the appellant through Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2016 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Case No.132/2013 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 17.06.2013 at about 01:30 PM, complainant- Parwati provided an oral statement to the police at the scene of the incident. She reported that while she and her husband, Bagdiram, were engaged in agricultural activities in their field, the accused-appellant, Rama, approached armed with an axe. Upon seeing Rama, her husband rushed towards him to prevent him from cultivating the land. Suddenly, the accused-appellant struck an axe blow to the neck and other parts of the deceased's body. The complainant shouted for help and, along with her mother-in-law, rushed to the scene. They observed that, as a result of the axe blow inflicted by the accused, the deceased’s neck was severed from his body. It is further alleged that there was an ongoing land dispute between the accused-appellant and the complainant's family, which, according to the prosecution, served as the motive for the accused to commit the murder of her husband, Bagdiram. 3. On the said oral report, Police registered the FIR No.108/2013 against the accused appellant and started investigation. During investigation, Police arrested the accused- appellant and on completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 IPC to the accused appellant. He denied the charge and sought trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case. 6. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined. 7. He denied the charge and sought trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case. 6. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined. 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 19.07.2016 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal. 8. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned amicus curiae appointed on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the appellant lacked any premeditated intent to cause harm to the deceased. He contends that the act of assault was spontaneous and occurred in a moment of sudden provocation. Furthermore, he asserts that the appellant did not possess any motive or intention to cause the death of the deceased. Accordingly, he prays that the appellant should not be held liable for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC, but rather be convicted under Section 304 PART I of the IPC. Additionally, counsel emphasizes that since the incident occurred in the year 2013 and the appellant has already served approximately thirteen years and nine months of imprisonment, including remission, he respectfully requests that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be accordingly reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Per-contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that in the present case, the accused-appellant approached the scene armed with a deadly weapon, namely an axe, and inflicted a wound on the deceased’s neck. As a result of the axe blow, the deceased’s neck was severed from his body. The injury report and the post-mortem examination findings substantiate the commission of the offence by the accused-appellant. Consequently, he respectfully urges the dismissal of the appeal. 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 accused-appellant and the deceased are closely related. To establish the accused appellant- Rama’s motive behind the incident, the complainant (PW-2) deposed that the land in dispute was originally owned by her father-in-law. Her father-in-law subsequently sold two bighas of land to the accused-appellant Rama, which was registered in the name of his wife, who is the sister-in-law (nanad) of the complainant. To establish the accused appellant- Rama’s motive behind the incident, the complainant (PW-2) deposed that the land in dispute was originally owned by her father-in-law. Her father-in-law subsequently sold two bighas of land to the accused-appellant Rama, which was registered in the name of his wife, who is the sister-in-law (nanad) of the complainant. Subsequently, an additional two bighas of land were sold to the accused-appellant by the complainant’s mother-in-law. Consequently, the accused- appellant held a total of four bighas of land. However, through malevolent intent, the accused-appellant managed to have a total of eight bighas of land registered in his favor. This led to a land dispute between the accused-appellant and the family of the deceased. 12. The eyewitnesses in the case have specifically corroborated the allegations contained in the FIR. They stated that on the fateful day, 17.06.2013, the appellant inflicted a neck injury on the deceased, Bagdiram, using an axe, which resulted in his death. The weapon used to cause the injury, an axe, was recovered based on information provided by the accused- appellant, as documented in seizure memo Ex.P/12. The site inspection reports, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5, further substantiate the occurrence of the incident. According to the postmortem report, Ex.P/2, injuries were observed on the neck of the deceased, and the medical opinion conclusively confirmed that the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding and the separation of the neck from the body. 13. Regarding the intention of the accused-appellant, this Court considers the oral testimony provided by the complainant, marked as Ex.P/3, along with her court statement as PW/2. The complainant explicitly stated that at the relevant time, she was engaged in tying grass in her field alongside her husband. During this incident, the accused- appellant Rama, approached the disputed field wielding an axe. According to her account, her husband, upon noticing the accused’s presence, called out to him, emphasizing that they had not sown any crops in that field and suggesting that he should refrain from doing so. Despite this plea, as soon as Bagdiram, her husband, approached the accused- appellant, Rama assaulted him with the axe, striking him on the head, neck, and shoulder. The force of the attack was so severe that her husband's neck was tragically severed from his body. Despite this plea, as soon as Bagdiram, her husband, approached the accused- appellant, Rama assaulted him with the axe, striking him on the head, neck, and shoulder. The force of the attack was so severe that her husband's neck was tragically severed from his body. The fact that the accused approached with an axe and attacked in sudden fight, which does not indicate the clear intention to inflict serious injury or death. This evidence collectively demonstrates that the accused’s action was accidental and was not driven by a clear intent to cause lethal harm, thus creates doubt while establishing culpability under the relevant provisions of the law. Irrespective of the intention, a cumulative reading of the entire evidence makes it clear that death of deceased- Bagdiram was caused due to the injuries inflicted by the appellant. Nonetheless, the question arise for consideration is whether the case of the appellant falls within the ambit of Section 304 PART I of IPC, as argued by counsel for the appellant. 14. 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. ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... 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. ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......… 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..........." 15. 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:- 16. In the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja vs State Of A.P. reported in (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.” 17. In the case of Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (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 the case of Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (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 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.” 24. 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.” 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Goverdhan vs State of Chhatisgarh reported in (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 304IPC. Accordingly, we convict the appellants under Part I of Section 304 IPC.” 25. Upon examination of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the postmortem report Ex.P/2 indicates that the neck injury was identified as the fatal and the primary cause of death. 26. 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. Considering the absence of proof of premeditation, including the lack of undue advantage or cruelty on the part of the appellant, as well as the fact that the assault was the result of a sudden altercation between the parties, the act can be characterized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, aligning with the provisions of Section 304 PART I of the IPC. This court is 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. 27. In view of the aforesaid aspects and upon assessment of evidence, we are of the considered opinion that it is improbable to believe that the accused appellant intentionally and with deliberate motive caused the death of the deceased. Furthermore, the circumstances and the nature of the incident do not substantiate the claim of deliberate homicide. The evidence suggests that the act may have been unintentional or a result of unforeseen circumstances, rather than a calculated efforts to cause death. Therefore, based on these considerations this Court finds it difficult to ascribe full culpability to the accused appellant for causing the death intentionally and 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 absence of pre-meditation or motive to kill deceased- Bagdiram and it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the prayer of accused appellant to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 PART I , IPC. 28. Resultantly, the conviction and sentences passed against the accused appellant 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. To that extent, the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2016, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Case No.132/2013 is hereby modified. 29. However, considering the fact that the appellant has already undergone the incarnation for more than thirteen years and nine months including the remission and the appellant is still in judicial custody since his arrest. Thus, while maintaining conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 304 PART I IPC, his sentence for the said offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount is hereby waived, if not deposited. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 30. Resultantly, the criminal jail appeal is partly allowed. 31. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. 32. The fine amount is hereby waived, if not deposited. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 30. Resultantly, the criminal jail appeal is partly allowed. 31. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. 32. A copy of this order be communicated to the accused-appellant.