JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 413 of BNSS against the judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.282/2022, whereby the accused-respondents have been convicted under Section 304/149, 143 and 147 of IPC. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the sentence awarded, the present criminal appeal has been filed for enhancement of the sentence. 3. Briefly noted facts in the present case are that on 23.05.2022, the complainant-appellant submitted a written report before the SHO, Police Station Kotda, alleging that on 23.05.2022 at about 6:15 p.m. his younger brother Naresh was at his newly constructed house. At that time suddenly Popat, Viha, Raman, Suresh, Raju, Rakesh, Hitesh and Dharma came together armed with sticks and stones and started abusing and threatening to kill him on account of a land dispute there. During altercation between the parties, Viha, who was wearing a steel clip in his hand made 8-10 assaults on the chest of Naresh, Popat and Raman assaulted him with sticks while Raju, Suresh, Rakesh, Dharma and Hitesh inflicted injuries him with stones. It was alleged that when Sakku (wife of the deceased) and his brother Dharma and Leela (wife of the complainant) tried to rescue Naresh, but the accused-respondents continued assaulting Naresh, who succumbed to injuries on the spot. 4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the complainant, the SHO, Police Station Kotda, lodged the FIR No.81/2022 against the accused-respondents for the offences under Sections 143 and 302 of IPC. 5. After investigation, the investigating agency filed charge- sheet against the accused-respondents on 08.09.2022 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kotda, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 302 and 149 of the IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the learned sessions judge, Udaipur. 6. The learned trial court framed the charges against respondent Raju @ Rajkumar for the offence under Sections 143, 147 and 302 of the IPC and in alternative under Section 302/149 of the IPC and against Viha @ Vishnu, Raman Lal, Sanjay and Popat for the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 302/149 of the IPC and the accused-respondents denied the same and claimed for trial. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited 23 documents. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited 23 documents. The statements under Section 351 of BNSS, 2023 of accused-respondents Viha @ Vishnu, Raman Lal, Sanjay, Popat and Raju @ Rajkumar were recorded. By way of submitting documentary evidence, the accused-respondents got exhibited statement recorded of witness PW-6 – Dharma under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.D1. 8. After completion of trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 22.07.2025 convicted the accused- respondents under Sections 304/149, 143 and 147 of IPC. Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court aforesaid, the complainant-appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal for enhancement of their conviction and sentence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the learned trial court has committed an error while convicting the accused-respondents under Section 304/149 of the IPC. He further submits that as per the statements of PW-3 – Kamlesh, PW-4 – Smt. Sakuri, PW-5 – Smt. Leela and PW-6 – Dhanna, it has come on record that the accused Popat, Viha, Raman, Suresh, Raju, Rakesh, Hitesh, Dharma and Sanjay were aggressors and they have inflicted multiple injuries with steel clip, lathis and stones resulting into the death of Naresh. Learned counsel further submits that the ocular evidence in the shape of PW-3, PW-4, PW- 5 and PW-6 is clear and categoric to the extent that on account of multiple injuries inflicted by them, Naresh has succumbed to injuries and, therefore, accused-respondents were required to be convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the IPC. He further submits that the learned trial court has committed an error in not appreciating the ocular evidence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even the statement of PW-8 – Dr. Ajay Dev Meena is also clear that the cause of death of deceased Naresh is on account of the injuries suffered in the third and fourth ribs which were penetrated up to the heart causing blood loss and, therefore, learned trial court has committed an error while convicting the accused-respondents only under Section 304/149 of the IPC. He further submits that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is “hemorrhagic shock due to chest injury”, which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further submits that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is “hemorrhagic shock due to chest injury”, which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may be allowed and the sentence awarded to the accused- respondents be converted under Section 302 of IPC from Section 304 of IPC. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned trial court has not evaluated and examined the evidence brought on record as the injuries sustained by Naresh were not inflicted by the accused- respondents, but the same were sustained on account of Naresh having fallen on a sharp stone while fleeing from the place of incident. The accused-respondents did not assaulted Naresh. He further submits that the ocular evidence in the shape of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 is not corroborated by the post-mortem report. He further submits that the injuries mentioned in the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are conspicuously absent in the post-mortem report. Though the incident had taken place but there was no intention to cause fatal injuries to Naresh. He further submits that because of the ongoing dispute of land between the parties, the incident had taken place and at the spur of moment, the heated altercation took place resulting into the injuries suffered by Naresh which ultimately proved fatal. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the statement of PW-8 also clearly establishes the fact that the injuries as mentioned in the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are not getting corroborated though the death of Naresh was on account of fracture in the third and fourth ribs penetrating right upto the heart inducing excessive blood flow resulting into his death. He, therefore, prays that the appeal preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused-respondents may be dismissed. 12. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2025. He, therefore, prays that the appeal preferred by the appellant for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused-respondents may be dismissed. 12. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2025. It has come on record that on account of some land dispute between the parties on 23.05.2022, the accused-respondents went to the place of incident and there was some heated altercation which resulted into fight between the appellant and the accused-respondents in which deceased Naresh sustained certain injuries on account of which he died. As per the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, it has come on record that Popat, Viha, Raman, Suresh, Raju, Rakesh, Hitesh, Dharma and Sanjay went to the house of Naresh and inflicted multiple injuries by steel clip, lathi and stones. After the incident, Naresh was taken to hospital where during the course of treatment, he passed away. The number of injuries mentioned in the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 do not corroborates with the post-mortem report Ex.P-6. In the post-mortem report, no injuries have been mentioned except the fracture on third and fourth ribs. The cause of death was reported to be hemorrhagic shock due to chest injury and it has been opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Statement of PW-8 – Dr. Ajay Dev Meena shows that the cause of death of Naresh was on account of fracture on third and fourth ribs penetrating into heart causing excessive blood loss resulting into the death of Naresh. In the cross-examination, PW-8 has also stated that the injuries could have been sustained while running and falling on a sharp stone. 13. A close evaluation of the statements of prosecution witnesses particularly PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, we are of the view that a number of injuries are stated to have been inflicted by the accused-respondents on the body of Naresh, but the same are not getting corroborated by the post-mortem report Ex.P6 and the statement of PW-8 – Dr. Ajay Dev Meena, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC instead of Section 304 of the IPC. Ajay Dev Meena, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC instead of Section 304 of the IPC. It is also held that although the incident had taken place on 23.05.2022 and the accused-respondents were present at the place of incident, but they have not inflicted such injuries which ultimately proved fatal. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the view taken by the learned trial court in its judgment dated 22.07.2025 appears to be just, plausible and reasonable. 15. Before parting with, this Court finds it apt to quote the findings recorded in Para No. 20 of the judgment, which reads as under:- 16. A perusal of the findings recorded by the learned trial court in para No.20, it is clear that although the incident had taken place and the injuries were inflicted, but the same were not of the nature which may reflect the intention of the accused-respondents to cause death. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the view taken by the learned trial court does not suffer from any infirmity and the conviction of the accused-respondents under Section 304 of the IPC is appears to be just and proper. 18. In view of the discussions made above, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The present criminal appeal for enhancement, therefore, fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed.