Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kishore Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:33631-Db) on 30 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 17/2020
1. Kishore Singh S/o Shri Manna Singh, Aged About 27
Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Mehghato Ka Guar,
Chattrapura, P.s. Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.). (At
Present Lodged In District Jail Rajsamand, Raj.).
2. Prakash Singh S/o Shri Manna Singh, Aged About 24
Years, By Caste Rawat, R/o Mehghato Ka Gaus,
Chattrapura, P.s. Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.). (At
Present Lodged In District Jail Rajsamand, Raj.).
3. Laxman Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 54 Years,
By Caste Rawat, R/o Sohanpura, P.s. Badnor, District
Bhilwara (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In District Jail
Rajsamand, Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kaluram Bhati, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted
by Mr. KS Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
REPORTABLE
Per Hon’ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
30/07/2025
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
against the judgment dated 19.11.2019 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, in Sessions Case
No.54/2015 (CIS No.111/2015) by which the learned Trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (2 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]
S.No. Offence U/s Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
1. 341 IPC 1 month SI Rs.500/- 5 days SI
2. 323/34 IPC 1 year SI Rs.1,000/- 7 days SI
3. 324/34 IPC 3 years SI Rs.2,000/- 15 days SI
4. 307/34 IPC 10 years SI Rs.8,000/- 2 months SI
5. 302/34 IPC Life Rs.10,000/
imprisonment
6. 4/25 of Arms 3 years SI Rs.1,000/- 3 months SI
Act-appellant
No.1 onlyAll the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that 10.09.2015, complainant Bheem Singh gave an oral
information (Ex-P/7) to the concerned Police Station to the effect
that on 09.09.2015 at about 10 AM, he want to Bhim on the
motorcycle. In the evening, at about 6:30 PM, when he was
returning, the accused-persons including the present petitioners
came armed with deadly weapon such as sword, axe, lathi etc and
forcefully stopped the complainant and started abusing the
complainant. Accused Kishore Singh gave a sword blow on the left
hand of the complainant. On raising hue and cry, Ratan Singh
came to the rescue of the complainant, upon which the accused
Prakash Singh gave axe blow on the head of Ratan Singh and
accused Narpat Singh & Laxman Singh gave lathi blow to Ratan
Singh. On hearing hue and cry, the villagers rescued the
complainant and Ratan Singh. On receiving the information, Police
reached at the place of incident and took the complainant and
Ratan Singh to hospital. Due to severe injuries, the complainant
and Ratan Singh were referred to higher centre at Rajsamand, but
on the way Ratan Singh died. The complainant was further
referred to Udaipur for treatment.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (3 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]
On the said report, Police registered the FIR No.317/2015
against the accused persons including the appellants and started
investigation. On completion of investigation, police filed challan
against the accused persons including the appellants.
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 147, 148,
341, 323, 324, 307, 302/149 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act to
the accused persons Kishore Singh and Vikram Singh and for
offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302/149
IPC to accused persons Prakash Singh, Laxman Singh & Smt. Tipu
Devi. They denied the charge and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as fifteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in
support of its case.
The accused persons including the appellants were examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the
evidence adduced against them during the course of trial to which
they denied and stated that they did not commit any offence.
They were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present
case. In defence, one witness Narpat Singh (DW-1) was
examined.
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 19.11.2019 acquitted the accused persons Vikram
Singh and Tipu Devi from the aforesaid offences, however,
convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences
as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (4 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]
In respect of appellant No.2–Prakash Singh, learned Counsel
submits that the appellant possessed no pre-meditated intent to
cause harm to the deceased, as the act of assault was
spontaneous and committed in a moment of sudden provocation.
However, he contends that the appellant No.2 had no intention to
cause the death of the deceased. He further states that deceased-
Ratan Singh had come to the rescue of the complainant, and it
was in this context that the accused-appellant No.2, Prakash
Singh, delivered an axe blow to Ratan Singh’s head. Accordingly,
he prays that accused-appellant No.2 should not be held guilty for
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and instead 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 2015 and the appellant No.2 has so far suffered a sentence
of about ten years, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence
awarded to the appellant No.2 Prakash for the aforesaid offences
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
However, so far as appellants No.1 & 3 namely Kishore Singh
and Laxman Singh are concerned, counsel submits that the head
injury to deceased Ratan Singh by an axe was caused by accused-
appellant No.2 Prakash Singh. Counsel submits that the appellant
No.1 Kishore Singh gave a sword blow on the hand of the
complainant and appellant No.3 Laxman Singh gave only lathi
blow to deceased Ratan Singh. It is submitted that as per the
statements of the prosecution witnesses and according to the
medical evidence available on record, the cause of death of
deceased Ratan Singh is head injury by an axe, which was caused
by appellant No.2 Prakash and not by the appellants No.1 & 3.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (5 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]
Counsel further submits that when a specific role has been
assigned to an individual, the act of that individual should be
considered in isolation. Thus, it is submitted that offences under
Sections 307/34 & 302/34 IPC are not made out against the
appellants No.1 & 3, but the learned trial court without properly
appreciating the evidence available on record has convicted the
appellants no.1 & 3 for offences under Sections 307/34 IPC and
302/34 IPC, which is per se illegal and erroneous. Therefore, it is
prayed that the appellants No.1 & 3 may be acquitted from the
offences under Sections 307/34 & 302/34 IPC. Counsel further
made a prayer that for rest of the offences under Sections 341,
323/34, 324/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, he does not
challenge the finding of conviction and they already undergone
about 4 years and 6 months. Therefore, the sentence awarded for
the said offences to the appellants No.1 & 3 may be reduced to
the period already undergone by them.
Per-contra, the learned AAG has submitted that in the
present case, the accused-appellants came armed with deadly
weapon and assaulted the complainant and when deceased Ratan
Singh tried to rescue the complainant, the appellants assaulted
him and caused axe injury on his head. Due to which, Ratan
Singh died. The injury report as well as postmortem report
corroborates the offence having been committed by the accused-
appellants. He thus craves dismissal of the appeal.
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.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (6 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]
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 09.09.2015, the appellant No.2
Prakash Singh had inflicted head injury to deceased Ratan Singh
by an axe and the said head injury resulted to his death. The
article used for causing the head injury i.e. an axe was also
recovered through seizure memo Ex.P/18 and the site inspection
report Ex.P/22 also corroborate the incident so happened. As per
the postmortem report Ex.P/28, the injuries have been reported
on the head of the deceased and the medical opinion conclusively
proved the cause of death to be head injury.
A cumulative reading of the entire evidence makes it clear
that death of Ratan Singh was caused due to the injuries inflicted
by the appellant No.2 Prakash Singh.
Now the question arise for consideration is whether the
appellant No.2 Prakash Singh falls within the ambit of Section 304
Part I of IPC, as argued by counsel for the appellants.
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(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (7 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]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….. 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.
……….”
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 :-
(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(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (8 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]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. 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.”
(2) 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(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (9 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]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. 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
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (10 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]
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.”
(3) 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,(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (11 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]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.”
Upon examination of the injuries sustained by the deceased
and the postmortem report Ex.P/28 indicates that the head injury
was identified as the fatal and the primary cause of death.
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
No.2 Prakash Singh, 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.
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 absence of
pre-meditation or motive to kill deceased Ratan Singh and it is a
case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, we
are inclined to accept the prayer of accused appellant No.2
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (12 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]
Prakash Singh to alter the conviction from Section 302/34 IPC to
Section 304 Part I, IPC.
Resultantly, the conviction and sentences passed against the
accused appellant No.2 Prakash Singh for the offence under
Section 302/34 IPC is quashed and set aside and hereby altered to
the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
So far as the appellant No.1 Kishore Singh and appellant
No.3 Laxman Singh are concerned, having examined the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, we noted that the appellant No.1
Kishore Singh caused sword injury to the complainant Bheem
Singh and appellant No.3 Laxman Singh caused lathi injury to the
deceased Ratan Singh. Witness Dr. Sangrash Jain (PW-11), who
prepared the postmortem report of deceased Ratan Singh, has
specifically deposed that the deceased Ratan Singh died due to
head injury.
On an overall appreciation of the statements of the witnesses
as well as the documentary evidence including the injuries report
as well as postmortem report of the deceased, we are of the view
that deceased Ratan Singh died due to injury caused by the
accused-appellant No.2-Prakash Singh and not by the injuries
caused by appellants No.1 & 3 i.e. Kishore Singh and Laxman
Singh. Thus, there is no evidence available on record which prove
offences under Sections 307/34 & 302/34 IPC against the
accused-appellant No.1 & 3.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has
committed error in convicting and sentencing the accused-
appellant No.1 & 3 for offence under Sections 307/34 & 302/34
IPC.
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33631-DB] (13 of 13) [CRLAD-17/2020]
Accordingly, the appellant Nos.1 & 3 namely Kishore Singh
and Laxman Singh are hereby acquitted from offence under
Sections 307/34 & 302/34 IPC.
However, considering the fact that the appellant Nos.1 & 3
have already undergone the incarnation for more than four years
& six months and the appellant No.2 is still in judicial custody
since his arrest. Thus, while maintaining conviction of the
appellants No.1 & 3 for offences under Sections 341, 323/34,
324/34 IPC & Section 4/25 of Arms Act and appellant No.2 for
offences under Sections 341, 323/34, 324/34, 304 Part I IPC,
their sentence for the said offences is hereby reduced to the
period already undergone by them. The fine amount is hereby
maintained. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already
deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted. The appellant Nos.1
& 3 Kishore Singh and Laxman Singh are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled. If the appellants No.1 &
3 fail to deposit the fine amount, they shall undergo the default
sentence.
The appellant No.2 Prakash Singh is in jail. On deposition of
fine amount, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other
case. If, he fails to deposit the fine amount, he shall undergo only
the default sentence.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
86-/MS
(Downloaded on 01/08/2025 at 11:18:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)