Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State And Ors on 22 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 764/2016
Vijay Pal S/o Handman Ram, by caste Vishnoi, Aged 29 years,
R/o Raner Police Station Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 855/2016
Om Prakash S/o Shri Lekh Ram, by caste Jat, R/o 2GM, Raner,
Police Station Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Satpal S/o Shri Hanuman, by caste Bishnoi, R/o Chak 1 GM,
Chhatargarh, Bikaner.
3. Bhoop Ram S/o Shri Bhajan Lal, by caste Bishnoi, R/o Chak
17, Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar.
4. Balwant S/o Shri Prithvi, R/o Chak 6 SLD, Tehsil Chhatargarh,
District Bikaner.
----Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 242/2018
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Appellant
Versus
1. Satpal S/o Hanuman, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Chak-1 Gm,
Chhatargarh, Bikaner.
2. Bhupram S/o Bhajan Lal, B/c Vishnoi, R/o Chak 17 P.s.
Raisinghnagar.
3. Balwant S/o Prathvi, R/o Chak 6 Sld, Chhatargarh, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jayant Jain
Ms. Urvashi Kalla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Kaushal Gautam, for accused
respondents.
Mr. H.S. Shrimali, for complainant.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 08:47:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (2 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Order
Order Reserved on : 13/08/2025
Date of pronouncement: 22/08/2025
BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Mr. Manoj Kumar Garg, J.)
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.
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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (3 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
the scene. Due to the strangulation, his father succumbed his
injuries.
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.
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 were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. In defence, three witnesses were examined and various
documents were exhibited.
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.
Learned counsel representing the accused Vijay Pal, as well
as counsel for the accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram, and
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (4 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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. 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (5 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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.
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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (6 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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.
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.
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..... 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (7 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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 :-
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. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (8 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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."
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
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (9 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (10 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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."
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."
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (11 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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.
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, 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.
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.
Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against the
accused appellant- Vijay Pal for the offence under Section 302 IPC
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (12 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
is quashed and set aside and hereby altered to the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:36189-DB] (13 of 13) [CRLA-764/2016]
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.
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.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
42-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
