[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tarachand vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 2025
Bench: Farjand Ali, Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 139/2023
Tarachand S/o Shri Hamera, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Malariya
Kalla Ps Gogunda Dist. Udaipur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail
Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr.C.S.Ojha,PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 09/12/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 01/12/2025
BY THE COURT:- (per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali )
1. By way of filing this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has assailed
the judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 111/2022
arising out of FIR No. 18/2022, Police Station Gogunda,
District Udaipur, whereby the learned Trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed
hereinbelow.
2. The brief facts emerging from the record indicate that
complainant Shri Kanaram (PW-09) lodged a written report
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (2 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
(Ex.P-10) at Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur on
08.01.2022, stating that on 07.01.2022 at about 11:00 p.m.,
while he was at his house, he heard loud cries coming from
the direction of the house of his elder brother, Hemera s/o
Dalu Gameti (aged 40 years). On hearing the noise, he along
with his elder brother Jota Gameti, neighbour Panna, and his
sister-in-law Bhanwari Bai went towards Hemera's house,
where they saw his nephew Tara Gameti assaulting Hemera.
Out of fear, Hemera moved towards the hand pump located
near Mahadevji temple, but Tara allegedly followed him with
a lathi and inflicted multiple blows indiscriminately on his
head and body, causing Hemera to fall unconscious near the
hand pump. When they approached, they noticed excessive
bleeding and found that Hemera had died on the spot.
3. It was further stated that Tara Gameti would frequently
quarrel and fight with Hemera over trivial issues and that the
death had occurred due to the beating allegedly given by
him. As it was late at night and no means of transportation
were available, the complainant could not report the matter
immediately. On the basis of this written report, FIR
No.18/2022 (Ex.P-14) was registered for offences under
Sections 341 and 302 IPC, and investigation commenced.
Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed on 08.03.2022 before the Court of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, Udaipur for offences under
Sections 341 and 302 IPC, and the case being triable by the
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (3 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
Court of Session, was committed to the Sessions Court for
trial.
4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing on charge, framed,
read, and explained the charges under Sections 341 and 302
IPC to the accused on 10.05.2022, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the prosecution
examined 17 witnesses and exhibited several documents,
whereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the allegations and
claimed false implication, and the defence also exhibited
documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. Upon hearing arguments from
both sides, the learned Trial Court vide Judgment and Order
dated 06.04.2023 convicted the appellant for the said
offences, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been
preferred.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a
comprehensive appraisal of the evidence adduced at trial,
the material on record, and the surrounding circumstances,
the following aspects emerge for due consideration:
Evaluation of Ocular Testimony and Factual Matrix
6. The prosecution's case primarily rests on the ocular version
of PW-9 Kanaram (informant), PW-11 Jota Ram (brother of
the deceased), PW-12 Panna (uncle of the deceased), and
PW-14 Bhanwari (wife of the deceased and mother of the
accused). Out of these, PW-9 and PW-11 are the only
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (4 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
witnesses who claim to have actually seen the accused
chasing and assaulting the deceased. PW-12 and PW-14
reached thereafter and are not eyewitnesses to the act of
assault.
7. PW-9 Kanaram deposed that upon hearing an alarm at about
11:00 p.m. on the night of the incident, he, along with PW-
11 Jota, PW-12 Panna, and PW-14 Bhanwari, moved towards
the direction of Hemera's house. He saw the deceased
running towards the Mahadevji temple and the accused Tara
Chand following him with a lathi. Near the hand pump, the
accused is alleged to have inflicted a blow on the head of the
deceased, who collapsed and died on the spot. Although PW-
9 admitted during cross-examination that it was a dark night
and visibility was limited, he consistently affirmed that he
identified the accused by voice and proximity. His account is
materially corroborated by PW-11.
8. PW-11 Jota Ram similarly stated that he saw his brother
fleeing and the accused following him with a lathi. He further
stated that he witnessed the actual blow delivered near the
hand pump. The fact that PW-12 and PW-14 reached the
location shortly after the assault and found the deceased
lying lifeless further strengthens the immediacy, proximity,
and credibility of the circumstances forming the chain
leading up to the death.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (5 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
9. PW-12 Panna, although not an eyewitness to the assault,
confirmed that both father and son frequently quarreled, and
that upon reaching the spot, he saw Hemera lying dead. PW-
14 Bhanwari, the wife of the deceased, clarified that she was
not present at the moment of the assault, but she admitted
longstanding domestic discord, habitual drunkenness of the
deceased, and recurring quarrels between father and son.
Her testimony, though partly hearsay regarding the assault,
reinforces the existence of sudden provocation and chronic
tension between the two.
Medical Evidence and Nature of Injury
10. PW-17 Dr. Shantilal Choubisa conducted the
postmortem on 08.01.2022 and reported one major
lacerated wound measuring 20 cm × 10 cm × 5 cm over the
left temporal region, accompanied by fractures of the
parietal and temporal bones, mandibular fracture, and nasal
bone fractures, along with intracranial bleeding and edema.
The doctor ruled out injuries on any other part of the body.
He opined that the death was caused due to excessive
hemorrhage leading to cardio-pulmonary arrest. He also
categorically stated that the injuries were caused by a blunt
weapon.
11. The absence of repeated blows, absence of injuries on
other parts of the body, and the spontaneous nature of the
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (6 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
incident have significant bearing on the intention and mental
element of the accused.
Assessment of Intention (Mens Rea) and Surrounding
Circumstances
12. The essential question is whether the accused
possessed the intention to cause death or such bodily injury
as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, so as to attract Section 302 IPC.
Several critical circumstances emerge:
• The accused and the deceased were father and son, residing
in a remote tribal region, with no access to basic amenities,
and were admittedly habitual drinkers, involved in frequent
domestic quarrels.
• The incident took place at night, triggered by a sudden fight;
no pre-meditation or preparation is evident.
• PW-14 disclosed that the deceased was often violent, used to
beat the accused and the family after consuming liquor, and
that earlier on the same day the deceased had consumed
alcohol heavily.
• The accused is shown to be illiterate, culturally and socially
vulnerable, belonging to an Adivasi community, with limited
ability to regulate emotions during sudden provocations.
• The presence of only one blow, albeit fatal, strongly militates
against a pre-conceived intent to kill.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (7 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
• The genesis of the incident appears to be a sudden loss of
self-control during a domestic quarrel.
13. Thus, while the blow was forceful enough to cause
death, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause the
death of the deceased. The mental element that can be
attributed is that the accused had knowledge that such a
blow on the head is likely to cause death, but there is no
convincing evidence of a deliberate intention to cause death.
Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
14.The evidence clearly satisfies the 4 components of Exception
4 to Section 300 IPC, namely:
(i) the act was committed without premeditation;
(ii) it occurred in a sudden fight;
(iii) it was done in the heat of passion; and
(iv) the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a
cruel or unusual manner.
15.In this context, firstly, even if the prosecution evidence is
taken at its highest and accepted at face value in an
uncontroverted form, nothing emerges to suggest that the
occurrence was premeditated. The very nature of the
incident, as borne out from the record, is spontaneous and
imminently sudden. Premeditation is ordinarily inferable
where inimical relations exist, or where there is some
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (8 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
antecedent dispute, conflicting interest, settled enmity, or
any discernible motive. All these elements are conspicuously
absent in the present case.
16.Secondly, the material, when evaluated on its face value,
indicates that the deceased, being habitually intoxicated and
quarrelsome, would frequently abuse and provoke the
accused. It appears that on the fateful night as well,
inebriation and provocation triggered a sudden loss of
mental equilibrium in the accused, leading to the infliction of
the single blow. The fight was sudden; it was not a case
where an extended or continuous altercation had been
unfolding.
17.Thirdly, the testimony of PW-14 Bhanwari Devi unmistakably
suggests that the assault was delivered in a state of sheer
anger, reinforcing that the act was committed in the heat of
passion. There was no motive or pre-existing design, and as
discussed hereinabove, the absence of any preparatory
conduct fortifies the inference that the assault was a product
of a momentary emotional eruption rather than a calculated
decision.
18.Fourthly and importantly, although the accused was armed
with a lathi and there was nobody present at the scene who
could restrain, overpower, or deter him, he nevertheless
inflicted only a single blow. He could have, had he so
intended, delivered multiple blows on other parts of the
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (9 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
deceased's body, but he did not. This conduct demonstrates
that the accused neither took undue advantage nor acted in
a cruel or unusual manner. The manner of assault was
confined, limited, and proportionate to the sudden
provocation that erupted without warning.
19.The case therefore does not squarely fall within the ambit of
murder under Section 302 IPC. Rather, given the nature of
the assault and the mental element, the offence is more
appropriately categorized as culpable homicide not amounting
to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, where knowledge
but not intention can be imputed.
Conclusion and Sentence
20. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a holistic
appreciation of the ocular evidence, medical testimony,
surrounding circumstances, and the mental element
attributable to the accused, this Court is of the considered
view that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court
under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. The material on
record clearly demonstrates that the incident occurred in the
course of a sudden quarrel between the father and son,
without premeditation, and in the heat of passion, wherein
the appellant inflicted a single lathi-blow on a vital part of
the body. He did not act in unusual manner nor did he
misuse his position of dominance . Although the said blow
proved fatal, the prosecution has not been able to establish
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (10 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed the
intention to cause the death of the deceased or such bodily
injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
21.The circumstances, however, indicate that the appellant had
knowledge that such a forceful blow could likely result in
death. The case, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as defined
under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and is punishable
under Section 304 Part II IPC.
22.Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section
302 IPC, as recorded by the learned Trial Court, is hereby set
aside, and he is instead convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II IPC. While determining the
appropriate sentence, this Court has taken into consideration
the overall circumstances of the case, including the fact that
the accused and the deceased were father and son, residing
in a remote tribal region with limited access to basic
amenities, and were admittedly habitual drinkers who often
engaged in domestic quarrels. The material on record further
reflects that the accused is illiterate, culturally and socially
vulnerable, belonging to an Adivasi community, and has
limited emotional regulation during sudden provocations.
These factors, coupled with the circumstance that the
incident arose out of a sudden altercation in a domestic
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52999-DB] (11 of 11) [CRLAD-139/2023]
setting and that the appellant has himself suffered the loss
of his father, warrant a degree of judicial compassion.
23.In view of the aforesaid mitigating factors, and considering
the absence of premeditation, this Court is of the view that a
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven (07) years
(from the date of his arrest i.e., 08.01.2022) would
adequately meet the ends of justice. The sentence is
accordingly modified to that extent.
24.In above terms, the instant appeal is disposed of.
25.A copy of this order shall be sent to the trial court.
26.The record be sent back forthwith.
27.All applications pending (if any) stands disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (FARJAND ALI),J
77-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 05:08:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
