Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rama vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:39378-Db) on 4 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 932/2016
Rama S/o Nagji Meena, R/o Kanpura, PS Suhagpura, District
Pratapgarh (Raj.).
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Adv. amicus curiae.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
04/09/2025
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG,J)
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.
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-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
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.
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.
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.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as ten witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in
support of its case.
The accused appellant was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness 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 19.07.2016 convicted and sentenced the accused-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this
criminal appeal.
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.
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.
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.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
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. 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.
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.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
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. 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.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
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.
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:-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
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. 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
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw
light on the question of intention."
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. From this it can be safely inferred that
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
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."
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:-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
"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."
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.
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
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
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 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.
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.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39378-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLA-932/2016]
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.
Resultantly, the criminal jail appeal is partly allowed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
A copy of this order be communicated to the accused-
appellant.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
129-MS/-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 10:34:28 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
