Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganpat Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:40328-Db) on 10 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 310/2019
Ganpat Lal S/o Shri Sukhram @ Sukh Lal Ji, Aged About 30
Years, B/c Naai, Resident Of Purada Road, Sanjay Nagar,
Sumerpur, District Pali. (Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
REPORTABLE
10/09/2025
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG,J)
Instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has
been by the appellant against the judgment and order dated
26.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sumerpur, District Pali, in Sessions Case No.18/2016 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.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo two years simple imprisonment.
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that on 19.05.2016, complainant- Arjunlal submitted a
written report (Ex-1) before the Police Station- Sumerpur to the
effect that his sister's family was residing in Sumerpur. It was
further reported that the complainant's sister had recently
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
passed away. The report indicated that the complainant's nephew
(hereinafter referred to as "the accused appellant") persistently
demanded money from the complainant's brother-in-law, Sakha
Ram (deceased). He consistently refused to fulfill these monetary
demands. As a result, the accused allegedly assaulted Sakha Ram.
On the night of 18.05.2016, at approximately 11:00 PM,
deceased- Sakha Ram and the accused were consuming alcohol.
Subsequently, at around 01:00 AM, a heated altercation ensued
between the complainant's brother-in-law and the accused. During
this altercation, the accused committed the murder of Sakha Ram.
Approximately at 01:30 AM, the accused informed the
complainant that he had murdered his father and subsequently
absconded from the scene. The complainant immediately
proceeded to his brother-in-law's residence, where he was
informed by the assembled witnesses that accused appellant-
Ganpat had inflicted fatal injuries upon his father, Sakha Ram.
On the said oral report, Police registered the FIR
No.217/2016 against the accused-appellant and started
investigation. 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 14 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.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
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 26.08.2019 convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this
criminal appeal.
Mr. JVS Deora, learned counsel representing the accused
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 state of
sudden provocation. Furthermore, he asserts that the appellant
possessed neither motive nor intention to cause the death of the
deceased. Consequently, he respectfully requests that the
appellant not be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, but
rather under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. Additionally, counsel
highlights that the incident took place in the year 2016, and the
appellant has been in custody since 19.05.2016. He has already
served more than nine years of imprisonment, including
remission. In light of these facts, he respectfully prays that the
sentence imposed upon the appellant be suitably reduced to the
period already served.
Per-contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that, in the
present case, the accused-appellant committed the murder of his
father by inflicting a fatal blow to the neck. The medical evidence,
including the injury report and post-mortem examination findings,
unequivocally corroborates the commission of the offence by the
accused-appellant. Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor respectfully
prays for the dismissal of the appeal.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
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.
Admittedly, the accused-appellant and the deceased- Sakha
Ram, shared a filial relationship as son and father. It is evident
from the record that the accused-appellant was habituated to
quarrelling with his father, often over demands for money to
consume alcohol. On the date of the incident, a quarrel once again
ensued between the two, during which the accused-appellant
inflicted a blow on the neck of the deceased using a pair of
scissors. Dr. Praveen Arora (PW-6), who conducted the post-
mortem examination, deposed that a single injury was present on
the neck of the deceased, and that said injury was the direct and
proximate cause of death. Furthermore, the recovery of the
weapon i.e. a pair of scissors, was duly effected by the
investigating agency during the course of investigation, thus
lending corroboration to the prosecution's case.
A cumulative reading of the ocular and medical evidence
unambiguously establishes that the death of Sakha Ram was
caused by the accused-appellant. However, the pivotal question
which arises for judicial consideration is whether the accused-
appellant had the requisite intention to cause the death of his
father, or whether the act was committed without premeditation
and under a sudden provocation.
To assess the presence or absence of intent, the testimonies
of material witnesses must be scrutinized, namely PW-1 Arjun Lal
(complainant), PW-8 Kiran, PW-9 Pushpa, PW-10 Suraj, and PW-
11 Vagaram (an independent neighbour). These witnesses
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
consistently deposed that frequent altercations occurred between
the accused-appellant and the deceased on account of money
demanded for alcohol. PW-1 specifically stated that, immediately
after the incident, the accused-appellant came to his house and
voluntarily disclosed that he had killed his father during a quarrel.
He further explained that the incident occurred suddenly, in the
heat of the moment, and that he had struck his father with the
scissors during the course of that quarrel. The sequence of events,
coupled with the spontaneous disclosure made by the accused-
appellant, strongly suggests that the act was not premeditated.
The infliction of a single blow, albeit fatal, during a sudden
altercation without any prior intent or preparation, militates
against the conclusion that the accused-appellant harboured a
deliberate intention to kill.
In light of these facts, this Court is persuaded to conclude
that while the act of the accused was unlawful and resulted in the
death of the deceased, the circumstances do not indicate a clear
intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death. Instead, the act appears to have been committed under a
sudden provocation and in the heat of passion, without
premeditation.
Therefore, the question arise for consideration is whether the
case of appellant falls squarely within the ambit of Section 304
Part I of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, where the act is done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause death, but without the specific intent to
cause death. This interpretation is also consistent with the
jurisprudential distinction drawn between Section 302 IPC and
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
Section 304 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrels
between close relations.
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
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various authoritative
pronouncements:-
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
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
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 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
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
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 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."
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
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."
Upon examination of the injuries sustained by the deceased
and the postmortem report 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
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
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 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- Sakha Ram 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
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40328-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLAD-310/2019]
punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC. To that extent, the
impugned judgment dated 26.08.2019, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur in Sessions Case No.18/2016
is hereby modified.
However, considering the fact that the appellant has already
undergone the incarnation for more than nine years 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 appeal is partly allowed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
155-MS/-
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:10:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
