Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chhatar Singh vs State And Ors on 10 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 351/1997
1. Basti Ram S/o Sh. Shri Ram
2. Kalu Ram S/o Sh. Shri Ram
3. Champa Lal S/o Sh. Shri Ram
4. Madan S/o Sh. Shri Ram
All B/c Saad, R/o Village Banta, District Pali.
(Appellant No.1 in judicial custody at Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 369/1997
Chhatar Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Village
Banta, District Pali (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Kalu S/o Shri Ram
3. Champa Lal S/o Shri Ram
4. Madan S/o Shri Ram
5. Smt. Pyari W/o Shri Ram
Al B/c Saad & R/o Village Banta, PS Marwar Junction, District
Pali.
----Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 51/1998
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Basti Ram S/o Shriram, B/c Sad
2. Kalu S/o Shriram, B/c Sad
3. Champalal S/o Shriram, B/c Sad
4. Madan S/o Shriram, B/c Sad
5. Smt. Pyari W/o Shriram, B/c Sad
All R/o Banta, PS Marwar Junction.
Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. JS Choudhary, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. GR Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Madan Lal, for father of the
deceased.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:46:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (2 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
Order reserved on 04/09/2025
Date of Pronouncement: 10/09/2025
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J)
All the aforesaid matters, two criminal appeals and one
revision petition, have arisen out of the common judgment dated
09.07.1997, passed by learned Session Judge, Pali, in Sessions
Case No.78/1988 by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the
accused Smt. Pyari from offence under Sections 147, 148,
302/149, 323, 323/149 IPC and convicted the accused-appellant
No.1 Bastiram for offence under Sections 302 & 323 IPC and
accused-appellants No.2 to 4 namely Kalu, Champalal & Madan for
offence under Section 323 IPC.
For offence under Section 323 IPC, the trial court sentenced
the accused appellants with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo three months' SI.
Whereas, for offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned trial
court sentenced the accused-appellant No.1 Bastiram to undergo
life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo three months' RI.
Since all the matters are arising out of the same judgment
and order, therefore, they are being decided by this common
order.
Criminal Appeal No.351/1997 has been filed by the accused-
appellants against their conviction for offence under Section 302 &
323 IPC. Whereas, Revision Petition No.369/1997 by the father of
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (3 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
the deceased- Chhatar Singh and Criminal Appeal No.51/1998 by
the State have been preferred against the acquittal of the accused
persons from offence under Section 302/149 IPC and for awarding
lesser sentence to the accused persons.
The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present
controversy are that on 23.07.1988, the complainant- Laxman
Singh (PW-8) submitted a written report (Ex.P/10) at Police
Station, Marwar Junction, stating that on 22.07.1988, at about
06:00 PM, when the deceased- Parbat Singh was proceeding
towards his residence from the tea stall of Samarath Singh, the
accused persons, armed with lathis, intercepted him and assaulted
him. The complainant, along with other villagers namely Vijay
Singh, Jai Singh, Ratan Singh, Bheru Singh and Chainaram rushed
to rescue Parbat Singh, during which Ratan Singh also sustained
injuries. Subsequently, the mother of the deceased and one Chail
Singh reached the spot and attempted to rescue Parbat Singh;
however, the accused persons inflicted injuries upon them as well.
Thereafter, the accused persons fled from the scene. Owing to the
injuries sustained, Parbat Singh became unconscious and was
immediately taken to Bangar Hospital, Pali, where he was
admitted. Despite medical intervention, he succumbed to his
injuries on 23.07.1988.
On the said report, Police registered the FIR and started
investigation. During investigation, Police arrested the accused
persons. On completion of investigation, police filed challan
against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
323 & 324 IPC.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (4 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and
explained the charges for the offence under Sections 147, 148,
302, 302/149, 323, 323/149 IPC to accused persons. They denied
the charge and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 22 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, one witness- Dr. Hari Kishan Goyal was
examined as DW-1 and seven 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 09.07.1997 acquitted the accused- Smt. Pyari
from the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323,
323/149 IPC, however, convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellant No.1- Bastiram for the offence under Sections 302 & 323
IPC and accused-appellants No.2 to 4 namely Kalu, Champalal &
Madan respectively, for offence under Section 323 IPC, as
aforesaid. Hence, the State and the father of the deceased are
challenging the acquittal of the accused- Smt. Pyari as well as less
sentence awarded to the accused-appellants and accused-
appellants are challenging their conviction.
At the threshold, learned counsel appearing for the accused
appellants (in Appeal No.351/1997) submits that the accused-
appellants No. 2 to 4 namely Kalu, Champalal & Madan
respectively have been convicted only for offence under Section
323 IPC and they have been awarded sentence of fine of Rs.500/-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (5 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
each for the said offence and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo three months' SI. Counsel submits that the said
amount of fine has already been deposited by the accused-
appellants No.2 to 3. In such circumstances, counsel does not
press the appeal No.351/1997 qua the accused-appellants No.2 to
4.
In view of submissions made, the criminal appeal
No.351/1997 is hereby dismissed as not pressed qua accused-
appellants No.2 to 4 namely Kalu, Champalal & Madan
respectively.
So far as accused-appellant No.1- Bastiram, is concerned,
learned counsel submits that the incident pertains to the year
1988. It is contended that the appellant inflicted only a single
lathi blow upon the deceased- Parbat Singh, without any
repetition. As per the testimony of Dr. D.R. Panwar (PW-20), the
deceased sustained a solitary head injury caused by a lathi, and
the cause of death was attributed to the said head injury. It is
further urged that, during the scuffle, the accused party also
sustained injuries, which fact stands corroborated by the
deposition of Dr. Hari Kishan Goyal (DW-1). Specifically, accused
Smt. Pyari suffered one injury, accused Madan sustained three
injuries, and accused Champalal received two injuries. In these
circumstances, it is argued, that the complainant party was the
aggressor. Learned counsel further submits that the act attributed
to appellant- Bastiram was not premeditated; rather, it was a
spontaneous act committed in the heat of the moment under
sudden provocation. There was no intention or motive on his part
to cause the death of the deceased. Accordingly, it is prayed that
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (6 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
appellant- Bastiram may not be held guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC, but at the most be convicted
for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. It is also urged that,
since the incident dates back to 1988, and the appellant has
already undergone a sentence of about one and a half years,
coupled with the fact that he is presently around 68 years of age
and is in poor health, the sentence awarded to him may be
reduced to the period already undergone. Counsel has relied upon
the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court at Jaipur
Bench in the case of Banwari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan reported in (2025) 1 CriLR 170.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, along with the
learned counsel representing the father of the deceased, Parbat
Singh, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the
counsel for the accused- Bastiram. It was contended that the
accused- Bastiram, had inflicted a fatal head injury upon the
deceased- Parbat Singh, by means of a lathi, while the other
accused persons, namely Smt. Pyari, Kalu, Champalal, and Madan,
also caused injuries to the deceased as well as to other injured
persons. Accordingly, it was urged that the learned trial court
committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons of the
offence punishable under Section 302/149 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.
Admittedly, the First Information Report lodged by the
complainant, Laxman Singh (PW-8), contains a detailed and
specific account of the incident, wherein it has been categorically
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (7 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
stated that when the deceased- Parbat Singh, was proceeding
towards his residence, the accused persons, armed with lathis,
intercepted him and assaulted him. The fatal head injury,
specifically attributed to the appellant No.1-Bastiram, ultimately
resulted in the death of Parbat Singh. The medical evidence on
record further corroborates this assertion, as it unequivocally
indicates that the cause of death was the lathi blow inflicted on
the head of the deceased. Thus, it stands established beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant No.1- Bastiram was
responsible for causing the death of Parbat Singh and thereby
committed culpable homicide. The evidence clearly reflects that
the fatal blow was the direct result of the act of appellant No.1 in
striking the deceased on a vital part of the body, i.e., the head. It
is significant to note that most of the independent witnesses,
namely PW-1 Tej Singh, PW-2 Vijay Singh, PW-3 Lakha Ram, PW-4
Jai Singh, PW-9 Chainaram, PW-10 Bheru Singh, PW-14 Mangi Lal,
PW-15 Ladu Ram, and PW-16 Varda Ram, were declared hostile.
The remaining witnesses, PW-5 Sayar Kanwar (mother of the
deceased), PW-6 Chhatar Singh (father of the deceased), PW-11
Chail Singh, and PW-12 Ratan Singh, are close relatives of the
deceased, thereby reducing the evidentiary value of their
testimonies to the extent that they cannot be considered wholly
impartial. Thus, the case rests substantially on the FIR and
medical evidence without strong corroboration from independent
sources. It is, however, pertinent to consider the crucial question
as to whether the appellant No.1 possessed the intention to cause
the death of Parbat Singh, or whether he intended to cause such
bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was likely to
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (8 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
result in death, or at the very least, whether he acted with the
conscious knowledge that striking a lathi blow on the head was
imminently dangerous and, in all probability, would cause death or
such bodily injury likely to cause death.
At the outset, it would apposite to deal with the relevant
legal provisions, 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.
..........
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (9 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
304, Part II. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder - Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to
murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years or with fine or with
both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause death; but without any intention to cause death or to cause
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
The ingredients constituting an offence under Section 304
Part II IPC are as follows:
(i) he must commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
(ii) the act must be done with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause death;
(iii) but such act is done without any intention to cause death or
to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Therefore, under the provisions of Section 304 Part II of the
IPC, an individual may be held liable for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder when the act is committed with the
knowledge that it is likely to result in death, yet without any
intention to cause death or to inflict such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death. The essential criterion for establishing an offence
under this section is thus twofold: firstly, the presence of
knowledge on the part of the accused that their conduct is likely to
cause death or such bodily injury as could lead to death; and
secondly, the absence of any intention to cause death. Thus, core
element of Section 304 Part II IPC is the mental state of the
accused, specifically, the conscious awareness of the potential
consequences of their act, without the accompanying intent to
bring about death.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (10 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
The reasoning underlying this legal framework is rooted in
the principle of moral culpability and the recognition that an
individual can be deemed criminally liable even if they did not aim
to kill, but nonetheless engaged in conduct that foreseeably
endangers life. Such an approach ensures that individuals cannot
escape liability merely because they lacked the intent to kill,
especially when their actions, by their very nature, posed a
substantial risk of resulting in death. It emphasizes accountability
for reckless or negligent conduct that, while not intended to cause
death, nonetheless leads to fatal outcomes, thereby upholding the
principles of justice and societal protection.
The thin line difference between the offence punishable
under "Section 302" and "Section 304" of IPC has been succinctly
explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of A.P. v.
Rayavarapu Punnayya reported in (1976) 4 SCC 382 in the
following words:
"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, "culpable homicide"
is genus and "murder" its specie. All "murder" is "culpable
homicide" but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, "culpable
homicide" sans "special characteristics of murder", is
"culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the
purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity
of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three
degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be
called, "culpable homicide of the first degree". This is the
greatest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in
Section 300 as "murder". The second may be termed as
"culpable homicide of the second degree". This is punishable
under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is "culpable
homicide of the third degree". This is the lowest type of
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (11 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is,
also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the
three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable
under the second part of Section 304."
The difference was further elucidated in Rampal Singh v.
State of U.P., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 289 in the following
words:
"18. This Court in Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P.
[(2007) 14 SCC 660 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 915] noticed that
academic distinction between "murder" and "culpable
homicide not amounting to murder" had vividly been
brought out by this Court in State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu
Punnayya [(1976) 4 SCC 382 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 659] where
it was observed as under: (Vineet Kumar case [(2007) 14
SCC 660 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 915], SCC pp. 665-66, para
16) "16. ... that the safest way of approach to the
interpretation and application of Sections 299 and 300 IPC
is to keep in focus the key words used in various clauses of
the said sections. Minutely comparing each of the clauses
of Sections 299 and 300 IPC and drawing support from the
decisions of this Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
[AIR 1958 SC 465 : 1958 Cri LJ 818] and Rajwant Singh v.
State of Kerala [AIR 1966 SC 1874 : 1966 Cri LJ 1509] ,
speaking for the Court, R.S. Sarkaria, J. neatly brought out
the points of distinction between the two offences, which
have been time and again reiterated. Having done so, the
Court said that wherever the court is confronted with the
question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable
homicide not amounting to murder', on the facts of a case,
it [would] be convenient for it to approach the problem in
three stages. The question to be considered at the first
stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by
doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of
such causal connection between the act of the accused and
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (12 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
the death, leads to the second stage for considering
whether that act of the accused amounts to 'culpable
homicide' as defined in Section 299. ... If the answer to this
question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable
homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the
First or the Second Part of Section Page 8 of 29 304,
depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third
clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found
in the positive, but the case comes within any of the
Exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would
still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder',
punishable under the First Part of Section 304 IPC. It was,
however, clarified that these were only broad guidelines to
facilitate the task of the court and not cast-iron imperative.
21. Sections 302 and 304 of the Code are primarily the
punitive provisions. They declare what punishment a
person would be liable to be awarded, if he commits either
of the offences. An analysis of these two sections must be
done having regard to what is common to the offences and
what is special to each one of them. The offence of culpable
homicide is thus an offence which may or may not be
murder. If it is murder, then it is culpable homicide
amounting to murder, for which punishment is prescribed in
Section 302 of the Code. Section 304 deals with cases not
covered by Section 302 and it divides the offence into two
distinct classes, that is, (a) those in which the death is
intentionally caused; and (b) those in which the death is
caused unintentionally but knowingly. In the former case
the sentence of imprisonment is compulsory and the
maximum sentence admissible is imprisonment for life. In
the latter case, imprisonment is only optional, and the
maximum sentence only extends to imprisonment for 10
years. The first clause of Section 304 includes only those
cases in which offence is really "murder", but mitigated by
the presence of circumstances recognised in the Exceptions
to Section 300 of the Code, the second clause deals only
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (13 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
with the cases in which the accused has no intention of
injuring anyone in particular. In this regard, we may also
refer to the judgment of this Court in Fatta v. Emperor [AIR
1931 Lah 63], 1151. C. 476 (Refer: Penal Law of India by
Dr Hari Singh Gour, Vol. 3, 2009.)."
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
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (14 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
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."
From the above extracts, it becomes evident that a key
criterion in distinguishing whether a particular act constitutes
"murder" or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder"
punishable under Sections 302 and 304 IPC, respectively is the
presence or absence of the offender's intent. Specifically, if the
offender possesses the intention to cause death or to inflict such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or alternatively, if they are
consciously aware of the perilous nature of their conduct
recognizing that their actions are so inherently dangerous that
they will, in all likelihood, result in death or such injury the act is
more appropriately classified as "murder" under Section 300 of
the IPC. In such cases, the corresponding penal provision of
Section 302 IPC, which prescribes the punishment for murder,
would be applicable. Conversely, if the intention to cause death or
such grievous bodily injury is not clearly established the act should
be categorized under the lesser offence of "culpable homicide not
amounting to murder," punishable under Section 304 IPC. This
classification recognizes the gravity of the act but acknowledges
the absence of the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) for murder.
The reasoning behind this distinction is rooted in the principles of
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (15 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
criminal law, which aim to attribute liability proportionate to the
mental state and culpability of the offender. Intention and
knowledge are fundamental elements that differentiate between
degrees of criminal liability. When the offender intentionally
commits an act with full awareness of its dangerous potential, it
signifies a higher degree of moral culpability, warranting the
harsher penalty prescribed for murder. Conversely, in cases where
the offender's conduct lacks such deliberate intent or conscious
knowledge, the law considers the act less blameworthy, thereby
justifying a comparatively lenient punishment under Section 304
IPC. This nuanced approach ensures that the legal response is
both fair and proportionate to the offender's mental state and the
circumstances of the act.
Upon examination of the injury sustained by the deceased
and the postmortem report Ex.P/21 indicates that he received only
single injury on his head, which 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 injury,
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.1 as well as the fact that the incident was occurred on spur of
the moment, the act can be characterized as culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, aligning with the provisions of Section
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (16 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
304 Part II 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 as well as the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this High Court, 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- Parbat Singh and it is
a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore,
we are inclined to alter the conviction of the accused-appellant
No.1 Bastiram from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II, IPC.
Resultantly, the conviction and sentence passed against the
accused appellant No.1 Bastiram for the offence under Section
302 IPC is quashed and set aside and the same is hereby altered
to the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC.
However, considering the facts that the incident is related to
the year 1988 and the accused-appellant No.1- Bastiram has
remained in custody for more than one & half years and presently
he is aged about 68 years and is not keeping good health, we
think it proper to reduce the sentence of the accused-appellant
Bastiram to the period already undergone by him, while increasing
the fine amount.
Thus, while maintaining conviction of the appellant No.1
Bastiram offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, his sentence for
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39471-DB] (17 of 17) [CRLA-351/1997]
the said offence is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The fine amount is hereby increased from
Rs.500/- to Rs.25,000/-. Out of which, Rs.20,000/- shall be
disbursed in favour of the father of the deceased- Chhatar Singh.
Two months' time is granted to deposit the increased fine amount
before the trial court. The fine amount, if any, already deposited
by the appellant- Bastiram shall be adjusted. The appellant No.1 is
on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled. If the
appellant No.1 fails to deposit the increased fine amount, he shall
undergo the default sentence of three months' SI.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal No.351/1997 preferred by
the appellants is partly allowed qua appellant No.1- Bastiram.
The criminal revision No.369/1997 preferred by the father of
the deceased- Chhatar Singh and the criminal appeal No.51/1998
preferred by the State against the acquittal of accused persons
from offence under Section 302/149 IPC and for awarding lesser
sentence are hereby dismissed having no substance.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
131 to 133-MS/-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:35:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
