Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammed Irfan vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 11 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 112/2025
Mohammed Irfan S/o Hasam Bhai, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Kalvaad Gate Ke Bahar, Raj Society, Morkanda Road, Jamnagar,
Gujarat. (Presently Lodged In Jaitaran Jail, Dist. Pali)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jaikishan Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
11/09/2025
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GARG,J)
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2025 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali, in
Session Case No.16/2019 by which the learned Trial Court
convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced him for life imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
one year's RI.
Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy
are that on 17.03.2019, complainant- Ajeet submitted a written
report before the concerned Police Station to the effect that on
16.03.2019, he, accompanied by his nephew Hussain (referred to
as Bhanja), traveled from Jamnagar to Raas in a tanker vehicle
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (2 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
and subsequently parked it within the premises of Bangar Cement
Factory. At that time, another driver named Irfan and his helper
Vanraj were already present in the factory's parking area.
Following the parking of their respective vehicles, all four
individuals proceeded together to Ma Nagnarai Hotel for a meal,
approximately between 9:00 and 9:30 PM. It is noted that Mahesh
and Shyam Ji, who were staff members of Gujarat-based diesel
tankers, were also present at the same establishment. During the
course of the meal, an altercation erupted between Irfan (the
accused-appellant) and Hussain (the complainant's nephew),
concerning a monetary transaction. During the heated exchange,
the accused-appellant rose from his seat and returned with a
knife. He then inflicted a stab wound on Hussain's chest while
using abusive language. Subsequently, the accused fled the scene
with the weapon. As a result of the stabbing injury, Hussain
succumbed to his injuries.
On the said oral report, Police registered the FIR No.44/2019
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. He
denied the charge and sought trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as sixteen 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 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (3 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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 11.03.2025 convicted and sentenced the accused-
appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this
criminal appeal.
Mr. Jaikishan Haniya, counsel for the accused-appellant, has
submitted that the incident in question arose spontaneously
during an altercation between the deceased- Hussain, and the
appellant, which took place at a hotel where both individuals were
seated together. It is contended that the dispute pertained to a
monetary transaction and, in the heat of the moment, the
appellant inflicted a knife injury to the chest of the deceased. It is
further submitted that Dr. Jitendra Singh (PW-8), who conducted
the post-mortem examination, confirmed that the cause of death
was the chest injury sustained by the accused- appellant. Counsel
has argued that the act was not premeditated, nor was there any
prior intention on the part of the appellant to cause death. The
incident, he submits, occurred in a sudden fit of provocation
without any deliberate or malicious intent. In light of the above,
learned counsel earnestly prays that the offence does not attract
the rigours of Section 302 of the IPC. Rather, the facts and
circumstances of the case would appropriately bring the matter
within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of the IPC, as the act was
committed without the intention to cause death, but with the
knowledge that it was likely to result in death. Additionally,
counsel has drawn the attention of the Hon'ble Court to the fact
that the appellant has been incarcerated since 17.03.2019, and
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (4 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
has consequently undergone more than six years and five months
of imprisonment. In view of the period already undergone and the
nature of the incident, it is respectfully submitted that the
sentence may kindly be reduced to the term already served.
Per-contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the accused-appellant
and submitted that there exists a specific and categorical
averment attributing to the accused-appellant the act of inflicting
a knife injury to the chest of the deceased, namely Hussain. It is
further contended that the said injury proved to be fatal and was
the direct cause of the deceased's death. In view of the aforesaid,
it is argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence on record and correctly convicted the accused-appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. Accordingly, the learned Public Prosecutor prays for the
dismissal of the present 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.
The First Information Report lodged by the complainant-
Ajeet (PW-1), contains a detailed and specific account of the
incident that a heated altercation occurred between the accused-
appellant and the deceased- Hussain. During this altercation, the
accused-appellant purportedly inflicted a knife blow on the
deceased's chest, resulting in his death. The consistency between
the FIR account and eyewitness testimonies namely, those of
Ajeet (PW-1), Vanraj (PW-10), Shyam (PW-11) and Mahesh Bhai
(PW-12) establishes a coherent narrative of the incident. The
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (5 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
medical examination of the deceased shows that deceased-
Hussain died due to the said chest injury. The medical expert, Dr.
Jitendra Singh (PW-8), examined opined that the deceased
Hussain received only a single injury on his chest. Therefore, it
can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the appellant had caused the death of deceased- Hussain and thus
committed culpable homicide. The evidence on record clearly
shows that the appellant had caused the death by inflicting a blow
with a knife on the chest of the deceased- Hussain. Therefore, in
the opinion of this Court, the crucial question however is, whether
he had the intention to cause death of deceased- Hussain or had
the intention to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause
death or whether he had the conscious knowledge that it was
imminently dangerous that in all probability, it would cause death,
or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and committed the
act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury?
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
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (6 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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.
..........
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
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (7 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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.
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.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (8 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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
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 the case of 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
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (9 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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
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
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (10 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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
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
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (11 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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 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"
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (12 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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 offense 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
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
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (13 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
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 single injury sustained by the
deceased and the postmortem report (Ex.P/21) indicates that the
single chest injury sustained by the deceased- Hussain 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 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, 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- Hussain and it is a case
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40640-DB] (14 of 14) [CRLAD-112/2025]
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, we are
inclined to alter the conviction of the accused-appellant from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II, IPC.
Resultantly, the conviction and sentences passed against the
accused appellant 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. To that extent,
the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2025, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Session Case
No.16/2019 is hereby modified.
However, considering the facts that the accused-appellant
was arrested on 17.03.2019 and since his arrest, he has served
more than six years & five months of incarceration, we think it
proper to reduce the sentence of the accused-appellant to the
period already undergone by him.
Thus, while maintaining conviction of the appellant offence
under Section 304 Part II IPC, his sentence for the said offence is
hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine
amount, if not deposited, is hereby waived. The appellant is in jail.
He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
48-MS/-
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 02:00:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
