Ravi Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2026 Latest Caselaw 3191 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ravi Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 February, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
                 D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 167/2023

 Ravi Kumar S/o Satnaam, Aged About 24 Years, J J Colony,
 Sirsa, P.s. And Dist. Sirsa, Haryana.
           (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Pritam Solanki
                                  Mr. Arunoday Inkeshwar.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sharwan Sing Rathore, PP


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

                                   Judgment

BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)

1. Date of conclusion of argument 17.02.2026

2. Date on which the judgment was 17.02.2026 reserved

3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment operative part is pronounced

4. Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section

374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused-appellant Ravi Kumar son of Shri

Satnaam, assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated

23.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 26/2017

(State vs. Ravi Kumar), whereby the accused-appellant has been

convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (2 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six

month's simple imprisonment.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on

18.06.2017, the complainant Deepak Singh submitted a written

report (Exhibit P-9) at Police Station Suratgarh, stating therein

that his uncle's son, Sunny, son of Charan Singh, had come to

Suratgarh from Sirsa approximately 9-10 days prior for the

purpose of employment, along with Raju, Jayram, and Ravi. All

four were residing together in a rented room situated in Ward No.

8, RIICO Area, Suratgarh. It was alleged that on 14.06.2017 at

about 10:00 p.m., Ravi Kumar had a quarrel with Sunny Singh

and, in the course of the altercation, inflicted two knife blows upon

him, causing grievous injuries. The injured was immediately taken

to the hospital at Suratgarh, from where he was referred to

Bikaner for further treatment. However, on 17.06.2017 at about

8:00 p.m., Sunny Singh succumbed to his injuries during

treatment at the hospital in Bikaner. It was specifically alleged that

Ravi Kumar assaulted Sunny Singh with the intention to cause

fatal injuries, which ultimately resulted in his death.

3. On the basis of the of the written report (Ex.P-9), a formal

First Information Report bearing No. 304/2017 (Ex.P-10) came to

be registered at Police Station Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar, against

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (3 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code.

4. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet

against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302

IPC.

5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the

charges under Section 302 of IPC to the accused-appellant, who

denied the charges and sought trial.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13

witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced

documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-35.

7. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put

to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely

and he is innocent. The accused-appellant produced documentary

evidence as Exhibits D-2 and Exhibits D-3.

8. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced

on behalf of both sides, upon appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and

sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide its judgment

dated 23.01.2023.

9. Hence the present appeal.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (4 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by

the Learned Additional Sessions Judge are contrary to the settled

principles of law as well as the facts and evidence available on

record, and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and set

aside.

11. He further submitted that the Learned Trial Court has failed

to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true and

proper perspective and has erroneously convicted the appellant on

the basis of surmises and conjectures. The findings recorded by

the court below are perverse, arbitrary, and not supported by

cogent evidence.

12. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The

conviction is primarily based upon the statements of alleged eye-

witnesses PW-5 Jayram and PW-7 Rajaram, who projected

themselves as eye-witnesses to the incident. However, a bare

reading of their testimonies reveals material contradictions and

inconsistencies. There are significant discrepancies not only inter

se between their statements, but also between their statements

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and statements recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Trial Court. In such

circumstances, while relying on their testimony and convicting and

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (5 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

sentencing the present accused-appellant is wholly unsafe and is

unsustainable in the eyes of law.

13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the

Learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to properly consider the

fact that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of four

days from the date of the incident. The explanation furnished by

the prosecution that the family was occupied in the treatment of

the injured is neither satisfactory nor convincing. In a case of

alleged stabbing, the matter ought to have been immediately

reported either by the complainant or by the hospital authorities.

The inordinate and unexplained delay creates serious doubt about

the veracity of the prosecution story.

14. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant did not

abscond after the incident; rather, he remained with the injured

Sunny during his medical treatment. As per the statement of PW-5

Jayram, it was the appellant who took the injured to the hospital,

informed his parents about the occurrence, and even bore the

medical expenses. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the

prosecution case and creates a strong doubt regarding false

implication of the appellant.

15. Learned counsel submitted that as per the testimony of PW-9

Dr. Bhanwarlal, it is clear that if the deceased was given prompt

and proper treatment, his life could have been saved. The doctor

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (6 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

further stated that the cause of death was formation of pus in the

cavity, leading to septicemia and spread of infection throughout

the body. These crucial aspects have not been properly considered

or appreciated by the Learned Trial Court while recording

conviction.

16. Learned counsel also submitted that the alleged recovery of

the knife as well as the clothes of the deceased is highly doubtful

and suffers from serious infirmities. The court below has failed to

consider these material contradictions and discrepancies, which

has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

17. Learned counsel submitted that from a bare reading of the

judgment dated 23.01.2023, it is apparent that the conviction has

substantially been based upon the alleged disclosure statement of

the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act

and the consequent recovery. Such reliance is misplaced and

insufficient to sustain conviction in the absence of reliable and

corroborative evidence.

18. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that there is not an iota of

evidence to attract the offence under Section 302 IPC. The

essential ingredient of intention to cause death is conspicuously

absent. At best, as per the prosecution story itself; the incident

appears to have occurred on the spur of the moment during a

sudden quarrel, allegedly under the influence of liquor. In such

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (7 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

circumstances, the case does not fall within the ambit of Section

302 IPC.

19. Learned counsel submitted that the witnesses examined by

the prosecution are closely related to the deceased and their

testimony ought to have been scrutinized with greater caution.

The appellant cannot be convicted merely on the basis of alleged

blood stains on the clothes of the deceased and other recoveries

from the place of occurrence, particularly when the blood group of

the deceased and the appellant has not been scientifically

established. Mere mention of a similar blood group, without proper

corroboration, does not conclusively support the prosecution

version.

20. On the grounds stated above, it was prayed that the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserve

to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges.

21. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-

appellant and submitted that the First Information Report was

lodged by Deepak, brother of the deceased. Though the incident

occurred on 14.06.2017 and the FIR came to be registered on

18.06.2017, mere delay of four days does not, by itself, render

the prosecution case doubtful. He further submitted that

immediately after the incident, the injured was taken for medical

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (8 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

treatment to Suratgarh and thereafter referred to Ganganagar,

Sirsa and finally Bikaner. The paramount concern of the family was

to save the life of the injured and, therefore, the delay in lodging

the FIR stands satisfactorily explained.

22. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the post-

mortem report clearly reveals two stab injuries inflicted upon the

deceased, which were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The

nature, seat and repetition of the injuries unmistakably indicate

intention to cause death. It was also argued that there was a

monetary dispute between the deceased and the accused-

appellant, as the deceased was to receive certain money and the

accused-appellant was allegedly delaying re-payment thereof,

thereby establishing motive and prior grudge. Hence, the act

squarely falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC.

23. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that during treatment,

the deceased disclosed the incident to his father Charan Singh.

The statement made by the deceased prior to his death

constitutes a dying declaration admissible under Section 32 of the

Evidence Act. PW-8 Charan Singh deposed regarding the

disclosure made by the deceased. Even during cross-examination,

no material was elicited to discredit this aspect. Under Section 137

of the Evidence Act, if a statement remains unshaken in cross-

examination, it is to be read in its entirety. Further, as per Section

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (9 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is

required to prove a fact; even the testimony of a single reliable

witness is sufficient to sustain conviction.

24. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though PW-1 and

PW-2 turned hostile, the testimonies of PW-5 Jayram and PW-7

Rajaram fully corroborate the prosecution case. PW-5 has

categorically supported the incident and his presence at the place

of occurrence is established. In cross-examination, it has also

come on record that the accused-appellant was residing in the

same room, thereby proving his presence at the scene. PW-7

Rajaram has portrayed a clear and cogent picture of the entire

incident and remained consistent even during cross-examination.

There is no reason to disbelieve the statements made by these

credible eye-witnesses.

25. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the medical

evidence lends full corroboration to the ocular testimony. The

post-mortem report confirms two stab injuries. PW-9 Dr.

Bhanwarlal has opined that injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by a

sharp-edged weapon and could not have been the result of a fall

from a motorcycle. The doctor has clearly stated that injury No. 1

was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Though the immediate cause of death is stated as septicemia, the

same developed from the stab injuries; thus, the chain of

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (10 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

causation remains intact and the death was a direct consequence

of the knife injuries.

26. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the knife

was recovered pursuant to information furnished by the accused-

appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 22.06.2017.

The knife, along with its handle, was recovered from the place

disclosed by the accused-appellant, and the seizure memo

confirms the presence of blood stains. PW-12 Constable Virendra

Kumar and PW-13 Narayan Singh have supported the recovery.

The FSL report (Exhibit P-28) confirms the presence of human

blood on the recovered knife. The knife had broken during the

incident and was concealed in the toilet wall, which explains why it

was not recovered during the initial visit of the Investigating

Officer.

27. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that minor

discrepancies or shortcomings in the investigation do not entitle

the accused-appellant to acquittal when the core of the

prosecution case stands proved. Trivial contradictions are natural

and do not affect the substratum of the prosecution story. The

absence of Deepak's signature on Exhibit P-9 does not materially

affect the prosecution case, as his signatures appear in the police

proceedings and the contents of the report stand duly proved.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (11 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

28. On the cumulative appreciation of ocular testimony, medical

evidence, recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the

FSL report, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused-

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It was, therefore, prayed that

the conviction recorded by the Learned Trial Court under Section

302 IPC be upheld.

29. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have

carefully re-appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary

evidence available on record. The core question that arises for

determination is not as to whether the deceased Sunny @ Shani

died a homicidal death -- which stands clearly established -- but

as to whether the act attributed to the accused-appellant Ravi

Kumar would amount to "murder" punishable under Section 302

IPC or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" punishable

under Section 304 IPC.

30. From the consistent testimonies of PW-5 Jayram and PW-7

Rajaram, it emerge that on the evening of 14.06.2017, the

accused-appellant returned to the room after consuming liquor.

The deceased demanded his pending wages from the accused-

appellant. This demand led to a verbal altercation which suddenly

escalated into a heated quarrel. The evidence on record does not

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (12 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

suggest any prior enmity of such magnitude that would indicate a

pre-planned design to eliminate the deceased. There is no

material to show that the accused-appellant had carried a weapon

with him with a pre-determined intention to commit murder.

31. The weapon allegedly used was a vegetable cutting knife

ordinarily kept in the room where all four persons were residing

together. The prosecution witnesses themselves stated that the

quarrel occurred spontaneously over payment of money. In the

heat of passion, the accused-appellant picked up the knife lying in

the room and inflicted two blows upon the deceased. The incident,

therefore, appears to have taken place on the spur of the moment

during a sudden quarrel. It is further significant that the accused-

appellant did not abscond immediately after the occurrence. As

per the statements of prosecution witnesses, including PW-5

Jayram, the accused-appellant remained present and the injured

was taken to the hospital for treatment. Though this circumstance

alone cannot exonerate the accused-appellant, it is nevertheless a

relevant factor while assessing whether there was prior intention

or premeditation of mind.

32. The medical evidence on record, particularly the testimony of

PW-9, Dr. Bhanwarlal, read with the post-mortem report (Ex.P-

18), establish that the deceased Sunny succumbed to injuries

sustained by a sharp-edged weapon. As per the witness, the post-

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (13 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

mortem examination was conducted on 18.06.2017 pursuant to a

police requisition, and the deceased had expired on 17.06.2017 as

per hospital records.

33. On external examination, two ante-mortem incised wounds

were found. Injury No. 1 was an incised stab wound measuring

0.7 cm × 0.5 cm, spindle-shaped, situated on the left anterior

axilla in the 10th intercostal space, approximately 14 cm below

the nipple and 4 cm lateral to the mid-clavicular line. The wound

was covered with a brownish-black hard crust, with underlying

muscle hematoma. Injury No. 2 was an incised wound measuring

0.7 cm × 0.5 cm deep, spindle-shaped, located in the suprapubic

region along the midline of the abdomen, 2 cm above the base of

the penis, also surrounded by brownish-black hardened pus with

underlying muscle hematoma.

34. Upon internal dissection, it was found that Injury No. 1 had

cut through the 10th intercostal muscle and the peritoneum. The

peritoneum was congested, hazy and thickened. The peritoneal

cavity contained approximately two litres of turbid, yellow, foul-

smelling fluid with patches of pus. The omentum was adherent,

and a perforation measuring 0.5 cm × 0.2 cm was detected in the

upper left transverse colon beneath the wound. Both injuries were

opined to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon and to

have been inflicted about 3-4 days prior to death.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (14 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

35. In the opinion of PW-9, the cause of death was septicemia

consequent to intestinal perforation resulting from Injury No. 1,

which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-18) bears his signature.

36. During cross-examination, the witness stated that he was

unaware of the nature of medicines or antibiotics administered by

the treating doctor. He accepted the suggestion that if an M.D.

doctor had treated the deceased, any lapse in treatment would be

attributable to such treating doctor. He further clarified that

septicemia was the mode of death and not the primary cause, and

reiterated that the septicemia developed due to pus formation

following the intestinal perforation caused by Injury No. 1. He also

acknowledged that while Injury No. 1 was described as a stab

wound with cutting characteristics, Injury No. 2 was described as

an incised wound.

37. Thus, the medical evidence clearly establishes that Injury

No. 1 resulted in intestinal perforation leading to septicemia, and

there exists an unbroken chain of causation between the injury

inflicted and the eventual death of the deceased.

38. However, while the medical evidence proves that the injuries

were fatal, the surrounding circumstances must be evaluated to

ascertain the requisite mens rea. The evidence does not

demonstrate that the accused-appellant acted in a cruel or

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (15 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

unusual manner beyond the infliction of the two blows during the

quarrel. There is also no material to indicate that he took undue

advantage of the situation or that the assault was prolonged or

repeated in a barbaric fashion.

39. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses

themselves, it becomes evident that the incident occurred without

premeditation of mind, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion,

upon a sudden quarrel over demand of wages. The quarrel was

mutual in nature and arose out of an immediate provocation

relating to a monetary dispute. The case thus satisfies the

essential ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which

applies where death is caused:-

a) without premeditation,

b) in a sudden fight,

c) in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and

d) Without the offender having taken undue

advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkumar

Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025 INSC 1302 has held

as under:-

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (16 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

"5.4. In Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

Section 299 defines 'culpable homicide'. 'Murder' is

defined Under Section 300, Indian Penal Code. The

exceptions are provided in Section 300, Indian Penal

Code as to under which circumstances the 'culpable

homicide' would not become murder. Section 304,

Indian Penal Code deals with situations, where the

'culpable homicide' does not amount to murder. In

other words, it would not fall within the definition of

'murder'. Section 300, Indian Penal Code, although

defines the offence which would become 'culpable

homicide amounting to murder', it has, as stated above

several exceptions.

5.5. Section 304, Indian Penal Code has two parts

namely; Section 304 Part I and Section 304 Part II. The

distinction between these two Parts of Section 304,

Indian Penal Code is required to be considered having

regard to the provisions of Sections 299 and 300,

Indian Penal Code. Whether the offender had intention

to cause death or he had no such intention brings out

the vital distinction.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (17 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

5.6. In Kesar Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana

2008:INSC:541 : (2008) 15 SCC 753, this Court

observed thus, in para 10:-

The distinguishing feature is the mens rea. What is

prerequisite in terms of clause (2) of Section 300 is

the knowledge possessed by the offender in regard

to the particular victim being in such a peculiar

condition or state of health that the intentional

harm caused to him is likely to be fatal. Intention

to cause death is not an essential ingredient of

clause (2). When there is an intention of causing a

bodily injury coupled with knowledge of the

offender as regards likelihood of such injury being

sufficient to cause the death of a particular victim

would be sufficient to bring the offence within the

ambit of this clause.

5.6.1. For the above purpose, the exceptions

contained in Section 300, Indian Penal Code are taken

into consideration. In the same judgment, the Court

further explained the distinction between 'culpable

homicide amounting to murder' and 'not amounting to

murder', stating in para No.11:-

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (18 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

Culpable homicide is genus, murder is its specie.

           The    culpable     homicide,       excluding       the    special

           characteristics      of   murder,       would       amount      to

culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The

Code recognises three degrees of culpable

homicide. When a culpable homicide is of the first

degree, it comes within the purview of the

definition of Section 300 and it will amount to

murder. The second degree which becomes

punishable in the first part of Section 304 is

culpable homicide of the second degree. Then

there is culpable homicide of third degree which is

the least side of culpable homicide and the

punishment provided for is also the lowest among

the punishments for the three grades. It is

punishable under the second part of Section 304.

5.7. In other words, where the two ingredients namely

that the infliction of bodily injury on deceased was

caused intentionally and secondly that it was sufficient

to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, are

satisfied, the offence would amount to murder. There

may be circumstances which may emerge from the

facts and evidence of a given case that the offence

becomes 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (19 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

5.8. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1958

SC 465 and further in Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar

v. State of Maharashtra, this Court stated that

divided into two Parts, Section 304, Indian Penal Code

deals with the situations where 'culpable homicide'

would not be a murder. The conceptualisation of the

'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' were

explained in the following way, as quoted in para 4 of

the Kesar Singh 2008: INSC: 541: (2008) 15 SCC

753:-

If an injury is inflicted with the knowledge and

intention that it is likely to cause death, but with

no intention to cause death the offence would fall

within the definition of Section 304 Part I,

however, if there is no intention to cause such an

injury, but there is knowledge that such an injury

can cause death, the offence would fall within the

definition of Section 304 Part II. Thus, is intention.

If intention to cause such an injury as is likely to

cause death, is established, the offence would fall

under Part I but where no such intention is

established and only knowledge that the injury is

likely to cause death, it would fall under Part II.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (20 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

6. In the context of the above parameters as to what

would constitute murder Under Section 302, Indian

Penal Code and under what circumstances the

'culpable homicide' would not amount to murder,

recollecting the basic facts of the present case, looking

to the kind and nature of injuries referred to above

which is available from the medical evidence, it could

not be said that the injuries were not of the nature

which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary

course. The assailant used knife and inflicted serious

injuries on the body of the deceased, including below

the belly. Looking to the act on part of the Appellant, it

has to be concluded that the Accused was liable to be

attributed with the knowledge that the injuries which

he was to inflict by using the weapon in hand, would

be sufficient to result into death in ordinary course.

41. In the present case, all the above ingredients stand

satisfied from the prosecution evidence itself. Therefore, though

the act of the accused-appellant in inflicting knife injuries is

clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt and he must bear

criminal liability for the same, the offence would not amount to

murder under Section 302 IPC.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (21 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

42. Upon a careful, comprehensive, and independent appraisal

of the entire material available on record, as well as the

evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the

ambit of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is trite law

that where the intention to cause death, or the intention to

cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, is

established, the offence would fall within the scope of Section

304 Part-I IPC. However, in cases where such intention is not

proved, and the evidence only establishes that the accused had

the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, the

offence would fall under Section 304 Part-II IPC. In the present

case, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused-appellant had the intention to cause

death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause

death. The circumstances brought on record do not indicate any

premeditation of mind, prior enmity of such gravity, or

deliberate conduct from which a definite intention to cause

death can be safely inferred. Nevertheless, the material on

record clearly establishes that the accused had the knowledge

that the act committed by him was likely to cause death. The

nature of the act and the attendant circumstances unmistakably

show awareness of the probable consequences, though falling

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (22 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

short of the requisite intention contemplated under Section 300

IPC. Therefore, in the absence of proof of intention but in the

presence of knowledge attributable to the accused, the offence

is more appropriately covered under Section 304 Part-II of the

Indian Penal Code.

43. In light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of

the case and upon due appreciation of the evidence brought on

record, this Court finds it appropriate to interfere with the

impugned judgment to the limited extent of altering the

conviction of the accused-appellant from Section 302 IPC to

Section 304 Part-II IPC. Consequently, the finding of conviction

recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC is

held to be not just and proper and, to that extent, deserves to

be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the conviction of the

appellant, Ravi Kumar, is altered from Section 302 IPC to

Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

44. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the

occurrence pertains to the year 2017. The appellant has

remained in judicial custody since his arrest on 21.06.2017 and

has thus undergone incarceration for a period exceeding 8

years. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of

the case, and considering the nature of the offence as now

determined, this Court is of the firm view that the ends of

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (23 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence

awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

45. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC, the sentence awarded

to him is reduced to the period already undergone, which, in

the considered opinion of this Court, is sufficient to meet the

ends of justice in the peculiar facts of the present case.

Needless to state, the period of detention already undergone by

the accused-appellant during investigation, trial, and pendency

of the appeal shall be set off in terms of Section 428 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

46. Consequently, the instant appeal is partly allowed. The

impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated

23.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Suratgarh, in Sessions Case No. 26/2017, is modified to the

extent indicated hereinabove. The conviction of the appellant

Ravi Kumar under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is instead

convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC, with the sentence

reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant

shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

47. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9476-DB] (24 of 24) [CRLAD-167/2023]

48. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A

Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the

like amount, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective

for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of

Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave,

the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before

Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

49. Office is directed to send the record of the trial court

forthwith.

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

-Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/-

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:05 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)