[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kamlesh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 January, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:1618-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 361/2025

Kamlesh S/o Naniya, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of
Morchucha Police Station Kotda District Udaipur
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Raju Alias Rajkumar S/o Mirkha, Resident Of Morchucha
         Police Station Kotda District Udaipur
3.       Viha Alias Vishnu S/o Laxman, Resident Of Morchucha
         Police Station Kotda District Udaipur
4.       Raman Lal S/o Mirkha, Resident Of Morchucha Police
         Station Kotda District Udaipur
5.       Sanjay S/o Mala, Resident Of Dotad Police Station
         Panarva District Udaipur
6.       Popat S/o Mirkha, Resident Of Morchucha Police Station
         Kotda District Udaipur
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Naresh Khatri
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG with
                                  Mr. K.S. Kumpawat
                                  Mr. Arun Dadhich



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Judgment

13/01/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 413

of BNSS against the judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.282/2022,

whereby the accused-respondents have been convicted under

Section 304/149, 143 and 147 of IPC. Aggrieved and dissatisfied

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:59:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1618-DB] (2 of 8) [CRLAD-361/2025]

with the sentence awarded, the present criminal appeal has been

filed for enhancement of the sentence.

3. Briefly noted facts in the present case are that on

23.05.2022, the complainant-appellant submitted a written report

before the SHO, Police Station Kotda, alleging that on 23.05.2022

at about 6:15 p.m. his younger brother Naresh was at his newly

constructed house. At that time suddenly Popat, Viha, Raman,

Suresh, Raju, Rakesh, Hitesh and Dharma came together armed

with sticks and stones and started abusing and threatening to kill

him on account of a land dispute there. During altercation

between the parties, Viha, who was wearing a steel clip in his

hand made 8-10 assaults on the chest of Naresh, Popat and

Raman assaulted him with sticks while Raju, Suresh, Rakesh,

Dharma and Hitesh inflicted injuries him with stones. It was

alleged that when Sakku (wife of the deceased) and his brother

Dharma and Leela (wife of the complainant) tried to rescue

Naresh, but the accused-respondents continued assaulting

Naresh, who succumbed to injuries on the spot.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the

complainant, the SHO, Police Station Kotda, lodged the FIR

No.81/2022 against the accused-respondents for the offences

under Sections 143 and 302 of IPC.

5. After investigation, the investigating agency filed charge-

sheet against the accused-respondents on 08.09.2022 before the

Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kotda, Udaipur for the offences under

Sections 143, 147, 302 and 149 of the IPC. Thereafter, the case

was committed to the learned sessions judge, Udaipur.

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:59:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1618-DB] (3 of 8) [CRLAD-361/2025]

6. The learned trial court framed the charges against

respondent Raju @ Rajkumar for the offence under Sections 143,

147 and 302 of the IPC and in alternative under Section 302/149

of the IPC and against Viha @ Vishnu, Raman Lal, Sanjay and

Popat for the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 302/149 of

the IPC and the accused-respondents denied the same and

claimed for trial.

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

witnesses and got exhibited 23 documents. The statements under

Section 351 of BNSS, 2023 of accused-respondents Viha @

Vishnu, Raman Lal, Sanjay, Popat and Raju @ Rajkumar were

recorded. By way of submitting documentary evidence, the

accused-respondents got exhibited statement recorded of witness

PW-6 - Dharma under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.D1.

8. After completion of trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 22.07.2025 convicted the accused-

respondents under Sections 304/149, 143 and 147 of IPC. Being

dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence awarded by the

learned trial court aforesaid, the complainant-appellant has

preferred the present criminal appeal for enhancement of their

conviction and sentence.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that

the learned trial court has committed an error while convicting the

accused-respondents under Section 304/149 of the IPC. He

further submits that as per the statements of PW-3 - Kamlesh,

PW-4 - Smt. Sakuri, PW-5 - Smt. Leela and PW-6 - Dhanna, it

has come on record that the accused Popat, Viha, Raman, Suresh,

Raju, Rakesh, Hitesh, Dharma and Sanjay were aggressors and

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:59:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1618-DB] (4 of 8) [CRLAD-361/2025]

they have inflicted multiple injuries with steel clip, lathis and

stones resulting into the death of Naresh. Learned counsel further

submits that the ocular evidence in the shape of PW-3, PW-4, PW-

5 and PW-6 is clear and categoric to the extent that on account of

multiple injuries inflicted by them, Naresh has succumbed to

injuries and, therefore, accused-respondents were required to be

convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the IPC. He further

submits that the learned trial court has committed an error in not

appreciating the ocular evidence.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that even

the statement of PW-8 - Dr. Ajay Dev Meena is also clear that the

cause of death of deceased Naresh is on account of the injuries

suffered in the third and fourth ribs which were penetrated up to

the heart causing blood loss and, therefore, learned trial court has

committed an error while convicting the accused-respondents only

under Section 304/149 of the IPC. He further submits that as per

the post-mortem report, the cause of death is "hemorrhagic shock

due to chest injury", which is sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. He, therefore, prays that the present

appeal may be allowed and the sentence awarded to the accused-

respondents be converted under Section 302 of IPC from Section

304 of IPC.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant and submits that the learned trial court has not

evaluated and examined the evidence brought on record as the

injuries sustained by Naresh were not inflicted by the accused-

respondents, but the same were sustained on account of Naresh

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:59:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1618-DB] (5 of 8) [CRLAD-361/2025]

having fallen on a sharp stone while fleeing from the place of

incident. The accused-respondents did not assaulted Naresh. He

further submits that the ocular evidence in the shape of PW-3,

PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 is not corroborated by the post-mortem

report. He further submits that the injuries mentioned in the

statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are conspicuously

absent in the post-mortem report. Though the incident had taken

place but there was no intention to cause fatal injuries to Naresh.

He further submits that because of the ongoing dispute of land

between the parties, the incident had taken place and at the spur

of moment, the heated altercation took place resulting into the

injuries suffered by Naresh which ultimately proved fatal. Learned

counsel for the respondents further submits that the statement of

PW-8 also clearly establishes the fact that the injuries as

mentioned in the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are

not getting corroborated though the death of Naresh was on

account of fracture in the third and fourth ribs penetrating right

upto the heart inducing excessive blood flow resulting into his

death. He, therefore, prays that the appeal preferred by the

appellant for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the

accused-respondents may be dismissed.

12. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

have gone through the relevant record of the case including the

impugned judgment dated 22.07.2025. It has come on record that

on account of some land dispute between the parties on

23.05.2022, the accused-respondents went to the place of

incident and there was some heated altercation which resulted

into fight between the appellant and the accused-respondents in

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:59:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1618-DB] (6 of 8) [CRLAD-361/2025]

which deceased Naresh sustained certain injuries on account of

which he died. As per the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and

PW-6, it has come on record that Popat, Viha, Raman, Suresh,

Raju, Rakesh, Hitesh, Dharma and Sanjay went to the house of

Naresh and inflicted multiple injuries by steel clip, lathi and

stones. After the incident, Naresh was taken to hospital where

during the course of treatment, he passed away. The number of

injuries mentioned in the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and

PW-6 do not corroborates with the post-mortem report Ex.P-6. In

the post-mortem report, no injuries have been mentioned except

the fracture on third and fourth ribs. The cause of death was

reported to be hemorrhagic shock due to chest injury and it has

been opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. Statement of PW-8 - Dr. Ajay Dev

Meena shows that the cause of death of Naresh was on account of

fracture on third and fourth ribs penetrating into heart causing

excessive blood loss resulting into the death of Naresh. In the

cross-examination, PW-8 has also stated that the injuries could

have been sustained while running and falling on a sharp stone.

13. A close evaluation of the statements of prosecution

witnesses particularly PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, we are of the

view that a number of injuries are stated to have been inflicted by

the accused-respondents on the body of Naresh, but the same are

not getting corroborated by the post-mortem report Ex.P6 and the

statement of PW-8 - Dr. Ajay Dev Meena, therefore, we are

unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted

under Section 302 of the IPC instead of Section 304 of the IPC. It

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:59:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:1618-DB] (7 of 8) [CRLAD-361/2025]

is also held that although the incident had taken place on

23.05.2022 and the accused-respondents were present at the

place of incident, but they have not inflicted such injuries which

ultimately proved fatal.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the view taken by the

learned trial court in its judgment dated 22.07.2025 appears to be

just, plausible and reasonable.

15. Before parting with, this Court finds it apt to quote the

findings recorded in Para No. 20 of the judgment, which reads as

under:-

"tgk¡ rd vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk mijksDr ujs'k dh gR;k djus dk iz'u gS] vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk e`rd ujs'k ds lkFk ekjihV dh xbZ gS] ftlls mldh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ gSA ijUrq ;g Hkh ns[kk tk pqdk gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih 12 esa ,oa p'enhn xokg ih-M- 3 deys'k] ih-M- 4 Jherh ldqjh] ih-M- 5 Jherh yhyk o ih-M- 6 /kUuk }kjk ftl izdkj dh ?kVuk crkbZ xbZ gS] oSlh ?kVuk oLrqr% ?kfVr gqbZ gksrh rks vo';d gh e`rd ujs'k ds 'kjhj ij vR;f/kd Hkkjh pksVas dkfjr gqbZ gksrh ijUrq iksLV&ekWVZe fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih 6 ds vuqlkj ,oa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ih-M- 12 iouflag dh lk{; ds vuqlkj e`rd ujs'k ds 'kjhj ij dksbZ ckgjh pksVsa ugha Fkh ,oa dsoy van:uh pksVsa FksA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k dk ÑR; gR;k uk gksdj gR;k dh Js.kh esa u vkus okyk vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k fd;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA"

16. A perusal of the findings recorded by the learned trial court

in para No.20, it is clear that although the incident had taken

place and the injuries were inflicted, but the same were not of the

nature which may reflect the intention of the accused-respondents

to cause death.

17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the view taken by the

learned trial court does not suffer from any infirmity and the

conviction of the accused-respondents under Section 304 of the

IPC is appears to be just and proper.

18. In view of the discussions made above, we are not inclined

to interfere with the judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by the

(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:59:18 PM)