[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Karan Singh vs State (2026:Rj-Jd:1946-Db) on 14 January, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 757/2017
Karan Singh S/o Vijay Singh, Resident of Akali, Police Station
Gadra Road, Presently Residing at Indira Colony Barmer.
[Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur.]
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Singh
Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 08.01.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 08.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part Full Judgment
is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 14.01.2026
BY THE COURT:(Per Chandra Shekhar Sharma,J)
The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section
374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 26.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, No.2, Barmer in Sessions Case No. 16/2016 (102/2013 -
State of Rajasthan Vs. Karan Singh) whereby appellant-Karan
Singh was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
and he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was to further
undergo Six months' Simple Imprisonment.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that at the
instance of the complainant, PW-2 Chunni Lal, a written report
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
(Ex.P.1) was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Barmer, alleging that
on 10.10.2013 at about 9:00 p.m., his nephew Kirit was taken to
the Government Hospital, Barmer, after sustaining a head injury
during a scuffle. On receiving this information, the complainant
reached the hospital and learnt that the incident had occurred at
Mahaveer Park, Barmer. He, thereafter, went to the place of
occurrence, where Mukesh and Tikam Chand informed him that
Kirit had been sitting on a slide where a person aged about 19-20
years was consuming liquor nearby. When Kirit objected to the
consumption of liquor at a public place, a heated altercation
ensued between them. Mukesh and Tikam Chand also advised the
said person not to consume liquor at public place and then left for
a stroll. After some time, they heard that a person was lying
injured near the slide. On returning, they found Kirit lying injured,
while the person who had been consuming liquor was not present
at the spot. It was suspected that the said person had assaulted
Kirit and fled from the scene.
3. On the basis of the said report, FIR No.373/2013 (Ex.P.28),
came to be lodged at the Police Station Kotwali, Barmer for
offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and investigation was
commenced. During the course of investigation, police inspected
the site and prepared the Site Inspection Map (Ex.P.2). Police
recovered the scattered blood, piece of bone and hairs from the
place of occurrence vide Memo (Ex.P.3). The blood stained clothes
of injured Kirit was recovered as (Ex.P.4). The Test Identification
Parade of the accused was conducted vide Memo (Ex.P.5). The
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
clothes of accused were recovered vide Memo (Ex.P.8). At the
instance of accused, a Sariya was recovered vide memo (Ex.P.9).
During treatment, injured Kirit passed away and police added the
offence under section 302 I.P.C. Panchnama of the body of the
deceased was prepared vide memo (Ex.P.14). The post mortem of
the dead body of Kirit was conducted by Medical Board vide
(Ex.P.31). Police also recorded the statements of several
prosecution witnesses.
4. Accused Karan Singh was arrested vide arrest Memo (Ex.P.7)
and after usual investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed
against him before the concerned Court for the offence punishable
under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of
the offence and then committed the matter for trial to the learned
Sessions Judge.
5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Barmer (for short
"the learned trial court") after hearing the arguments framed the
charges against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. who denied
the charges and claimed trial, thus, the trial began. As many as 19
witnesses were examined and (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.40) were exhibited
in support of the prosecution. Thereafter, the learned trial court
recorded the statements of accused-appellant under Section 313
Cr.P.C. The accused-appellant pleaded that he was falsely
implicated in the present case out of ulterior motive. However, he
did not produce any oral/documentary evidence in support of his
defence. Subsequently, after hearing learned counsel for the
parties, the learned trial court found the accused-appellant to be
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
guilty of the offence under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced him as
mentioned above vide impugned judgment dated 26.04.2017.
6. Being aggrieved against the impugned judgment dated
26.04.2017, the accused-appellant has preferred the instant
criminal appeal.
7. Mr. Jagdish Singh, learned counsel for the appellant,
vehemently contended that there is neither direct nor indirect
evidence on record to connect the accused-appellant with the
alleged offence and the prosecution case rests solely on
circumstantial evidence. It is further contended that the conviction
recorded by the learned trial court is unsustainable in law,
particularly in view of the doubtful recovery of the alleged weapon
of offence, namely the sariya (iron rod).
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
prosecution has utterly failed to establish or prove any motive
attributable to the appellant and on this ground alone the accused
deserves acquittal. It was contended that there was no prior
enmity between the appellant-accused and the deceased and they
were not even known to each other. It was further submitted that
the alleged incident arose out of a sudden scuffle and there is no
allegation on the part of the prosecution suggesting premeditation
before the occurrence.
9. Lastly, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant
that in the absence of a proved motive, credible recovery, or
reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence, the learned trial court,
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
erred while convicting the appellant. He, therefore, prayed that
the impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside and the
appellant-accused may be acquitted of all the charges. In the
alternative, it was prayed that, having regard to the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the
incident occurred in the year 2013 and that the appellant has
remained behind bars since his arrest i.e. for more than 12 years,
while toning down the conviction to one under Section 304 Part-I
of the IPC confine the sentence after accused-appellant to the
period already undergone by him.
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court
in the cases of Mohd. Rafiq @ Kallu Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in LL 2021 Sc 461 and Akash @ Bunty etc.
vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal arising
from SLP (Crl.) No.s.11367-11368 of 2024).
11. On the other hand, Mr. C.S. Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the
cogent evidence on record. Learned Public Prosecutor, while
supporting the impugned judgment, vehemently submitted that
the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It was further
submitted that the nature of the weapon used and the injury
caused clearly establish the intention of the accused to cause
death. The learned trial court was fully justified in recording a
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
finding of guilt against the accused-appellant. Lastly, learned
Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial court has duly
considered and dealt with all factual as well as legal aspects of the
matter, and therefore, the impugned judgment calls for no
interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has not
seriously opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be
modified to one under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered the rival submissions and carefully scanned the
evidence on record thoroughly.
13. PW-02 Chunnilal, uncle of the injured, stated that on
10.10.2013 at about 09:00 pm, he received information that his
nephew Kirit was seriously injured and admitted to the hospital,
where he found him unconscious with severe head injuries.
Mukesh Kumar and Tikam Chand informed him at Mahaveer Park,
that they had seen a youth arguing with Kirit who later assaulted
him and fled. On the basis of which he lodged the written report
(Ex. P.1) at Police Station Kotwali, and he also proved his presence
during preparation of the site plan, seizure of blood, bone
fragments and hair, and handing over of blood-stained clothes.
14. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-05
Tikam Chand and PW-07 Mukesh as witnesses to the 'last seen'
circumstance immediately preceding the occurrence. Both
witnesses deposed that they had seen the deceased and the
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
appellant engaged in a verbal altercations just before the incident
and there was no intervention during that period. They further
stated that within a few minutes thereafter, upon returning to the
spot on hearing a commotion, they found the deceased in an
injured condition, whereas the appellant had already absconded
from the scene of occurrence.
15. P.W.-05 Tikkam Chand stated that on 10.10.2013, while he
and Mukesh were walking in Mahaveer Park, Barmer, they saw
deceased Kirit sitting near a slide in the children's park and having
a verbal altercation with a boy who was allegedly consuming
alcohol in the park; he briefly intervened, advised the boy not to
drink there, and thereafter left the spot. About 20-25 minutes
later, he came to know that a Kirit was lying injured near the same
slide and, on reaching there, found that the injured had already
been taken away by ambulance. He identified the accused Karan
Singh in court as the same person who was earlier arguing with
Kirit and stated that he identified him in a Test Identification
Parade held on 21.10.2013.
16. P.W.-07 Mukesh deposed that on 10.10.2013 he and P.W.-05
Tikkam Chand went for an evening walk in the park, where they
saw deceased Kirit sitting on a slide and arguing with a boy over
consumption of alcohol in the park. After the argument continued
for a few minutes, they left that place and went to another part of
the park. After about 15-25 minutes, they heard from people that
a fight had occurred and on reaching there, found a crowd but did
not witness the assault. He identified the accused Karan Singh in
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
the Court as the same person who had earlier argued with Kirit
and stated that he also identified him in a Test Identification
Parade held on 21.10.2013.
17. PW-13 Dr. Arun Kumar Soni, Senior Medical Officer and
Medical Jurist at Government Hospital, Barmer, deposed that on
10.10.2013 he examined injured Kirit S/o Loonkaran on police
requisition and found two punctured head wounds measuring
08×04 cm with fracture of the frontal bone and a swelling of
05×05 cm on the chest. The injuries were opined to be caused by
a blunt weapon and within 24 hours in duration, and X-ray
examination was advised. He stated that the injured was
unconscious, in a critical condition, and was referred to a higher
centre due to lack of facilities. He proved the injury report (Ex.
P.19). In cross-examination, he admitted that timely neurosurgical
intervention could have improved survival chances and that long-
distance transportation of about 200 km without treatment could
aggravate such injuries and contribute to death.
18. A careful appreciation of the statements of the
abovementioned witnesses reveals that a scuffle had taken place
between the appellant-accused and the deceased, during which
the appellant inflicted injuries on the vital part of the deceased by
a sariya, which was recovered at his instance. The chain of
statements recorded by the trial court clearly establishes the
involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence.
Upon a holistic consideration of the evidence on record, it stands
established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
a homicidal act resulting in the death of the deceased, Kirit. The
prosecution has thus proved that the death was homicidal in
nature, for which the appellant was convicted by the learned trial
court under Section 302 IPC.
19. It is well settled that merely because motive is neither
alleged nor proved, the same would ipso facto not affect the
prosecution case. Thus, we do not see any glaring illegality or
perversity in the findings of guilt of the accused recorded by the
learned trial court.
20. Now, the only question survives for consideration of this
Court is whether the offence committed by the appellant could be
brought down from the murder to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder so as to alter his conviction from offence
under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC.
21. It is also significant to note that the appellant and the
deceased were strangers to each other, with no prior enmity,
conflict, or history of disputes. The incident appears to have arisen
out of a sudden scuffle rather than any prearranged plan. The
minor verbal altercation over the consumption of liquor in a public
park is trivial and does not suggest a deliberate plan or intent to
kill. No evidence indicates that the appellant harbored any
animosity, grudge, or reason to commit murder against the
deceased. The lack of prior hostility further supports the
conclusion that the act, though fatal, was not committed with the
deliberate intention to cause death.
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
22. The Apex Court in the case of Stalin Vs. State
represented by Inspector of Police, [(2020), 9 SCC 524],
while altering conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304
Part-I IPC, observed as under:-
"7.2. ..........It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The nature of injury,
the part of the body where it was caused, the
weapon used in causing such injury were the
indicators of the fact whether the Accused caused
the death of the deceased with an intention of
causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a
Rule of universal application that whenever the
death occurs on account of a single blow, Section
302 Indian Penal Code was ruled out. The fact
situation had to be considered in each case, more
particularly, under the circumstances, the events
which precede would also have a bearing on the
issue whether the act by which the death was
caused was done with an intention of causing death
or knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but
without intention to cause death. It was the totality
of the circumstances which will decide the nature of
offence."
23. In the present case, the incident occurred on 10.10.2013,
and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 14.10.2013, i.e.,
after a lapse of four days from the date of occurrence. In
somewhat similar circumstances, where the deceased died three
days after the incident, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in
Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2025 INSC 47],
observed as under:
"90. .......What is also observable is that he did not
succumb to the injuries immediately and he died on
the third day of the incident.
It is also noticeable that the circumstances under
which the assault took place and the reason for
causing the injuries by the appellants and the motive
behind their assault has not come out clearly. Even
the sole eye witness, Lata Bai (PW-10), the mother of
the deceased testified that her son was having visiting
terms with the accused persons as they were residing
in the same locality and she cannot tell why the
quarrel occurred suddenly. It has not been
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
established clearly that it was premeditated and the
assault was preplanned with the intention to kill the
deceased. Any prior enmity between the appellants
and the deceased has not been established. Thus, the
motive for committing the crime has not been clearly
established and proved.
91. However, it is established beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellants had caused the death of
the deceased fully knowing that the bodily injuries
caused by the appellants were likely to cause death
as the appellants were armed with deadly weapons,
we are inclined to convert the conviction of the
appellants from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section
304 Page 62 of 63 IPC. Accordingly, we convict the
appellants under Part I of Section 304 IPC."
24. In light of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case
as well as after appreciation of the evidence brought on record,
this Court feels appropriate to interfere in the final decision arrived
at by the learned trial court to the extent of altering the conviction
of accused-appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I
IPC.
25. In view of the overall discussion of the evidence adduced by
the prosecution and the observations made herein above, we hold
that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not
just and proper and therefore, the findings of the learned trial
Court, to this extent, deserve to be quashed and set aside. Hence,
the conviction of the appellant Karan Singh is altered from Section
302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC.
26. In the present case, the occurrence dates back to the year
2013. At the time of the incident, the appellant was approximately
19 years of age and was a first-time offender. He has remained in
judicial custody since his arrest and has already undergone
incarceration for a period exceeding 12 years. Having regard to
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:1946-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLA-757/2017]
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be
adequately served by reducing the sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone.
27. In view of the discussion made herein above, the period of
sentence awarded to the accused-appellant deserves to be
reduced to the period already undergone by him, which is more
than 12 years, which in the firm opinion of this Court, is sufficient
to meet the ends of justice in the peculiar circumstances of this
case.
28. Accordingly, the instant appeal is party allowed. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated
26.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Barmer in Sessions Case No.16/2016 (102/2013) is modified to
the extent that the conviction of the appellant Karan Singh under
Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted under
Section 304 Part-I IPC. The period of sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone by him. He be released forthwith if not
warranted in any other case.
29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
30. Record be sent back forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
99-T.Singh/-
(Uploaded on 14/01/2026 at 03:27:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
