Conviction Altered from S.302 IPC (Murder) to S.304 Part-II IPC (Culpable Homicide) on Finding of Lack of Premeditation: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-04-27

Rajasthan High Court Alters Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide, Citing Lack of Premeditation

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has altered the conviction of a man previously found guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The court held that the crime was committed during a sudden fight without premeditation, rather than with the intention requisite for murder.

The judgment was delivered by Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. , in a criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant, Amarchand , challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar, on August 12, 2016. The trial court had sentenced Amarchand to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000 for the murder of his pregnant wife, Roshni Devi .

Case Background:

The case originated from a written report filed on May 20, 2014, by Jagmal Ram , the father of the deceased. He alleged that his pregnant daughter, Roshni Devi , was murdered (throttled to death) by her husband (the appellant, Amarchand ) and in-laws near their house, following an altercation. The accused-appellant subsequently presented himself at the police station. Investigation led to the filing of a chargesheet against Amarchand under Section 302 IPC, and the case was committed for trial.

During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence from 20 witnesses and several documents. The accused pleaded innocence during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court, after considering the evidence, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC.

Arguments Presented:

The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. A significant number of prosecution witnesses (10 out of 20) had turned hostile, weakening the 'last seen' theory. It was contended that the accused's statement to the police was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Furthermore, the recovery of a green 'Gamcha' based on the accused's information was argued to be unfruitful as the FSL report showed 'B' group blood on it, but the deceased's blood group was not verified. The postmortem report indicated asphyxiation due to throttling, and the counsel argued that if the Gamcha was used, it would have caused strangulation, not throttling. Lack of intention and the appellant having served about 10 years in custody were also highlighted.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, emphasizing that the location of the incident and the recovery of the Gamcha from the scene were based on the accused's information, admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution asserted a clear motive: the deceased refused the accused's demand to file a case against her father, as testified by PW.1 and PW.2. An extra-judicial confession was also relied upon, evident from the accused presenting himself at the police station and the content of Ex.P/38A. The discovery of the body based on the accused's information was presented as a strong circumstance supporting conviction.

Court's Analysis and Decision:

The High Court reviewed the entire record, including witness testimonies and documents. It acknowledged the initial report, the accused's surrender, and the evidence suggesting the accused committed the crime, including the recovery of the Gamcha and body based on his information. The court also noted the motive as stated by PW.1 and PW.2 and the accused's confession recorded in Ex.P/38A, where he stated he lost his temper and committed the act.

Crucially, the Court observed that while the prosecution established the commission of the act by the accused, the nature of the crime warranted re-evaluation. The Court found that the incident occurred without any premeditation and was a result of a sudden fight preceded by a sudden altercation . This aligns with Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC , which reduces murder to culpable homicide if the offence is committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without premeditation and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.

The Court concluded that the lack of prior preparation did not fulfill the essential ingredients of Section 300 IPC for murder. While the accused might have had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, the probability was not such as to demonstrate an intention to cause death, which is requisite for murder under Section 302 IPC. The incident fell within the definition of Culpable Homicide as provided under Section 299 IPC.

Considering the finding that the offence constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC (act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death), and noting that the appellant had already served approximately 10 years in custody, the High Court found the period already undergone to be sufficient punishment.

Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The appellant was ordered to be released subject to the deposition of the fine amount imposed by the trial court, provided his custody was not required in any other case.

The judgment underscores the critical distinction between murder and culpable homicide, particularly the role of premeditation, sudden provocation, and intention versus knowledge in determining the appropriate charge under the Indian Penal Code.