The absence of premeditation and motive led to the appellant's conviction being altered from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC.

ORDER :

1. All the aforesaid matters, have arisen out of the common judgment dated 06.08.2016, passed by learned Addl. District Judge No.3, Bikaner, in Session Case No.47/2012 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the accused Vijay Pal from offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- & in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s RI and acquitted the accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram and Balwant from the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 IPC.

2. Criminal Appeal No.764/2016 filed by accused Vijay Pal against his conviction. Whereas, Criminal Appeals No.855/2016 and 242/2018 filed by the complainant as well as State against acquittal of the respondents-Satpal, Bhupram and Balwant.

3. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 08.05.2010, complainant Omprakash (PW/1) submitted a written report at Police Station Chhatargarh, to the effect that on hearing commotion and cries raised by his father, he along with Rajiram proceeded to the vicinity of one Brijlal Bishnoi. There, they observed the accused persons assaulting his father. Specifically, the accused-Vijaypal strangling his father’s neck, while the other accused were physically assaulting him. On raising hue and cry, the accused persons fled the scene. Due to the strangulation, his father succumbed his injuries.

4. On the said report, Police registered the FIR No.60/2010 and started investigation. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused Vijay Pal for offences under Sections 302 , 201 R/w 34 of IPC. Subsequently, on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by complainant Omprakash, upon which cognizance has taken against rest of accused and charges for offence under Sections 302 or 302/34 IPC were framed against them. They denied the charges and sought trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case.

6. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, three witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited.

7. 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 06.08.2016 acquitted the accused Satpal, Bhupram and Balwant from the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC, however, convicted and sentenced accused Vijay Pal for the offence under Section 302 IPC as aforesaid. Hence, the State and the complainant are challenging the acquittal of the accused Satpal, Bhupram & Balwant and accused Vijay Pal is challenging his conviction.

8. Learned counsel representing the accused Vijay Pal, as well as counsel for the accused respondents- Satpal, Bhupram, and Balwant have jointly submitted that there exists no discernible motive for the alleged offence. It was argued that the prosecution's claim in respect of the motive that four months prior to the incident, a quarrel occurred between the parties which was later on resolved through compromise, therefore, it is insufficient to establish any motive. They contend that PW/1 Omprakash and PW/5 Rajiram are not eyewitnesses to the incident in question; rather, they have falsely been implicated by the prosecution. Furthermore, the counsel submitted that, according to PW/1 Omprakash's statement, he explicitly stated that approximately 30 to 40 persons were present at the time of occurrance. He also clarified that he did not inform the police about the incident. There are significant contradictions between the testimonies of PW/1 Omprakash and PW/5 Rajiram. In light of these facts, counsel contended that the trial court has erred gravely in convicting the accused Vijay Pal of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, he may be acquitted from the said offence or in alternatively, he may be convicted for the of