Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2426

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, JJ.
Babu Lal Meena, S/o. Shri Jhiguria – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1226 of 2017 Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1024 of 2017
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.S. Bagadia
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal

The court ruled that the evidence did not support a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, leading to a reclassification to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I due to lack of intent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302, and 304 - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and assault - Appellant Babulal altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I due to lack of intent to kill, with a finding of culpable homicide - Ramjilal's sentence for minor assault reduced to time already served. (Paras 22, 23, 40-42)

(B) Evidence - Necessity of proving intent in murder charges - Court emphasized that a single blow's nature did not establish sole causation of death - Insights into the absence of prior enmity inform assessment of intent. (Paras 28, 34)

(C) Sentencing - Court found that time served for minor offences could suffice for justice in less severe incidents. (Paras 43)

Facts of the case:
The case revolves around a violent incident occurring on 26.07.2008 that resulted in the death of Bhanwar, allegedly caused by multiple axe blows from Babulal and Ramjilal during a spontaneous altercation. (Paras 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
Babulal's conviction was deemed excessive under Section 302 IPC; evidence suggested alternative culpability but not murder. Ramjilal’s minor sentencing was deemed excessive given time already served. (Paras 31-34)

Issues: The court addressed the primary question of whether intent to murder could be established and the appropriate classification of culpability based on evidential outcomes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found intent crucial for murder conviction, suggesting Babulal's actions fell under culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I, particularly citing the nature of the assault, absence of premeditation, and the spontaneous nature of the incident. (Paras 33, 36)

Result: Appeals partly allowed; Babulal’s conviction altered to Section 304, sentence reduced to time served; Ramjilal’s sentence adjusted accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

These criminal appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 19.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli (for short “the Learned Trial Court”). in sessions case No.32/2012 (40/2009) whereby, while acquitting the accused- appellant Babu Lal Meena for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and accused-appellant Ramji Lal for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of , they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Accused-appellant Babulal:-

(i). Under Section 323 IPC :- One year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default thereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment.

(ii). Under Section 302 IPC :- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-; in default thereof, one year’s additional simple imprisonment.

The sentences to run concurrently.

Accused-appellant Ramjilal:-

(i). Under Section 323 IPC :- One year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default thereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment.

The relevant facts in brief are that based on the parcha bayan of injured Manroop dated 27.07.2008, an FIR No.132/2008 came to be registered at Police Station Mandrayal, District Karauli for the offence under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 307 and 302 of IPC against the accused-appellants and co-accused persons. It was alleged therein that in the night of 26.07.2008 at about 11:00 PM, when Karan Singh- his brother was on way to his home, appellant-Babulal has beaten him and when persons from their side arrived at the spot, the appellant and their family members, armed with deadly weapons, attacked them. It was further alleged that the appellant Babulal inflicted an axe-blow on the head of Bhanwar S/o Motilal with an intent to cause his death. During the course of treatment, Bhanwar expired. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused persons. Charge for the offence under Sections 148 , 323 and 302 of was framed against the appellant Babulal whereas, against appellant Ramjilal, charge under , 302/149 and 323 of was framed. The appellants pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, they have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 19.05.2017, as stated hereinabove.

Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant Babulal under Section 302 of IPC . He submits that even if the prosecution case is taken to be true on its face value, the offence does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part I of . Inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of the prosecution witnesses including S/Shri Devi Singh (PW-3), Dhan Singh (PW-4), Karan Singh (PW-7) and Manroop (PW-13), he would submit that all of them have stated in unison that Babulal inflicted a single axe-blow with its reverse side on the head of the deceased Bhanwar. He further submits that the witnesses have also deposed that the co-accused Ramjilal also inflicted an axe-blow on the head of the deceased Bhanwar. He, referring to the cross-examination of Dr. Dashrath Singh (PW-9) dated 06.12.2014, would submit that therein, he has stated that the injury No.1 on the head of the deceased Bhanwar Meena could be a result of two blows; one from front side and another from lateral side. Learned counsel submits that it corroborates the prosecution story of two separate and independent axe blows on the head of the deceased Bhanwar Singh; one by the appellant Babulal and another by the appellant Ramjilal whereas, the learned trial Court has convicted only Babulal for the offence under of . Learned counsel submits that there is no evidence available on record to support the conclusion that the blow only by Babulal resulted into death of Sh. Bhanwar Singh and the blow by Ramjilal did not contribute to it in any manner. He further submits that even as per the prosecution case, there was no