Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad, JJ.
Rajendra Yadav alias Rajendra Prasad Yadav, son of Tetru Yadav - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 4 of 1998(P), Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 64 of 1998(P)
Decided On : 12-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

When a fatal assault occurs during a sudden altercation without premeditation, and injuries are not inflicted upon vital organs (negating specific intent to kill), the offense is categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II rather than murder.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300, 299, 302, 304 Part II - Culpable homicide versus murder - Distinction between intention and knowledge - When an act results in death without premeditation, and evidence suggests an absence of specific intent to inflict fatal injuries on vital parts, the offense falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. - The court must discern whether the action was motivated by a specific intent to kill or by a guilty knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. (Paras 36, 41, 48)

(B) Appellate Review - Alteration of conviction - Absence of premeditation - In cases arising from sudden quarrels regarding land usage where weapons used are non-lethal, the assessment of culpability shifts from murder to culpable homicide when specific intent to kill cannot be inferred. (Paras 63, 64, 69)

Facts of the case:
A dispute over agricultural land occurred during ploughing, leading to a confrontation between the victim and a group of individuals. An argument escalated into a physical altercation involving the use of blunt weapons. The victim sustained injuries to his limbs and back, and subsequently succumbed to these injuries while receiving medical treatment.

Findings of Court:
The evidence indicated a lack of pre-planned motive or intent to cause the death of the victim. The court observed that the nature of the injuries and the body parts targeted demonstrated an absence of the specific mens rea required for murder. Therefore, the offense fell within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the relevant provisions.

Issues: Whether the offense constitutes murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Code, or should be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II.

Ratio Decidendi: Intention and knowledge are distinct legal concepts. Where an act resulting in death is not premeditated and occurs during a sudden quarrel, and injuries are directed at non-vital areas, the court should conclude that there was guilty knowledge without the specific intent to kill, thereby warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II.

Result: Appeal dismissed with modification of conviction to Section 304 Part II; imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution case and trial conviction outcomes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. contentions regarding evidence weight, interest of witnesses, and nature of assault. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. examination of depositions and current status of case following deaths of primary convicts. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. distinction between murder (section 300) and culpable homicide (section 299/304 ipc). (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
5. evaluating intent and premeditation based on nature of weapon and injury location. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
6. non-premeditated acts involving lathis fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder (sec 304 pt ii). (Para 68 , 69)
7. modification of sentence to time already served and discharge from criminal liability. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 19.12.1997 and order of sentence dated 22.12.1997 passed by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Trial No.216 of 1996 / 146 of 1996 by which the appellants have been convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that appellant Deoghari Raut in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 4 of 1998(P) died during the pendency of the instant appeal and, as such, the appeal qua Deoghari Raut was abated by order dated 21.03.2025, passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court.

3. Further, on perusal of counter affidavit dated 28.02.2025, filed by the respondent, wherein it has been stated that appellant Tetru Yadav in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 64 of 1998(P) has died during the pendency of his appeal. Hence, the appeal qua Tetru Yadav, stands abated.

Factual Matrix

4. The prosecution case was instituted on the fardbayan of the informant Ram Krishna Yadav (P.W.-10) son of Nar Singh Yadav of village Mal Pakariya, P.S Godda(T), District-Godda recorded on 11.06.1996 at about 11.15 hrs., at Sadar Hospital, Godda.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the ferdbeyan of the informant Ram Krishna Yadav (P.W.-10 ) is that on 11.06.1996 at about 5.30 AM, in the morning, informant’s cousin brother (chachera bhai) Ram Prasad Manjhi (deceased) resident of village Ghat Pakariya, P.S Godda(T), had gone for ploughing his field, situated at north of the village Ghat Pakariya near Hathha Bandh and at that time informant had also gone to towards Hathha Bandh, to see his farm.

6. Informant further stated that in the meantime, accused persons Rajendra Yadav, Devo Yadav, Mitti Yadav, Fanishwar Yadav, Babulal Yadav, Mahendra Yadav, Tetru Yadav, Hardev Yadav, Deoghari Raut armed with lathi, bhala etc. came to the place where his cousin brother Ram Prasad Manjhi was ploughing the field and restrained him from ploughing the field.

7. Informant has further stated that accused Rajendra Yadav and Devo Yadav opened the plough and oxen and said that the land belonged to them and they will not allow him to plough the field to which his cousin brother Ram Prasad Manjhi protested.

8. Then, accused Deoghari Raut exhorted to assault, then, Babulal Yadav and Mitti Yadav, caught hold Ram Prasad Manjhi and Hardev Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and Tetru Yadav assaulted Ram Prasad Manjhi, with lathi as a result both of his legs were broken and he sustained injuries on his back, left temporal and thereafter, Ram Prasad Manjhi fell down and became unconscious.

9. Informant raised halla and on his halla, villager Bharda Yadav (P.W.-7), Suren Yadav (P.W.-8), Sharif Yadav (P.W.-9) and others came running there and saw the attack.

10. Informant further stated that he along with Jai Kishore Yadav (P.W.-4) and Vishnu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 616

When a fatal assault occurs during a sudden altercation without premeditation, and injuries are not inflicted upon vital organs (negating specific intent to kill), the offense is categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II rather than murder.

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis