The court established that the incident constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of premeditation and provocation, rather than murder.

Judgment

Reserved on 13/08/2024 Pronounced on 27/08/2024 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. The instant D.B. Criminal Appeal No.7/1995 has been preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C . by the State claiming the following relief:

“It is further prayed that appeal filed by the State- appellant may kindly be allowed, acquittal order passed by the learned trial court dated 3.3.94 may kindly be quashed and set aside and accused respondents be convicted and sentenced according to law.”

1.1. The D.B. Criminal Appeal No.305/1994 has been preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C . by accused-Rai Singh claiming the following relief:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and accused appellant may be acquitted under section 304-Part-II/34 IPC and he be set at liberty.”

2. Since both the instant criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.1994 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Banshwara (‘Trial Court’), in Sessions Case No. 297/1992 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Rai Singh and Ors.), therefore, the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2.1. Vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused were sentenced as below:

Accused-respondent Raisingh:

Accused-respondent Indra Kunwar:

However, owing to her custody period of 02 years 08 months 01 day, as on the date of passing of the impugned judgment, she was released on the period already undergone by her as on the date of passing of the impugned judgment.

Accused-respondent Narendra Singh:

However, owing to his age i.e. 16-17 years, at the time of incident in question, the said accused was ordered to be released while granting him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 , subject to the condition of execution of a personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court to ensure that the said accused would keep peace for a period of three years and would not indulged himself in any crime again.

3. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being taken from above-numbered D.B. Criminal Appeal No.7/1995 filed by the appellant-State, while treating the same as a lead case.

4. As the record would reveal, on 22.10.1991 at around 2:30 p.m. one Kuriya (complainant) submitted a report (Ex.P/3) before the A.S.I. at Tamatiya Rathor stating that at around 9:00 a.m. on the said day, the complainant went to graze his cattle, and at that time, his brother was sitting under a Neem tree. As per the complainant, his field was adjacent to the fields of one Vijay Singh (deceased) and Raisingh. At the relevant time, the said Vijay Singh was ploughing his field; nearby the said field, accused persons, namely, Raisingh, Indrakunwar Singh and Narendra Singh were cutting Udad in their fields.

4.1. It was further stated in the report that Vijay Singh and accused-Raisingh had an enmity in connection with a certain land dispute, due to which accused persons, namely, Raisingh, Indrakunwar and Narendra Singh reached the field of Vijay Singh. At that time, accused-Raisingh and Indrakunwar were armed with swords and accused-Narendra Singh was carrying lathi; upon reaching the said field, the said three accused persons attacked Vijay Singh, as a result whereof, Vijay Singh fell on the ground; from the nearby field, Nihal Kunwar (wife of Vijay Singh) and Tarpat Singh (daughter of deceased) rushed to the rescue of Vijay Singh, whereupon the said accused persons gave beatings also to the persons who came to the rescue of Vijay Singh.

4.2. At that time, accused Raisingh and Indra Kunwar kept sitting armed with the swords at the place of the incident, creating a threatening situation, owing t