Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 7948
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali, JJ
Vikram Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 475/1995
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Anjali Kaushik for Mr. S.K. Verma
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor
The court modified the appellant's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, citing lack of intent and the sudden nature of the incident.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 452 - Conviction of appellant-accused for murder and house trespass - Appellant claimed alibi and lack of motive - Trial Court convicted based on witness testimonies and weapon recovery - Court found evidence insufficient for murder conviction under Section 302, modified to Section 304 Part I - Sentenced to 10 years RI with fine. (Paras 34, 38)
(B) Evidence - Witness credibility - Court upheld testimonies of family members of victim despite being interested witnesses - Medical evidence corroborated witness statements regarding cause of death. (Paras 26, 29)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-accused was convicted for murdering Amar Singh during a quarrel over loud music during a festival, using a spear as a weapon. The incident arose from a dispute regarding the volume of a tape recorder during Holi celebrations. (Paras 1, 2, 20)
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the appellant acted in anger, the intention to kill was not established, leading to a conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. (Paras 36, 38)
Issues: The primary issues included whether the appellant had the intention to kill and whether the charge under Section 302 IPC was justified given the circumstances of the incident. (Paras 14, 31)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's actions were impulsive and did not constitute premeditated murder, aligning with the principles outlined in Exception IV of Section 300 IPC. (Paras 34, 36)
Result: The appeal is allowed in part; conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on witness testimonies and circumstances of the incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 20) |
| 2. arguments regarding the appellant's alibi and lack of motive. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's evaluation of evidence and witness credibility. (Para 13 , 15 , 26 , 28) |
| 4. application of legal principles regarding culpable homicide. (Para 34 , 36) |
| 5. final decision modifying the conviction and sentencing. (Para 38 , 40) |
Judgment
Judgment reserved on : 25 / 03 /202 5 Judgment pronounced on : 23 / 04 /20 25 [Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali] :
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused Vikram Singh under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the impugned judgment & sentence dated 30.10.1995, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Churu Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in Sessions Case No.113/1992, vide which the appellant-accused was convicted for the offences under Sections
302 & 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:-
Offence
Sentence
Fine
302 IPC
Life imprisonment
Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s S.I.
452 IPC
One year’s rigorous imprisonment
-
Both the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.1991 Sawai Singh gave his statement before the Chief Constable Satveer Singh to the effect that on 27.02.1991 at about 10:00 pm he was going to the shop of Ramu Ji from his house. His elder brother Amar Singh and younger sister Maina were present there at his house. On the way he met with Kishan Singh who took him to his house where Tara Singh, the father of Vikram Singh has asked him that on the festival of Holi do not indulge in quarrel. After sometime Pratap Singh came to him who told him that some quarrel took place at his house and when he rushed to the home he saw that his brother Amar Singh was lying on the ground and the blood was oozing from his head and his sister was crying who told him that Vikram Singh, Swaroop Singh, Mohan Singh and Uman Singh armed with Barchhi, rifle and lathi entered into their house and Vikram Singh hit on the head of Amar Singh with Barchhi and due to which Amar Singh fell down on the ground. She also stated that at the time of incident Tulchharam and Chandra Singh were also present there and on intervening by them accused Vikram Singh along with other three accused persons left the house.
Thereafter they took the injured Amar Singh to Biwasar on tractor. Accused Vikram Singh with the intention to commit murder assaulted his brother Amar Singh on head who received head injury and therefore, his brother was unconscious.
3. On the aforesaid complaint, an FIR bearing No.24/1991 for the offences under Sections 452, 307, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the accused persons at the Police Station Chhapar, District – Churu and the investigation commenced.
4. As per the story of the prosecution Ginad (a program on the festival of Holi) was going on in front of Mohan Singh's house, as it was used to organised every year. Deceased Amar Singh and other persons were playing the radio/tape recorder in a high volume at Amar Singh's house. Some persons went to Amar Singh's house and asked him to lower down the volume of the radio/tape recorder then someone hit Amar Singh on the head due the injuries received on head Amar Singh died and a case for the offences under Sections 302 & 452 of the IPC was registered against the accused persons.
5. The charges for the offences under Sections 302 & 452 of the IPC were framed against the accused persons to which they denied and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-16 and exhibited 36 documents i.e.
Ex.-P/1 to Ex.-P/36.
7. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C . In his defence he got examined 4 witnesses i.e. DW-1 to DW-4 and e
