1. Fatal stabbing during sudden quarrel over wage demand — Conviction under Section 302 IPC challenged on appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 30 , 31 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, JJ.
Ravi Kumar S/o Satnaam – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 167 of 2023
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Pritam Solanki, Arunoday Inkeshwar
For the Respondent: Sharwan Sing Rathore
For the Appellants : Pritam Solanki, Arunoday Inkeshwar
For the Respondent: Sharwan Sing Rathore
When death is caused during a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion without premeditation or undue advantage, it falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, altering the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300, 302 and 304 - Culpable homicide vs. Murder - Exception 4 to Section 300 - Death caused without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner - Such an act does not amount to murder but falls under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Paras 39-41)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 Part-II - Intention vs. Knowledge - Where the intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is not established, but the accused had knowledge that the act committed was likely to cause death, the offence is covered under Section 304 Part-II. (Para 42)
Facts of the case:
The accused and the deceased were residing together in a rented room. A spontaneous quarrel broke out between them over the payment of wages. During the altercation and in the heat of passion, the accused used a knife available in the room to inflict two stab wounds upon the deceased. The deceased died subsequently due to septicemia resulting from intestinal perforation. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
The evidence indicates that the incident occurred without premeditation during a sudden fight over a monetary dispute. The accused did not abscond and provided assistance for the medical treatment of the injured. While the medical evidence established a direct chain of causation between the injuries and death, the circumstances did not demonstrate a pre-determined intention to murder.
Issues: Whether the act of the accused constitutes murder punishable under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the incident occurred upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation and without the accused taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner, it satisfies the ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. In the absence of proof of intention to cause death, but in the presence of knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, the conviction is appropriately altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argues lack of intention, unexplained FIR delay, questionable witnesses, and improper recoveries; prosecution asserts eyewitness testimony, dying declaration, and medical evidence prove murder. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
3. Incident occurred spontaneously without premeditation over wage dispute; injuries fatal but no intent to kill established; knowledge of likely death attributed. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 )
4. Offence falls under Section 304 Part-II when intention to cause death is absent but knowledge of likely death exists, especially in sudden quarrel. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
5. Appeal partly allowed; conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC, sentence reduced to period already undergone, appellant released. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 )
6. When does culpable homicide not amounting to murder apply under Section 304 IPC?
When the accused had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death but lacked the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence falls under Section 304 Part-II. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
7. What constitutes the exception of sudden fight under Section 300 IPC?
Death caused without premeditation in a sudden fight, in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel, without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, falls within Exception 4 and not murder. (Para 39 )
8. Can delay in lodging FIR be excused when family prioritizes medical treatment?
Yes, delay is satisfactorily explained when the injured was taken for treatment and family's paramount concern was saving his life, rendering the delay not fatal to prosecution case. (Para 21 )
9. Is a single reliable eyewitness sufficient to sustain conviction?
Yes, under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required; the testimony of a single credible witness can sustain conviction. (Para 23 )
10. What is the legal effect of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with corroborative FSL report?
Recovery of a weapon pursuant to disclosure statement under Section 27, supported by FSL report confirming human blood, corroborates prosecution evidence and strengthens the case. (Para 26 )
JUDGMENT :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the accused–appellant Ravi Kumar son of Shri Satnaam, assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 23.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 26/2017 ( State vs. Ravi Kumar ) whereby the accused–appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six month’s simple imprisonment.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that on 18.06.2017, the complainant Deepak Singh submitted a written report (Exhibit P-9) at Police Station Suratgarh, stating therein that his uncle’s son, Sunny, son of Charan Singh, had come to Suratgarh from Sirsa approximately 9–10 days prior for the purpose of employment, along with Raju, Jayram, and Ravi. All four were residing together in a rented room situated in Ward No. 8, RIICO Area, Suratgarh. It was alleged that on 14.06.2017 at about 10:00 p.m., Ravi Kumar had a quarrel with Sunny Singh and, in the course of the altercation, inflicted two knife blows upon him, causing grievous injuries. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital at Suratgarh, from where he was referred to Bikaner for further treatment. However, on 17.06.2017 at about 8:00 p.m., Sunny Singh succumbed to his injuries during treatment at the hospital in Bikaner. It was specifically alleged that Ravi Kumar assaulted Sunny Singh with the intention to cause fatal injuries, which ultimately resulted in his death.
3. On the basis of the of the written report (Ex.P-9), a formal First Information Report bearing No. 304/2017 (Ex.P-10) came to be registered at Police Station Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar, against the accused–appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 302 IPC.
5. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges under Section 302 of IPC to the accused-appellant, who denied the charges and sought trial.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-35.
7. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him, stating that the prosecution witnesses had deposed falsely and he is innocent. The accused–appellant produced documentary evidence as Exhibits D-2 and Exhibits D-3.
8. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid vide its judgment dated 23.01.2023.
9. Hence the present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge are contrary to the settled principles of law as well as the facts and evidence available on record, and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside.
11. He further submitted that the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its true and proper perspective and has erroneously convicted the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The findings recorded by the court below are perverse, arbitrary, and not supported by cogent evidence.
12. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction is primarily based upon the statements of alleged eye-witnesses PW-5 Jayram and PW-7 Rajaram, who projected themselves as eye-witnesses to the incident. However, a bare reading of their testimonies re
