SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 10842

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Vinit Kumar Mathur, Chandra Shekhar Sharma, JJ
Sapura – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 550/2015



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shambhoo Singh, Chain Singh Rathore, Ayushi Rathore
For the Respondents: Rajesh Bhati

A single stab wound to a vital organ, executed with a lethal weapon and motivated by prior enmity, establishes clear intent for murder under Section 302 IPC, precluding a downgrade to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Conviction - Appeal against - Prosecution successfully established chain of circumstances, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence of homicidal death, and recovery of blood-stained weapon matching the deceased's blood group - Presence of motive rooted in revenge confirmed by utterances at the scene - Plea for reduction to Part I of Section 304 rejected as the intentional use of a lethal weapon on a vital organ (chest) evidenced a clear intent to cause fatal injury rather than a spontaneous act. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 35, 36)

Facts of the case:
Appellant was convicted for the murder of the victim, who was stabbed once in the chest while waiting for transport. The prosecution alleged the act was motivated by revenge for a prior family death. The appellant challenged the conviction citing contradictions in police reports, lack of blood at the scene, and disputed weapon recovery.

Findings of Court:
The Court held the prosecution evidence consistent and credible. Minor discrepancies in the reporting process were attributed to the rural background of the complainant. Evidence regarding the recovered knife and FSL report linking the blood group confirmed the appellant's identity and intent.

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 was sustainable or whether the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I.

Ratio Decidendi: The intentional infliction of a single stab wound to a vital organ (the chest) with a deadly weapon, motivated by prior enmity/revenge, establishes an intention to kill, excluding the benefit of a reduced charge under Section 304 Part I. Result : Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and overview of prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. summary of defense arguments challenging evidence reliability. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. evaluation of ocular, medical, and scientific evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. analysis of intent and rejection of sentencing mitigation. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

BY THE COURT: (PER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)

1. Date of conclusion of argument 06.04.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 06.04.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full Judgment
4. Date of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

1. The instant D.B. Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 16.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 04/2014, whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo five months’ simple imprisonment.

2. As per the prosecution case, the proceedings were set into motion on the basis of the First Information Report (Ex.P.1) lodged by PW-1 Batiya Ram subsequent to the incident. In the said report, the informant - Batiya Ram (PW-1) stated that on 18.10.2013, he along with his younger brother Sohan @ Poya (Deceased) and Malaram (Brother-in-law) had gone to the market. After completing their work, at about 1:00 PM, they were standing on the road near Prajapat Mohalla awaiting for a jeep to return home. At that time, Sohan @ Poya went towards Prajapat Mohalla to urinate, whereupon the accused-appellant Sapura allegedly caught hold of his Neck with his left hand and inflicted a knife blow on the left side of his chest with his right hand. Upon hearing the cries of Sohan @ Poya, the informant and others rushed towards the spot, whereafter the accused-appellant fled away from the place of occurrence, While fleeing from the place of occurrence, the accused-appellant was shouting that he had taken revenge for the death of his sister, who had died in a jeep accident during the Kagwas fair. It was further stated that Sohan @ Poya succumbed to his injuries while being taken to the hospital.

3. On the basis of the said written report (Ex.P.1), a formal FIR No. 118/2013 (Ex.P.13) was registered at Police Station Kotra, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was commenced.

4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kotra, Udaipur from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Kotra, Udaipur and from there the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur for trial.

5. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed, read over and explained the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to the accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, exhibited documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16, in support of its case; whereafter the prosecution evidence was closed.

7. After the prosecution evidence was concluded, the accused–appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the allegations, claimed false implication due to ulterior motives, and asserted his innocence. No evidence in defence was led by the accused-appellant.

8. The learned trial court after hearing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top