[2026:RJ-JP:15620-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 112/2019 Ramesh Singh S/o Shri Jawahar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Guddi Kesharpura Ps Sendra Dist. Pali (At Present Appellant Petitioner Confined In Beawar Jail)

----Appellant/Accused Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shikha Parnami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Punia, PP Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta with Mr. Yashovardhan Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Judgment

15/04/2026 PER HON’BLE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dated

31.01.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Beawar, District Ajmer (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.20/2016 (18/2016) CIS No.20/16 whereby, the accused- appellant (for short, ‘appellant’) has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default whereof, four months’

additional simple imprisonment.

The relevant facts in nutshell are that the complainant-Gopal Singh (PW3) lodged a written report dated 25.03.2016 at about

9:25 pm with Police Station Jawaja, District Ajmer wherein, it was alleged that the appellant-his brother-in-law visited his house at about 6:00 pm on that very day armed with a stick and inflicted blows on the person of his father with an intention to kill him whereupon, his father fell unconscious and died later on. It was averred that while fleeing, the appellant fell down and received injuries. Based thereupon, an FIR No.53 dated 26.03.2016 came to be registered under Section 302 IPC. The police after investigation charge-sheeted the appellant under Section 302 IPC whereunder, charge was also framed against him. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as supra.

Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant, inviting attention of this Court towards the prosecution evidence, contended that it was an admitted position that there was no previous enmity between the parties and the appellant had visited his in-laws’ house to see his new born baby. She stated that in his arrest memo (Ex.P18) dated 27.03.2016, a number of injuries are reflected on his body which stand fortified from the injury report (Ex.P28) and the testimony of Dr. Sanjay Sharma (PW22) who has examined him. Learned counsel submitted that as per the injury report, he has received injuries on the occipital part of his head, neck, elbow of left as well as right hand with a complain of pain in left wrist. She argued that although, it was the prosecution case that he suffered these injuries while fleeing from the place of incident but, it did not stand corroborated from the site plan (Ex. P3). She submitted that in view thereof, it is apparent that the incident occurred on spur of the moment without any premeditation and the injuries on the person of Kalyan Singh (for short, ‘deceased’) came to be inflicted by him in exercise of his right of private defence. Further, referring to and relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P1) of the body of the deceased as also the statement of Dr. Pukhraj Chaudhary (PW1)-a Member of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy, learned counsel contended that no cause of death was specified creating a doubt that the deceased expired on account of injuries inflicted by him. She contended that even assuming that he exceeded in his right of private defence, the case would fall under Exception 2 of Section 300. She urged that in view thereof, the conviction be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC and since, the appellant has already remained in custody for a period of 11 years and 2 months, the substantive sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions, contended that the learned trial Court has recorded the finding of guilt of the appellant under Section