When a homicide occurs in the heat of a spur-of-the-moment fight between parties with no prior enmity, following a dispute over property, the absence of premeditation and uncertainty regarding the fatal nature of the blow may lead the court to alter a conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Judgment

16/04/2026

PER HON’BLE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the status report dated 14.04.2026 furnished by SHO, Police Station, Baran Sadar, District Baran which is taken on record.

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.08.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.304/2016 CIS No.293/2016 whereby, the accused-appellant (for short, ‘appellant’) has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-; in default whereof, six months’ additional simple imprisonment.

Section 452 IPC:- Five years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default whereof, two months’ additional simple imprisonment.

Both the sentences to run concurrently.

The relevant facts in nutshell are that based on the parcha bayan of Mukesh Kumar (PW14) made at about 12:30 pm on 03.08.2013 in the emergency ward, Maharao Bhimsingh Hospital, Kota, an FIR No.217 dated 03.08.2013 came to be registered at Police Station Baran Sadar, District Baran for the offences under Sections 452, 308, 323/34 IPC. It was alleged therein that at about 8:00 pm on 02.08.2013, the appellant came with a sword and inflicted multiple blows on the person of his brother-Rajendra including his head. It was averred that upon hearing scuffle, Rakesh, Banshi Lal and Kanhaiya Lal, armed with lathies and gandasi- a sharp edged curved instrument, also came and they also inflicted injuries to Rajendra. It was further alleged that he was also hit with a lathi by Rakesh. During the course of investigation, Rajendra expired. After investigation, the appellant, along with co-accused Kanhaiya Lal and Banshi Lal, was charge-sheeted under Sections 452, 308, 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC whereunder, charges were also framed. After trial, while, co-accused Kanhaiya Lal and Banshi Lal were acquitted of the charges framed against them, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.

Assailing the impugned judgement, learned counsel for the appellant, inviting attention of this Court towards the parcha bayan (Ex.P4) made by the injured eye witness-Mukesh Kumar, submitted that though, it contained allegations of infliction of multiple blows to the deceased by him as also by three other co-accused person; he, however, in his examination-in-chief as PW14, changing the story, stated that since he was wrongfully confined in a room by the accused, he was unaware as to who had beaten his brother after infliction of 2-3 injuries by the appellant. But, as per the postmortem report of the body of the deceased (Ex.P11), only four injuries were found. He contended that as per the medical opinion, cause of death was head injury but, Smt. Chhaya (PW3)- an eye witness and wife of the deceased, has attributed the head injury to the appellant with a sword as also to Kanhaiya Lal with the gandasi. He submitted that it is established from the evidence on record that in the scuffle, he has also received injuries turning out it to be a case of free fight. Learned counsel canvassed that from the prosecution evidence, it was not established that he had trespassed in the house of deceased Rajendra armed with a deadly weapon with an intention to cause his death; rather, the incident occurred on spur of the moment on account of falling of a common wall in between the houses of the parties. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel would contend that the case would not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-I IPC and therefore, his conviction is liable to be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC and since, he has already served the sentence of more than 15 years including remission, the substantive sentence may be reduced to the period already