2026:UHC:4879- DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 92 of 2024

Vicky alias Mangal Singh …… Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand ……Respondent

Presence:

Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.

Rajat Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Harshpal

Sekhon, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned D.A.G. for the State.

Reserved on : 09 .06.2026

Delivered on : 16

.06.2026

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)

This Criminal Jail Appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and order dated 23.10.2024, passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No.130 of

2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vicky alias Mangal Singh by means

of which, the accused/appellant Vicky alias Mangal Singh has been

convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In

short, “IPC”) and has been punished with imprisonment for life and

also with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in case of default in payment of

fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2

2. Present appeal emanates out of FIR, which has been

registered at Police Station Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar on

18.03.2021 as FIR No. 0100 of 2021 under Section 302 of IPC with

the allegations that the father of the informant, namely, Mohd. Rafi

and the family work in Rana Farm and reside there. Yesterday

evening at around 9:30, our neighbour Vicky son of Shankar Singh

injured my father by hitting by danda, who died in Haldwani

hospital at 12:00 O’clock at night. All the members of our family

had gone to attend the marriage in Manpur Swar. Vicky has

murdered my father. Report be lodged against him and action be

taken. The said FIR was entered in the Thana vide GD entry No. 025

dated 18.03.2021 at 11:40.

3. Medical Examination Report dated 17.03.2021 reveals

that just after the incident aforesaid, Mohd. Rafi, who had sustained

certain injuries was rushed to CHC Bajpur, District Udham Singh

Nagar and the medical examination was conducted at 9:00 p.m. on

17.03.2021 which records the history of fall over rock. The injuries

noted in the medical examination report are- (i) Laceration (L) side of

forehead about 10cm-15 cm long & 01 cm- 02 cm deep, (ii) Swelling

over centre of forehead, (iii) Black eye (R) and (L) and (iv) Contusion

(04 cm.-05 cm dia) over (L) parietal region and the opinion was

injuries are probably caused due to hard and blunt object.

4. The inquest report/panchayatnama was prepared on

18.03.2021 and as per the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the

death of Mohd. Rafi was caused due to the injuries sustained on the

body. It is also pertinent to mention that in the description of the

inquest report, it has inter alia been mentioned that the deceased

was employed as driver of Tractor in Rana Farm, Bazpur for last 3-4

years and in the evening of 17.03.2021, he was in the farm at

3

around 7:30 and sustained injuries on account of falling on rock

and he had consumed liquor.

5. The post-mortem of Mohd. Rafi was conducted at 12:30

p.m. on 18.03.2021. The post-mortem report mentions the following

injuries on the body of the deceased- (i) Lacerated wound of size

3x1.5cm x scalp deep with contused swelling noted over left side of

forehead 2cm above left eyebrow, (ii) Reddish abrasion of size

3x2cm, 2x1cm noted over left side of forehead, (iii) Black eye on both

side noted, (iv) Reddish abrasion of size 2x1cm, 1x1cm noted over

front of upper chest on left side, (v) Reddish abrasions of size

2x1cm, 1x1cm, 1x1cm, 4x1cm noted over posterior aspect of back

on left side and (vi) Reddish abrasion of size 2x1cm noted just above

left knee. All injuries are ante mortem in nature.

6. As per the opinion of the Doctor Chandra Prakash

Bhansora, Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, GMC

Haldwani, the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage due

to described head injuries sustained due to blunt impact force to

head and the probably time elapsed between death and post-mortem

was stated to be 12 to 24 hrs.

7. Following the registration of the FIR on 18.03.2021, the

accused/appellant was arrested on 19.03.2021 at 2:00 p.m. and the

information was sent to his wife Smt. Mandeep Kaur vide arrest

information memo dated 19.03.2021. On the said date, he also

made confession before the police wherein he confessed that Mohd.

Rafi used to entertain a grudge against him and had been

threatening him that he would get him ousted from the farm. On

17.03.2021, the entire family of Mohd. Rafi had gone to Manpur,

Rampur (U.P.) to attend a marriage ceremony. Mohd. Rafi had

4

consumed liquor and was abusing and threatening him, which

could not be tolerated by him. Mohd. Rafi came out of his room and

was standing on the path and challenging him. Some persons

intervened between the two but Mohd. Rafi again started abusing

him. Mohd. Rafi was highly intoxicated. He picked up a thick

popular danda and gave a powerful blow on the head of Mohd. Rafi,

due to which, Mohd. Rafi fell unconscious and blood started oozing

out from his nose, mouth and head. He was seen hitting Mohd. Rafi

by his wife and many other persons and scolded him but by that

time it was too late. He has thrown the danda used in the incident

in the western direction of his room in Rana Farm which he can get

recovered. Two passersby on a motorcycle were requested to take

the injured Mohd. Rafi to hospital and they got ready for that and

injured Mohd. Rafi was taken to doctor. T he doctor stated the

condition of Mohd. Rafi to be serious and advised to take somewhere

else. He called the Munshi of the farm Banwari Lal and Banwari’s

son Shivam picked up the phone and he told Shivam that Mohd.

Rafi has got injured being intoxicated and having fallen on a rock

and to come immediately to Bengali Doctor, Bajpur and from there

he and Shivam took Mohd. Rafi to Pandey Hospital Bajpur. Seeing

the condition of Mohd. Rafi, no doctor admitted him. Then Mohd.

Rafi was taken to Government Hospital Bajpur, where Medical

Officer bandaged Mohd. Rafi and referred to higher centre. Then

they reached Haldwani Hospital through 108 Ambulance where

Mohd. Rafi died around 12:00 O’clock. The said confessional

statement was recorded by the police on 19.03.2021.

8. On 19.03.2021 one thick wooden danda was recovered at

the pointing out of the accused/appellant and recovery memo was

prepared in the presence of the witnesses.

5

9. In the course of the investigation, the police also collected

blood stained soil and plain soil from the place of incident and a

memo was prepared. The site plan of the place of incident was

prepared on 18.03.2021 and the site plan of the murder weapon

(wooden danda) was prepared on 19.03.2021.

10. The Investigating Officer also submitted a letter to the

Judicial Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar for passing

order for sending the blood sample, murder weapon, wooden danda,

blood soiled and plain mud, clothes of the deceased, blood soaked

gauge etc. for forensic/DNA examination through special messenger

to RFSL, Rudrapur. The same was permitted by the Judicial

Magistrate vide order dated 27.05.2021.

11. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was

submitted by the Investigating Officer on 10.06.2021.

12. Case was registered against the accused as Sessions Trial

No. 130 of 2021 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Udham Singh

Nagar and on 27.10.2021, the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar

framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused /

appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial.

13. PW1 Monish son of the deceased, stated that their family

was residing in Rana Farm, Bajpur for last many years and his late

father Mohd. Rafi was employed as Tractor driver in Rana Farm and

their entire family used to work as farm labourers. On the date of

incident, there was a marriage of a relative and except father Mohd.

Rafi, the entire family had gone to attend a marriage and his father

Mohd. Rafi was at home. Around 10:00 in the evening, the Munshi

of Rana Farm, Shivam informed him over the phone that his father

had a quarrel with Vicky alias Mangal Singh, Tractor driver of Rana

6

Farm due to which, the condition of his father was very serious and

he was asked to come immediately. On receiving the information,

they reached Rana Farm. They were told that his father has been

taken to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani. T hey reached there and

came to know that his father died due to the injuries sustained in

the fight. He got a tehriri report of the incident written by Vinod

Singh, which he had signed and submitted in Thana, Bazpur. He

identified his signatures on tehriri report and verified the same,

which was marked as Exhibit P1. In the cross-examination, PW1

Monish admitted that there was no prior quarrel or fight with the

accused nor there was any enmity.

14. PW2, Mangga is the eyewitness of the incident, who

deposed that the incident occurred around 7:00 – 7:30 in the

evening. Accused Vicky alias Mangal Singh and Mohd. Rafi were

abusing each other. He tried to pacify them but both of them did

not pay any heed. In the meantime, the accused Vicky alias Mangal

Singh attacked indiscriminately on the head and body of Mohd. Rafi

with thick wooden danda. Mohd. Rafi got injured and fell on the

rock. He got injuries on the head, mouth and body and blood was

oozing out from the head and mouth. Two persons who were going

on a motorcycle on the spot, stopped there, who were known to the

accused. The persons on the motorcycle asked the accused to take

the injured to the hospital. Wife of the accused also told the accused

that if Mohd. Rafi dies, he will be in jail, so to take Mohd. Rafi

immediately to hospital. Then the accused took Mohd. Rafi to

hospital making Mohd. Rafi sit in the middle. He also deposed that

the accused Vicky alias Mangal Singh was apprehended by the

police on the third day of the incident and have brought him to the

place of incident in Rana Farm, then, the accused had brought a

thick danda from his room around 6:00 in the evening and the

7

accused had informed the police that this is that poplar danda with

which he had hit Mohd. Rafi, the danda was around 4.5 to 5 feet. In

his cross-examination, PW2 Mangga admitted that there was no old

enmity of the accused with the deceased. He also admitted that he

did not give the information of the incident to anyone.

15. PW3, Ible Hassan, deposed that on 17.03.2021 when he

reached Labour Colony of Rana Farm at around quarter to seven

along with his friend Taufiq then he saw that Vicky @ Mangal Singh

was holding a poplar danda in his hand and was threatening Mohd.

Rafi that he will kill him today. T hen he snatched the danda from

Vicky @ Mangal Singh and threw it at his door and got Vicky @

Mangal Singh inside his house and told his wife not to let him go

outside the house till his anger subsides and thereafter, they left. At

around 2:00 at night on 17.03.2021, he received the information

that Mohd. Rafi has died. In his cross-examination, the PW3 stated

that the deceased used to consume liquor.

16. PW4, Smt. Sabri W/o Mohd. Rafi, inter alia deposed that

Vicky @ Mangal Singh used to do foul play in the work whose

complaint was made by her husband to the Farm owner. T hereafter

appellant was terminated from the job due to which he used to

entertain enmity against her husband. She too deposed about the

family having gone to attend the marriage on the date of incident

and her husband was alone at the Farm. In her cross-examination,

she admitted that her husband used to consume liquor sometimes.

17. PW5 is retired H.C.P. Mahesh Singh, who was posted as

H.C.P. in Medical College, Police Chowki, Haldwani on 17.03.2021.

He prepared the panchayatnama/inquest report and identified his

signatures, which was marked as Exhibit P-2. He proved the other

8

police papers and other documents, which were marked as Exhibit

P-3, P-4 and P-5 respectively.

18. PW6 is another son of Late Mohd. Rafi and he deposed

alike his brother PW1. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the

accused/appellant used to entertain enmity with their family.

19. PW7, Shivam is the munshi at Rana Farm, who deposed

that on 17.03.2021 between 8:15 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Vicky called on

his father's mobile phone. Shivam attended the call, whereupon

Vicky informed him that Mohd. Rafi had sustained injuries after

falling on a rock while under the influence of liquor and requested

him to immediately reach the Bengali doctor. Acting upon the

information, Shivam reached the Bengali doctor's clinic and found

Mohd. Rafi lying unconscious with blood oozing from his nose and

mouth, though he was still breathing. The Bengali doctor refused to

treat him. On refusal of this doctor, they took Mohd. Rafi to Pandey

Hospital, Bazpur, where treatment was also refused, following which

he was taken to the Government Hospital, Bazpur where Mohd. Rafi

was admitted at about 9:00 p.m. Mohd. Rafi was bandaged by the

doctor and thereafter, he was referred to Sushila Tiwari Hospital,

Haldwani. Subsequently, Mohammad Rafi was taken to Sushila

Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani in 108 Ambulance by Shivam and

accused Vicky @ Mangal Singh, where he was admitted for

treatment.

He further deposed that during the course of treatment,

Mohd. Rafi died at around 11:00 in the evening of 17.03.2021. In

his cross-examination, he admitted that Vicky @ Mangal Singh

himself had taken the injured Mohd. Rafi to the Bengali doctor and

had informed him about the incident over the telephone. He further

9

admitted that Vicky @ Mangal Singh remained with him while

Mohd. Rafi was being taken to various doctors for treatment. He also

stated that after Mohd. Rafi was admitted to Sushila Tiwari

Hospital, Vicky @ Mangal Singh stayed in the hospital throughout

the night and left only the next morning. The witness further

admitted that both he and Vicky @ Mangal Singh were making

efforts to save the life of Mohd. Rafi and for that purpose, took him

to different hospitals. He also stated that there had never been any

prior quarrel or enmity between the accused Vicky @ Mangal Singh

and the family of the deceased Mohd. Rafi and they had good

relations.

20. PW8, Dr. Chandra Prakash Bhaisoda deposed that on

18.03.2021, he was posted as M.D. Professor, Department of

Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Haldwani, District

Nainital. On the same day, he conducted the post- mortem

examination on the dead body of Mohd. Rafi and found the injuries

on his person, as detailed in the post- mortem report. Inter-alia he

also stated in his opinion cause of death is due to shock and

hemorrhage due to head injury. These injuries could be caused by

wooden danda. He proved the post- mortem examination report,

which was marked as Exhibit P-6. In his cross-examination, he

stated that the external injuries mentioned at Serial Nos. 2 to 6 can

be caused by falling down on rock. He further stated that if injuries

were caused by a danda (stick), their appearance would ordinarily

be linear in nature.

21. PW9, S.I. Dinesh Chand Joshi deposed that on

18.03.2021, he was posted at Kotwali Bazpur. He proved the GD

entry regarding receipt of the FIR and the Chik FIR, both bearing the

signatures of the then In-charge Inspector Sanjay Kumar Pandey,

10

with whom he had been posted and whose signatures he identified.

The GD entry and the Chik FIR were marked as Exhibit P-7 and

Exhibit P-8 respectively.

22. PW10, Dr. Barkha Singh deposed that on 17.03.2021, she

was posted at the Community Health Centre, Bazpur, District

Udham Singh Nagar. On that date, injured Mohd. Rafi was brought

to the hospital by his friend Shivam at about 9:00 p.m. in an

unconscious state. Upon examination, she noted the injuries

mentioned in the medical examination report. She proved the

examination report prepared at Community Health Centre, Bazpur,

which was marked as Exhibit P-9.

23. PW11, Subodh Saxena deposed that since 2008 he had

been posted as Block Lekhakar at CHC, Bazpur. He proved Register

Entry Serial No.9 dated 17.03.2021 pertaining to Mohd. Rafi,

recorded at 9:00 p.m. He also produced a certified photocopy of the

relevant register entry, which was compared with the original

register brought by him and was marked as Exhibit P-10. In his

cross-examination, he stated it to be correct that the cause of injury

recorded in Exhibit P-10 was “fall over a rock while running.”

24. PW12, Jasvinder Singh, the Investigating Officer, deposed

that on 18.03.2021, he was posted as S.S.I. at Kotwali, Bazpur, and

he had received the investigation of the case. He proved the

documentary evidence marked as Exhibit P-11 to P-25 respectively.

He also deposed that he had collected the other evidence

and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After collecting the

entire evidence, he submitted charge-sheet against accused Vicky @

Mangal Singh under Section 302 of the IPC in the court, which he

proved and which was marked as Exhibit P-26. In his cross-

11

examination, he admitted that prior to the incident there is no

report of any altercation or fight between the deceased and the

accused Vicky @ Mangal Singh at the Police Station. He also

admitted that, as per the memo issued by S.T.H. Haldwani, he had

recorded the fact in the case diary that the injured fell down after

colliding on a rock outside his house; the patient had consumed

liquor. During the course of treatment, he died.

25. PW13 is Prakash Chandra, who was posted as Sub-

Inspector at Kotwali Bazpur on 18.03.2021. He proved the memo

relating to the seizure of blood-stained soil and plain soil, which was

marked as Exhibit P-27. He also proved G.D. Entry No.29 dated

18.03.2021, which was marked as Exhibit P-28.

26. PW14 is Smt. Shashi Prabha Tomar, retired Joint Director,

FSL Dehradun. She proved the FSL examination report, which was

marked as Exhibit P-29.

27. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

wherein he substantially denied the incriminating material/evidence

put up against him and contended that the evidence was false. He

further contended that he is innocent; he had no enmity with the

family of the deceased, and had been falsely implicated. He stated

that he remained in the hospital throughout the night to help the

deceased Mohd. Rafi and returned along with the deceased's family

members. According to him, the deceased had fallen on a rock while

under the influence of liquor, and he had pointed out the said rock

to the police.

28. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302

of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life along with a fine

12

of `20,000/- vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2024. Aggrieved

thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

29. Assailing the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, the

learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that the

deceased died on account of falling on a rock. In fact, the accused

Vicky @ Mangal Singh informed the PW7, Shivam that the deceased

Mohd. Rafi had fallen on a rock. The PW1 had admitted that the

accused had no enmity or quarrel with the deceased Mohd. Rafi.

30. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit

that prosecution case is totally false and the prosecution has not

been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

31. Referring to the deposition of PW2, learned Senior Counsel

for the appellant would submit that PW2 has narrated the incident

having occurred between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. Although PW-2

claimed to have been present at the spot and to have witnessed that

the appellant had hit on the head of the deceased with a thick

danda, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not

inform anyone about the alleged incident. It was argued that such a

conduct of PW2 is wholly unnatural and casts serious doubt on the

very presence of PW-2 at the place of occurrence. Thus, it was

submitted that the testimony of PW2 is unreliable and unworthy of

credence, and no reliance can safely be placed upon it.

32. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would further

submit that PW3, Ible Hasan, has deposed that Vicky @ Mangal

Singh was holding a danda and was threatening the deceased Mohd.

Rafi for life and he had snatched the danda from him. She would

submit that such a conduct of PW3 is again not natural and she

13

would submit that the presence of both PW2 and PW3 at the place

of incident is highly doubtful.

33. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would further

submit that PW4, wife of deceased, has admitted in her cross-

examination that the deceased used to consume liquor.

34. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, while referring

to the statements of PW8, Dr. Chandra Prakash Bhaisoda, would

submit that there is only one grievous injury on the head of the

deceased and that the injury nos.2 to 6 can be sustained by falling

on a rock.

35. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would further

submit that no blood has been found on the danda which makes the

prosecution case highly doubtful.

36. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the

incident has occurred in a spur of moment and there was no

intention to cause death of the deceased Mohd. Rafi and thus the

accused/appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302

of IPC but only under Section 304 Part II IPC. She would also

submit that the sanctity of the eyewitnesses is doubtful while

referring to the site plan of recovery of danda.

37. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the

recovery of danda is from open place and as such no reliance can be

placed upon the same. She would further submit that the accused

made all efforts to save the life of the deceased, hence there is no

question of convicting the accused under Section 302 of IPC,

14

38. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

since there is single injury which would lead to the inference of

guilty knowledge and that the prosecution has not been able to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus contended that the

impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and deserves to

be set aside, and in the alternative submitted that the conviction be

altered from one under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part II of

IPC in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

39. Per contra, Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy

Advocate General for the State would submit that the prosecution

witnesses are consistent in their statements. PW3, Ible Hasan has,

in fact, made a very natural statement that when the deceased and

the accused were quarrelling and the accused/appellant was

holding a danda, he was made to go inside his home which confirms

that there was a quarrel, therefore, the deposition of PW2 and PW3

are thus consistent.

40. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would

further submit that it was the version narrated by the

accused/appellant himself to the PW7, Shivam that the deceased fell

on a rock and as such the same got recorded in the medical

examination reports and the same cannot be relied upon. With

regard to the submission made on behalf of the learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant that the fatal blow on the head would be

covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC and not under Section 302

of IPC, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit

that accused/appellant had attacked on a vital part of the body of

the deceased with danda and as such the intention can be gauged

from the said attack. Therefore, the case would fall under Section

302 of IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

15

41. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would also

submit that, as per the FSL report, the same DNA was found on the

hair stuck to Exhibit-1 (danda) and on the T-shirt of the deceased,

Mohd. Rafi. The FSL report, therefore, duly corroborates the

prosecution version.

42. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that

the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the death of

the deceased occurred due to his falling on a rock, while being

highly intoxicated canot be accepted. It is evident from the

testimony of PW2, an eyewitness to the occurrence, that the accused

struck the deceased, Mohd. Rafi, on the head with a wooden danda.

The said testimony finds corroboration from the medical evidence on

record i.e. the post-mortem report.

43. After examining the statements of PW2 and PW3, it is

clear that there is no infirmity in the testimonies of these

prosecution witnesses. PW2 has given a clear and consistent

account of the manner in which the incident actually occurred.

There is nothing on record to disbelieve his testimony, particularly

as it stands corroborated by the medical evidence.

44. The deposition of PW3 is also natural and credible. He has

deposed only to what he actually saw and did, and has stated that

he tried to pacify the accused-appellant. No material inconsistencies

are found in the statements of PW2 and PW3.

45. In fact, a close reading of their testimonies leads to the

irresistible conclusion that a quarrel did take place between the

accused/appellant and the deceased, and the blow inflicted by the

16

accused/appellant with the wooden danda on the head of the

deceased, Mohd. Rafi, was, in fact, the cause of his death.

46. The confession made by the accused-appellant also led to

the recovery of the murder weapon, namely, the wooden danda.

Therefore, no doubt can be entertained regarding the said recovery,

especially since the medical evidence and the testimony of PW8

clearly establish that the injuries found on the body of the deceased

could have been caused by a wooden danda. PW8 categorically

stated that the death of the deceased occurred due to the head

injury, resulting in shock and hemorrhage.

47. In the present case, it will be useful to refer to the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Anbazhagan

v. State of T.N.”, (2024) 20 SCC 500 and particularly paragraph

nos.24, 27, 28, 34 and 66.13 thereof, since in the present case there

is only one injury to the head which has been cause of death.

Paragraph nos. 24, 27, 28, 34 and 66.13 thereof is being extracted

hereunder for ready reference:-

“24. Bearing in mind the test suggested in the aforesaid decision and

also bearing in mind that our legislature has used two different

terminologies “intent” and “knowledge” and separate punishments are

provided for an act committed with an intent to cause bodily injury

which is likely to cause death and for an act committed with a

knowledge that his act is likely to cause death without intent to cause

such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it would be proper to hold

that “intent” and “knowledge” cannot be equated with each other. They

connote different things. Sometimes, if the consequence is so apparent,

it may happen that from the knowledge, intent may be presumed. But it

will not mean that “intent” and “knowledge” are the same. “Knowledge”

will be only one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration

while determining or inferring the requisite intent.

27. Thus, while defining the offence of culpable homicide and murder,

the framers of IPC laid down that the requisite intention or knowledge

must be imputed to the accused w hen he committed the act which

caused the death in order to hold him guilty for the offence of culpable

homicide or murder as the case may be. The framers of IPC designedly

used the two words “intention” and “knowledge”, and it must be taken

that the framers intended to draw a distinction between these two

expressions. The knowledge of the consequences which may result in

the doing of an act is not the same thing as the intention that such

consequences should ensue. Except in cases where mens rea is not

required in order to prove that a person had certain knowledge, he

“must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences

would or could follow.” (Russell on Crime, Twelfth Edn., Vol. 1 at p. 40.)

17

28. This awareness is termed as knowledge. But the knowledge that

specified consequences would result or could result by doing an act is

not the same thing as the intention that such consequences should

ensue. If an act is done by a man with the knowledge that certain

consequences may follow or will follow, it does not necessarily mean

that he intended such consequences and acted with such intention.

Intention requires something more than a mere foresight of the

consequences. It requires a purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a

particular end. This we may make it clear by referring to two passages

from leading textbooks on the subject.

34.

Sections 299 and 300IPC deal with the definition of “culpable

homicide” and “murder”, respectively. In terms of Section 299, “culpable

homicide” is described as an act of causing death: (i) with the intention

of causing death, or (ii) with the intention of causing such bodily injury

as is likely to cause death, or (iii) with the knowledge that such an act is

likely to cause death. As is clear from a reading of this provision, the

former part of it emphasises on the expression “intention” while the

latter upon “knowledge”. Both these are positive mental attitudes,

however, of different degrees. The mental element in “culpable

homicide”, that is, the mental attitude towards the consequences of

conduct is one of intention and knowledge. Once an offence is caused in

any of the three stated manners noted above, it would be “culpable

homicide”. Section 300IPC, however, deals with “murder”, although

there is no clear definition of “murder” in Section 300IPC. As has been

repeatedly held by this Court, “culpable homicide” is the genus and

“murder” is its species and all “murders” are “culpable homicides” but

all “culpable homicides” are not “murders”. (See Rampal Singh v. State

of U.P. [Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 289 : (2012) 3 SCC

(Cri) 860] )

66.13. In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty

intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is

inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without

premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances

justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only

intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty

knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II

IPC.”

48. It is quite clear that the prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt. The only question that remains for

consideration is whether the offence committed by the

accused/appellant falls within the ambit of Section 302 of IPC or

whether, having been committed in the heat of the moment, without

premeditation and without any intention to cause death, it would

instead fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part II IPC.

49. A perusal of the record as well as the medical evidence

reveals that PW8, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem

examination, has categorically stated that the injuries sustained by

the deceased Mohd. Rafi could have been caused by wooden danda.

18

50. The law on this aspect has been elaborately considered by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment Anbazhagan (supra),

wherein the distinction between an offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and one falling under Section 304 Part II IPC has

been clearly explained. The relevant paragraphs thereof have already

been extracted hereinabove.

51. From the evidence on record, it appears that on the

evening of 17.03.2021, a sudden fight took place between the

accused/appellant and Mohd. Rafi, which led to the appellant, Vicky

@ Mangal Singh, inflicting the aforesaid fatal blow on the head of

the deceased, Mohd. Rafi. It is apparent that, although the appellant

had the knowledge that such a blow could prove fatal, the intention

to cause death cannot be conclusively inferred from the facts and

circumstances of the case.

52. Moreover, the case appears to fall within Exception 4 to

Section 300 IPC, as the occurrence arose out of a sudden fight and

there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant acted in a

cruel or unusual manner or took undue advantage.

53. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the

view that the conviction under Section 302 of IPC deserves to be

altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.

54. The appellant Vicky @ Mangal Singh is convicted under

Section 304 Part II IPC.

55. Having considered the nature of offence, its origin and

other attending factors, we are of the view that the sentence of 7

years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC would

serve the interest of justice. Consequently, the appellant Vicky @

19

Mangal Singh is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of

7 years under Section 304 Part II IPC.

56. The appeal is partly allowed.

57. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2024 is

modified to the extent as aforesaid.

58. It has been brought on record that the appellant has

already undergone approximately five years of incarceration. He will

serve the remaining part of the modified sentence in accordance

with law.

59. Let a copy of this judgment along with the original records

be sent to the trial court concerned.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

16.06. 2026 16.06.2026

Shiv/