Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 4590U / 2026State Of … vs Puran Singh (2026:Rj-Jd:24486) on 18 May, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:24486]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 313/1993
Puran Singh S/o Chain Singh, 64, G.b. Tehsil, Raisinghnagar,
Distt. Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2584/2026
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
----Appellant
Versus
1 Puran Singh S/o Chain Singh, 64, G.b. Tehsil, Raisinghnagar,
. Distt. Sri Ganganagar.
2 Baba Singh S/o Tara Singh, 52 Np Tehsil, Raisinghnagar, Distt.
. Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sarika Bishnoi
Mr. Shivraj Singh for Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
JUDGMENT/ORDER
REPORTABLE
18/05/2026
1. The matter arises out of an application preferred on behalf of
the appellant seeking recall of the order dated 07.02.2026
whereby warrant of arrest had been issued against him. It is
borne out from the record that the present criminal appeal, being
Criminal Appeal No.313/1993, came to be instituted in the year
1993 assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 18.08.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No.1/1990. The sentence
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24486] (2 of 9) [CRLA-313/1993]
awarded to the appellant had earlier been suspended by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.1993 and
the appellant was enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal.
However, when the matter was listed for hearing on the previous
occasion, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite service
of notice and even after issuance of bailable warrants.
Consequently, vide order dated 07.02.2026, the order suspending
sentence stood cancelled, the bail bonds furnished by the
appellant were forfeited and warrant of arrest came to be issued
against him.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the absence of the appellant on the previous dates was neither
deliberate nor intentional and had occurred owing to unavoidable
circumstances. It was further urged that the appeal pertains to an
occurrence of the year 1989 and has remained pending
adjudication before this Court for more than three decades and,
therefore, instead of relegating the matter further into prolonged
procedural entanglement, the appeal itself deserves to be heard
finally.
3. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced at the Bar and upon careful perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that the incident in question
pertains to the year 1989 whereas the present appeal has
remained pending since the year 1993. The litigation has thus
traversed an extraordinarily protracted procedural journey
extending over more than three decades. In such circumstances,
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24486] (3 of 9) [CRLA-313/1993]
particularly when the appeal itself is ripe for final adjudication, this
Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of substantial and
complete justice, to take up the appeal itself for final disposal
along with the miscellaneous petition instituted subsequent to
forfeiture of the bail bonds.
4. Accordingly, the order dated 07.02.2026 directing
cancellation of suspension of sentence, forfeiture of bail bonds and
issuance of warrant of arrest against the appellant deserves to be
recalled and is hereby recalled. Consequently, the warrant of
arrest issued against the appellant stands withdrawn.
5. The instant criminal appeal has been directed against the
judgment dated 18.08.1993 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No.1/1990
whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section
307 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.200/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ simple
imprisonment.
6. The prosecution case, succinctly stated, is that a report
(Exhibit D-2) came to be lodged at the instance of PW-2 Mukhtiar
Singh informing the police that the victim Kalwant Singh had been
assaulted by the appellant by use of a sword. It was alleged that
PW-2 and his son Kashmir Singh had witnessed the occurrence
and had seen the appellant inflicting injuries upon the victim.
6.1 Pursuant thereto, investigation commenced; the appellant
was arrested and, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24486] (4 of 9) [CRLA-313/1993]
came to be filed for offences under Sections 307 and 201 IPC.
Upon taking cognizance, the matter was committed to the Court of
Sessions where charges for the aforesaid offences were framed
against the appellant.
6.2. In support of the prosecution case, nine witnesses were
examined and sixteen documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the
statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
recorded. Upon culmination of trial, the learned trial Court
convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC
while acquitting him of the charge under Section 201 IPC. Hence
the instant appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
have meticulously examined the impugned judgment as well as
the entire record of the case.
8. What distinctly emerges from the evidence adduced by the
prosecution is that although some prior discord existed between
the parties, the same had earlier been amicably resolved through
intervention of the village Panchayat. On the date of occurrence,
PW-2 Mukhtiar Singh was informed by his son Kashmir Singh (PW-
4) regarding the altercation, whereupon he rushed to the place of
occurrence and intervened in the matter. Thereafter, the appellant
allegedly fled from the spot and the injured was taken for medical
examination.
8.1. A bare reading of the testimony of Kashmir Singh (PW-4)
reveals that immediately prior to the incident, the appellant, the
victim and certain other persons were sitting together, consuming
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24486] (5 of 9) [CRLA-313/1993]
tea and conversing in a cordial atmosphere. However, after
exchange of heated words, the appellant allegedly brought a
kirpan, i.e., a sharp-edged weapon, and inflicted injuries upon the
victim. Thereafter, PW-2 and PW-4 intervened and the injured was
shifted to the hospital.
8.2. The testimony of PW-7 Dr. Kailash Chandra assumes
considerable significance. The doctor found as many as fifteen
injuries on the person of the injured Kalwant Singh. Out of the
said injuries, Injury Nos.1, 5 and 6 were opined to be grievous in
nature. Injury No.1 was situated on the occipital region of the
skull; Injury No.5 was an incised wound near the right ear;
whereas Injury No.6 pertained to dislocation in the left incisor and
premolar region extending around the cheek and mandible bone.
The remaining injuries were simple in nature. Significantly, none
of the injuries were opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death nor were they found to be imminently
dangerous to life.
8.3. At this juncture, it becomes imperative to advert to the true
scope and applicability of Section 307 IPC. The offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC is founded not merely upon the
consequence of the act, but primarily upon the intention or
knowledge with which the act is committed. The gravamen of the
offence lies in the mens rea accompanying the actus reus. To
sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution is
obligated to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
had the intention or knowledge contemplated under the provision,
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24486] (6 of 9) [CRLA-313/1993]
namely, an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as the
offender knew to be likely to cause death.
8.4. It is well settled that the nature of weapon used, the part of
body chosen for assault, the severity of injuries inflicted,
antecedent animosity, motive, surrounding circumstances and the
conduct of the accused before and after the occurrence are all
relevant considerations in determining the existence of the
requisite intention. However, the mere fact that grievous injuries
were caused or that a dangerous weapon was used would not,
ipso facto, attract Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution further
succeeds in establishing the indispensable ingredient of intention
or knowledge to commit murder.
8.5. The distinction between an offence under Section 307 IPC
and offences relating to voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt is
often subtle yet legally profound. While grievous or repeated
injuries may constitute an aggravating circumstance, the same
cannot substitute the indispensable mental element required for
constituting an offence of attempt to murder. Courts are therefore
required to carefully discern whether the assault was actuated by
a deliberate homicidal design or whether it emerged out of a
sudden quarrel, temporary provocation, emotional instability or
loss of self-control.
8.8. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the prosecution evidence unmistakably
reveals absence of premeditation or preconceived design. The
occurrence appears to have erupted all of a sudden during the
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24486] (7 of 9) [CRLA-313/1993]
course of an ordinary conversation while the parties were sitting
together and taking tea. There is no convincing material on record
indicating that the appellant had arrived at the spot armed with a
settled intention to commit murder of the victim. The prior dispute
between the parties was trivial in nature and had already been
resolved nearly three years prior to the incident through amicable
settlement.
8.9. Though the multiplicity of injuries and the use of a sharp-
edged weapon undeniably establish that the appellant assaulted
the victim with force, yet the attendant circumstances
unmistakably indicate that the incident was a product of sudden
provocation and momentary loss of self-restraint rather than a
calculated homicidal attempt. The medical evidence further
fortifies this conclusion inasmuch as none of the injuries were
declared sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
or dangerous to life.
8.10. Thus, upon holistic appreciation of the ocular and medical
evidence, this Court is unable to persuade itself to affirm the
finding of the learned trial Court insofar as conviction under
Section 307 IPC is concerned. The essential ingredients
constituting the offence of attempt to murder remain
conspicuously unsubstantiated.
8.11. Nevertheless, the evidence on record unequivocally
establishes that the appellant voluntarily caused injuries, including
grievous injuries, to the victim by use of a sharp-edged weapon.
Consequently, the offence proved against the appellant
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24486] (8 of 9) [CRLA-313/1993]
unmistakably falls within the ambit of Section 324 IPC. Thus, the
conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is hereby set
aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge. However,
the conviction of the appellant is altered and converted to one
under Section 324 IPC.
8.12. Coming now to the question of quantum of sentence, it is not
disputed that the incident in question occurred in the year 1989
and the appellant has remained in judicial custody for a
considerable duration during the course of trial and post-
conviction, approximately two and a half months. It has also been
brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant is now of
advanced age and belongs to a modest socio-economic
background. He has suffered the ordeal of prolonged criminal
litigation extending over more than three decades, thereby
enduring immense mental anguish, social stigma and emotional
hardship.
8.13.In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the
mitigating circumstances, namely the advanced age of the
appellant, his limited financial means, the extraordinary delay in
culmination of proceedings, the fact that he has already
undergone part of the custodial sentence, and more particularly
the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal (1998) 9 SCC 678,
and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra,
(2012) 2 SCC 648, this Court is of the considered view that the
ends of justice would be adequately subserved if the sentence of
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24486] (9 of 9) [CRLA-313/1993]
imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
8.14.Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the
appellant under Section 324 IPC, the sentence imposed upon him
is modified to the extent that the substantive sentence of
imprisonment shall stand reduced to the period already
undergone. However, the fine imposed by the learned trial Court
shall remain intact. In the event of non-payment of fine, the
appellant shall undergo the default sentence as originally
awarded.
9. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid
terms. The miscellaneous petition as well as all pending
applications also stand disposed of. The warrant of arrest issued
against the appellant stands recalled forthwith.
10. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the concerned
trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
(FARJAND ALI),J
7-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 25/05/2026 at 10:02:56 AM)
(Downloaded on 25/05/2026 at 08:34:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
