Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Vaseem S/O Shri Kalwa B/C Musalman vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 32/2020
Vaseem S/o Shri Kalwa, Aged About 24 Years, R/o House No.
279, Shakti Colony, Aamagarh, Police Station Transport Nagar,
Jaipur Raj.
(At Present In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Accused/Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
17/04/2026
(Per Hon’ble Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.)
Under challenge in the appeal is the judgment dated
05.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan (Raj.) (for brevity ‘the learned trial
court’) in Sessions Case No. 2/2014 whereby, the accused-
appellant (for short “appellant”) has been convicted and sentenced
as under:-
1. Section 323 IPC:- Six months’ simple imprisonment and fine
of Rs. 500/-;in default whereof, three days’ additional
imprisonment.
2. Section 302 IPC:- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000;
in default whereof, three months’ additional imprisonment.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (2 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
3. Section 384 IPC:- Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs.5,000/-;in default whereof, two months’ additional
imprisonment.
All the sentences to run concurrently.
The relevant facts in brief are that Mohd. Amir (PW-6)- the
injured eye witness, submitted a written report dated 27.11.2013
(Ex.P1) stating therein that on that very day, when at about 1.00
PM, he, along with his brother-Sher Mohammed, was playing cards
behind RAC quarters, a boy came and introduced himself as
Vaseem. After watching the game for some time, he threatened
him with a knife and was compelled to cough up a sum of Rs.
1500/-. It was further alleged that while trying to extort money
from Sheru, he stabbed Sheru resulting into protruding of
intestines, who, at present, was under treatment in the SMS
Hospital. Based thereupon, an FIR No. 411/2013 came to be
registered at Police Station, Galta Gate, Jaipur (North) for the
offences under Sections 307, 384 & 323 IPC. On account of death
of Sher Mohammned during investigation, Section 302 IPC was
introduced. After investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted
under Sections 302, 384 & 323 IPC whereunder, charges were
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 contents of
the Parcha Bayan as also the statement of Mohd. Amir (PW-6)-
the informant, contended that since, the incident occurred at spur
of the moment without any premeditation and the allegation
against him is of inflicting a single blow, the case would not travel
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (3 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
beyond the scope of Section 304 Part I IPC. He submitted that
since the appellant has already served the sentence of more than
12 years and 4 months, the substantive sentence be reduced to
the period already undergone. He, therefore, prayed that the
appeal be partly allowed in aforesaid terms.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the
submissions, contended that findings of the learned trial Court are
based on appreciation of cogent evidence on record which warrant
no interference. He submitted that the appellant is a habitual
offender and he had stabbed the deceased with knife with such an
intensity and gravity in order to extort money that proved to be
fatal. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in view thereof,
the learned trial Court did not err in recording finding of guilt of
the appellant, inter-alia, under Section 302 IPC. He, therefore,
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Heard. Considered.
From the medico legal report of the deceased Sher
Mohammed (Ex.P37), which was proved by Dr. Bhagwan Sahai
(PW-19), it is reflected that he received a stab incised wound of
size 5.5 cm X 2.5 cm placed at mid part of abdomen near
umbilicus and found the gut loops and omentum coming out from
the wound margins of which were regular, clean cut and well
defined with fresh redish colour clotted blood. The postmortem
report (Ex. P12) of his body shows a 21 cm long surgically done
stitched wound present from epigastric to hypogastric region in
midline with two wounds done surgically for drain tube on each
side of lumbar region. It also reflects a number of stitched wounds
on small intestine, large intestine and other parts of abdomen.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (4 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
Cause of death was opined to be shock due to ante mortem
abdominal injuries which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature. The postmortem report was proved by Dr.
Priyanka Sharma (PW12). Thus, it is an established case of
homicidal death.
The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 1.00 PM
on 27.11.2013 in which the complainant as also deceased Sher
Mohammed received injuries. Sher Mohammed was examined at
3.30 PM on that very day as is reflected from medico legal report
(Ex.P37). Soon thereafter, at 4.00 PM, the written report (Ex.P1)
came to be submitted by Mohd. Amir (PW-6)-the injured eye
witness and cousin of the deceased in which it was alleged that
when he and his brother were playing card, the appellant came
and upon asking, introduced him as Vaseem. It was alleged that
upon threatening by the appellant, he handed over a sum of Rs.
1500/- to the appellant and while trying to extort money from
Sheru, he stabbed Sheru with a knife in stomach resulting into
protruding of intestines. Thus, the FIR was lodged immediately
after the incident without any delay giving in detail the incident.
Further, the complainant as PW-6 has reiterated the allegations in
his examination-in-chief which remained unimpeached during his
cross-examination. Furthermore, in his cross-examination, he was
suggested that he has lodged a false report on asking of his father
as his father had some money dispute with the father of the
appellant; however, no such defence was made by the appellant
in his plea recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is trite law that
testimony of the injured eye witness is of most sterling worth if
free from suspicion. In the instant case, the injured eye witness
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (5 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
namely Mohd. Amir (PW-6) has described in graphic detail the
incident in his written report (Ex.P1) submitted immediately after
the commission of the offence as also in his examination-in-chief
which remained unshaken in cross-examination. Taslim (PW-8),
Ikram (PW-9) and Jubeda (PW-13) have also seen the deceased
with stabbed wound and his intestine protruding at the place of
incident at the time given in the written report (Ex.P1). The
allegations stood medically corroborated as is apparent from the
injury report (Ex.P37) and the PMR (Ex.P12).
Further, the prosecution case gets strengthened from the site
plan (Ex.P3) which reflects presence of playing cards and the
blood stained stones at the place of incident and their seizure
memo (Ex.P2) which were duly proved by panch witnesses namely
Samim Ahmed (PW-1) and Azhar (PW-2). It is worthy to mention
here that while, PW-1 has stated in his cross-examination that he
signed the Ex.P2 at Police Station, deposition of PW-2 remained
unimpeached during his cross-examination.
Furthermore, the weapon of offence, i.e., the knife was
recovered, on the disclosure statement made by the appellant
(Ex.P16), vide seizure memo (Ex.P5) concealed in a room inside
the residential house of the appellant. Although, one of the panch
witnesses to it namely Kutubuddin (PW-4) turned hostile but, the
another panch witness namely Dilbahadur (PW-17) has duly
proved it and his testimony could not be shaken during his cross-
examination.
From the conspectus of aforesaid evidence, it is apparent
that the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond
reasonable doubt, that when the deceased and the injured eye
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (6 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
witness were playing cards, the appellant visited them, threatened
the complainant with a knife compelling him to cough up a sum of
Rs. 1500/- and while extorting money from the deceased, he
inflicted a stab wound with the knife with such intensity and
gravity that his intestines protruded outside and the injury,
ultimately, proved to be fatal and was found sufficient, in the
ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Thus, looking to the
nature of weapon used, the vital part of the body on which the
stab wound was caused and in view of the intensity and gravity of
injury, we are of the considered view that the learned trial court
has rightly convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC.
We find no substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that since, the incident occurred at spur
of the moment without any premeditation and only a single blow
was inflicted by him, the case would not travel beyond the scope
of Section 304 Part I IPC. As already discussed, the appellant had
come armed with a deadly weapon, i.e., knife and had threatened,
first the complainant with it for extortion of a sum of Rs. 1500/-
and thereafter, while attempting to extort money from the
deceased, without any provocation or reason, stabbed him causing
his death. In view thereof, this Court is satisfied that the appellant
had come to the place of incident with a clear intention of
extortion and of causing murder. So far as infliction of single injury
is concerned, it is well settled legal principle that looking to the
nature of weapon used, the body part involved and intensity of the
blow, even a single blow is sufficient to warrant conviction under
Section 302 IPC. A Three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (7 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
Court of India in the case of “Stalin Vs. State;(2020)9 SCC 524
held as under:-
“7.1.3 In Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC
444, this Court while deciding whether a case falls under
Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II IPC, held thus:
(SCC pp. 457- 58, para 29):
“29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide
the pivotal question of intention, with care and
caution, as that will decide whether the case falls
under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many
petty or insignificant matters — plucking of a fruit,
straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a
rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead
to altercations and group clashes culminating in
deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy
or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases.
There may be no intention. There may be no
premeditation. In fact, there may not even be
criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there
may be cases of murder where the accused attempts
to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put
forth a case that there was no intention to cause
death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of
murder punishable under Section 302, are not
converted into offences punishable under Section
304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, are treated as murder
punishable under Section 302. The intention to
cause death can be gathered generally from a
combination of a few or several of the following,
among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the
weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried
by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii)
whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the
body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing
injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of
sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or
whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether
there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased
was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave
and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for
such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (8 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury
has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel
and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt
a single blow or several blows. The above list of
circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and
there may be several other special circumstances
with reference to individual cases which may throw
light on the question of intention. Be that as it may.”
7.1.4 In Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799,
this Court while deciding the question whether a blow on the
skull of the deceased with a crowbar would attract Section 302
IPC, held thus, (SCC p. 803, para 16):
“16. In our opinion, as nobody can enter into the
mind of the accused, his intention has to be
gathered from the weapon used, the part of the
body chosen for the assault and the nature of the
injuries caused. Here, the appellant had chosen a
crowbar as the weapon of offence. He has further
chosen a vital part of the body i.e. the head for
causing the injury which had caused multiple
fractures of skull. This clearly shows the force
with which the appellant had used the weapon.
The cumulative effect of all these factors
irresistibly leads to one and the only conclusion
that the appellant intended to cause death of the
deceased.”
7.1.5 In State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal (2019) 5 SCC 639
this Court in paragraphs 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 held as follows:(SCC
pp.643-44)
“7.3. In Arun Raj [Arun Raj v. Union of India,
(2010) 6 SCC 457 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 155]
this Court observed and held that there is no
fixed rule that whenever a single blow is
inflicted, Section 302 would not be attracted. It
is observed and held by this Court in the
aforesaid decision that nature of weapon used
and vital part of the body where blow was
struck, prove beyond reasonable doubt the
intention of the accused to cause death of the
deceased. It is further observed and held by
this Court that once these ingredients are
proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a
single blow struck or multiple blows.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (9 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
7.4. In Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar
[Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar v. State of
Gujarat, (2011) 10 SCC 604 :
(2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 397] , the death was
caused by single blow on head of the deceased
with a wooden pestle. It was found that the
accused used pestle with such force that head
of the deceased was broken into pieces. This
Court considered whether the case would fall
under Section 302 or Exception 4 to Section
300 IPC. It is held by this Court that the injury
sustained by the deceased, not only exhibits
intention of the accused in causing death of
victim, but also knowledge of the accused in
that regard. It is further observed by this Court
that such attack could be none other than for
causing death of victim. It is observed that any
reasonable person, with any stretch of
imagination can come to conclusion that such
injury on such a vital part of the body, with
such a weapon, would cause death.
7.5. A similar view is taken by this Court in the
recent decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. Leela
Ram
:(2019)13 SCC 131 and after considering
catena of decisions of this Court on the issue
on hand i.e. in case of a single blow, whether
case falls under Section 302 or Section 304
Part I or Section 304 Part II, this Court
reversed the judgment and convicted the
accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
In the same decision, this Court also
considered Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and
observed in para 19 as under:
“19……. Under Exception 4, culpable homicide
is not murder if the stipulations contained in
that provision are fulfilled. They are: (i) that
the act was committed without premeditation;
(ii) that there was a sudden fight; (iii) the act
must be in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel; and (iv) the offender should not have
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.”
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (10 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
7.1.6 In Bavisetti Kameswara Rao Vs. State of A.P.,(2008)
15 SCC 725, this Court has observed in paragraphs 13 and
14 as under:(SCC pp.729-31)
“13. It is seen that where in the murder
case there is only a single injury, there is
always a tendency to advance an argument
that the offence would invariably be covered
under Section 304 Part II IPC. The nature of
offence where there is a single injury could
not be decided merely on the basis of the
single injury and thus in a mechanical
fashion. The nature of the offence would
certainly depend upon the other attendant
circumstances which would help the court to
find out definitely about the intention on the
part of the accused. Such attendant
circumstances could be very many, they
being (i) whether the act was premeditated;
(ii) the nature of weapon used; (iii) the
nature of assault on the accused. This is
certainly not an exhaustive list and every
case has to necessarily depend upon the
evidence available. As regards the user of
screwdriver, the learned counsel urged that
it was only an accidental use on the spur of
the moment and, therefore, there could be
no intention to either cause death or cause
such bodily injury as would be sufficient to
cause death. Merely because the
screwdriver was a usual tool used by the
accused in his business, it could not be as if
its user would be innocuous.
14. In State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam
[(1995) 1 SCC 326 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 231]
this Court considered the usual argument of
a single injury not being sufficient to invite a
conviction under Section 302 IPC. In that
case the injury was caused by a knife. The
medical evidence supported the version of
the prosecution that the injury was
sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death. The High Court had
convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 304 Part II IPC relying on the fact
that there is only a single injury. However,
after a detailed discussion regarding the
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (11 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
nature of injury, the part of the body chosen
by the accused to inflict the same and other
attendant circumstances and after
discussing clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC
and further relying on the decision in Virsa
Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC
465] , the Court set aside the acquittal
under Section 302 IPC and convicted the
accused for that offence. The Court (in
Vedanayagam case [(1995) 1 SCC 326 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 231] , SCC p. 330, para 4)
relied on the observation by Bose, J. in
Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC 465] to
suggest that: (Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958
SC 465], AIR p. 468, para 16)“16. … With due respect to the
learned Judge he has linked up
the intent required with the
seriousness of the injury, and
that, as we have shown, is not
what the section requires. The
two matters are quite separate
and distinct, though the evidence
about them may sometimes
overlap”
The further observation in the above case
were:(Virsa Singh case [AIR 1958 SC
465] , AIR p. 468, paras 16 & 17)“16. …. The question is not whether
the prisoner intended to inflict a
serious injury or a trivial one but
whether he intended to inflict the
injury that is proved to be present. If
he can show that he did not, or if the
totality of the circumstances justify
such an inference, then, of course,
the intent that the section requires is
not proved. But if there is nothing
beyond the injury and the fact that
the appellant inflicted it, the only
possible inference is that he intended
to inflict it.Whether he knew of its
seriousness, or intended serious
consequences, is neither here nor
there. The question, so far as the(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (12 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]intention is concerned, is not whether
he intended to kill, or to inflict an
injury of a particular degree of
seriousness, but whether he intended
to inflict the injury in question; and
once the existence of the injury is
proved the intention to cause it will
be presumed unless the evidence or
the circumstances warrant an
opposite conclusion. But whether the
intention is there or not is one of fact
and not one of law. Whether the
wound is serious or otherwise, and if
serious, how serious, is a totally
separate and distinct question and
has nothing to do with the question
whether the prisoner intended to
inflict the injury in question.
17. It is true that in a given case the
enquiry may be linked up with the
seriousness of the injury. For
example, if it can be proved, or if the
totality of the circumstances justify
an inference, that the prisoner only
intended a superficial scratch and
that by accident his victim stumbled
and fell on the sword or spear that
was used, then of course the offence
is not murder. But that is not because
the prisoner did not intend the injury
that he intended to inflict to be as
serious as it turned out to be but
because he did not intend to inflict
the injury in question at all. His
intention in such a case would be to
inflict a totally different injury. The
difference is not one of law but one of
fact; …” (emphasis in original)”
7.2 From the abovestated decisions, it emerges
that there is no hard-and-fast rule that in a case
of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be
attracted. It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. The nature of injury,
the part of the body where it is caused, the
weapon used in causing such injury are the
indicators of the fact whether the accused
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16239-DB] (13 of 13) [CRLAD-32/2020]
caused the death of the deceased with an
intention of causing death or not. It cannot be
laid down as a rule of universal application that
whenever the death occurs on account of a
single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The
fact situation has to be considered in each case,
more particularly, under the circumstances
narrated hereinabove, the events which precede
will also have a bearing on the issue whether the
act by which the death was caused was done
with an intention of causing death or knowledge
that it is likely to cause death, but without
intention to cause death. It is the totality of the
circumstances which will decide the nature of
offence.”
In the backdrop of aforesaid presidential law, we are not
convinced that conviction of the appellant deserves to be altered
from 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
After analyzing the findings recorded by the learned trial
court on the touchstone of evidence available on record, we find
the same to be well reasoned based on appreciation of cogent
evidence on record and suffering from no such perversity or
illegality so as to warrant interference of this Court.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Anu /30
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:37:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/07/2026 at 06:09:54 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
