[2025:RJ-JP:13858] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 81/1992 Kanhaya Lal S/o Chittar Ji, R/o Dharukhedi, Police Station Raipur, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sandu, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 26/03/2025 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the conviction order dated 15.02.1992 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No.200/90, whereby accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 304 part II of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in non- default of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned conviction order dated 15.02.1992 was passed under Section 304 part II of IPC wherein it had been categorically stated that the case is not maintainable under Section 302 of IPC. It is submitted that once conviction order has been passed and the offense is made out as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 part II of IPC, the maximum [2025:RJ-JP:13858] (2 of 4) [CRLA-81/1992] imprisonment for the said offense can be for a period of ten years or fine or both, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Howsoever, in the instant matter, the learned Trial Court in the impugned order has not considered the material facts, evidence and circumstances in totality. As per the contention of the appellant, the alleged death had been out of a natural course as the same was on account of a bull that had passed through the agriculture field, and had fiercely hit the deceased. It is further submitted that material witnesses have turned hostile during the trial of the accused, albeit they were close relatives of the deceased. 3. It is also submitted that there had been no any animosity or previous fights on record in the evidences. In these circumstances, it is submitted that conviction order should be set aside, alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant as on date is of approximately 82 years of age and is on death bed and has suffered hardship and mental agony. It is further submitted that the deceased was the real brother of the appellant and FIR had been lodged on account of a partition dispute, which was with the son of the deceased. It is also submitted that no criminal antecedents are standing qua the appellant and the present litigation is ongoing approximately from past 35 years. Further, it is submitted that for a period of three months, the appellant had been in judicial custody and the time when the incident took in the year 1990, the appellant was approximately 40 years of age. 4. In light of the above, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that if the impugned conviction order is not quashed and [2025:RJ-JP:13858] (3 of 4) [CRLA-81/1992] set aside, alternatively on period already undergone, the appellant the present appeal should be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has stoutly opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the postmortem report, statements of the doctor, recovery of stones from the crime scene, the nature of injuries inflicted or borne by the deceased and the statements of prosecution witnesses bear testimony against the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal should be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, assiduously scanning the record and taking note of the judgments cited at Bar, this Court is of the following view:- 6.1 That the conviction order is passed under the provisions of Section 304 part II of IPC i.e. punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 6.2 That as on date, the appellant is approximately aged 82 years, and is real brother of the deceased nevertheless, there is no previous animosity and fights inter-se the parities i.e. appellant and deceased, as per the record. 6.3 That the witnesses have turned hostile during the trial and the litigation is ongoing from a period past 36 years. Withal, the appellant was in custody for a period of more than three months approximately; that he is on death bed and is suffering hardship and mental agony. 7. Taking note of the foregoing facts and upon a cumulative scrutiny of circumstances, this Court is of following view:- 7.1 The substantive punishment period to the appellant under Section 304 part II IPC shall be reduced to the period already [2025:RJ-JP:13858] (4 of 4) [CRLA-81/1992] undergone by the appellant. 7.2 Two months time is granted to the appellant to deposit fine of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) with the learned Trial Court, failing which learned Trial Court shall take necessary steps to serve the sentence to the appellant. 8. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed. As the appellant Kanhaya Lal is on bail, the bail bonds earlier submitted by Kanhaya Lal are hereby cancelled. 9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. 10. Appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. before the Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The bail bond will be effective for a period of six months. 11. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /36