Injury to a non-vital part without intent to kill attracts Section 304 Part-II, not murder.

On March 10, 2001, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the deceased (Ramesh) was playing Holi when he was allegedly stabbed in the left thigh by the appellant, Tarun @ Rocky

The incident was reportedly witnessed by the deceased’s mother (PW-6) and father (PW-3)

A PCR officer (PW-9) transported the victim to AIIMS, during which the victim purportedly made a dying declaration naming "Rocky" as the assailant

The victim succumbed to injuries at 2:00 a.m. the following day

Following the appellant's arrest, a knife and blood-stained clothes were recovered, with FSL reports confirming the blood group matched the deceased's

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction, citing contradictions in witness testimonies and questioning the intent to murder

Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the appellant as the assailant beyond a reasonable doubt given the alleged contradictions in witness testimony

Whether the act of stabbing the deceased twice in the thigh constitutes "Murder" under Section 302 or "Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder" under Section 304 of the IPC

The court applied Section 299 of the IPC (Culpable Homicide) and Section 300 of the IPC (Murder), distinguishing between the two based on "intention" and "knowledge"

It relied on the landmark precedent Rampal Singh v. State of U.P. (2012) to delineate the degrees of culpable homicide and the "principle of exclusion" to determine if an act falls under Section 302 or 304

The court further referenced State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya regarding the genus-species relationship between culpable homicide and murder

The court further referenced Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the reliability of police witnesses in the absence of public witnesses

The Court upheld the finding that the appellant was the assailant, noting that the parents (PW-3 and PW-6) had no reason to falsely implicate him and their testimonies were corroborated by the prompt DD entry (recorded 10 minutes post-incident) naming "Rocky"

Minor discrepancies regarding the deceased’s clothes or the clerical error in the name (Arun vs. Tarun) did not vitiate the prosecution's case

However, regarding the nature of the offense, the Court observed that the deceased and appellant were playing Holi together, and the deceased was under the influence of liquor, suggesting a sudden fight

Crucially, the appellant inflicted injuries on the thigh—a non-vital part of the body—and the case was initially registered under Section 324 IPC

Applying the Virsa Singh principles as discussed in Rampal Singh, the Court found that while the appellant had the "knowledge" that the injury was likely to cause death, the evidence failed to prove a "premeditated intention" to kill

The sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

As the appellant had already undergone over five years of actual imprisonment plus remissions, he was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining period of the modified sentence