No medical opinion that injuries were life-threatening: Rajasthan HC cuts life term to 7 years

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has reduced a life sentence awarded for offences under Sections 307 and 394 read with Section 34 IPC to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, holding that the sentence was excessive since there was no medical opinion that the injuries caused were life-threatening, even though the conviction itself, being unchallenged on merits, stood confirmed.

A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing two connected appeals filed by Ramuram and Vishnu Kumar against their conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, arising out of an assault on the complainant near a restaurant in April 2019.

According to the complainant’s report dated Apr 15, 2019, he was on his way to a restaurant on the night of Apr 14, 2019 when, after crossing an intersection, a man signalled him to stop his motorcycle. On stopping, the man forcibly took the vehicle’s keys and demanded his wallet, then tried to snatch his ID card from his pocket. When the complainant refused to hand it over, the man, intending to kill him, took out a meat chopper and struck several blows on his head and body. When the complainant tried to defend himself, the assailant called another man to join him, and the two fled after a while. The complainant called his unit officer, who reached the spot, following which a nursing assistant and an accompanying officer arrived and took him to the Military Hospital for treatment.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, under Sections 323, 341, 393, 394, 397, 398, 307 and 34 IPC. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, which framed charges under Sections 341, 307/34, 323/34, 393/34, 394/34, 397/34 and 398 or 398/34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, during which the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and exhibited forty-nine documents. On being examined under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the evidence and claimed false implication, but led no defence evidence.

By its judgment dated Jul 9, 2025, the Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Sections 341, 323/34, 307/34 and 394/34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 394/34 IPC, besides shorter terms for the remaining offences.

During the appeals, counsel for the appellants submitted that they did not challenge the conviction under Sections 307/34, 394/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC on merits, confining their challenge to the quantum of sentence, which they submitted was excessive. The Court accordingly confirmed the conviction without re-appreciating the evidence on merits.

On the question of sentence, counsel for the appellants advocate Kaushal Sharma submitted that this was their first offence, that neither appellant had any prior criminal record, and that both had already undergone about seven years of imprisonment, including the period spent during trial. It was further submitted that, as per paragraph 18 of the trial court’s judgment, there was no medical opinion that the injuries caused to the complainant were life-threatening, though the offence under Section 307/34 IPC stood technically and legally proved on account of the sharp weapon used and the repeated blows struck on a vital part of the body. Counsel accordingly sought reduction of the life sentence to the period already undergone. The Public Prosecutor conceded that the appellants had undergone imprisonment of six years, six months and fourteen days as of Oct 29, 2025, but opposed reduction of the sentence to the period already served.

Examining the record, the Court observed:

“As per paragraph 18 of the trial court’s judgment, there was no medical opinion that the injury caused to the complainant’s head was life-threatening. But since the appellants, in furtherance of common intention, struck the complainant’s vital body part with a sharp-edged weapon more than once, that fact alone has been held to prove the offence under Section 307/34 IPC. There was also no evidence that these injuries, in the ordinary course of nature, were life-threatening. As per the injury report Exhibit P-25, the complainant had a total of nine injuries, of which injuries 3 to 7 were of a simple nature, and injuries 1, 2, 8 and 9 were referred for a BHT study to determine their nature; upon examination, injuries 1, 2, 8 and 9 were also found to be of a simple nature. The prosecution has also admitted that neither appellant has any prior criminal record.”

Considering the entirety of the record, the Court held that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 394/34 IPC could not be held to be justified.

The appeals were accordingly partly allowed. The conviction under Sections 307/34, 394/34, 323/34 and 341 IPC was confirmed, and the sentences under Sections 323/34 and 341 IPC were treated as satisfied by the period already undergone. In place of the life sentence, the appellants were sentenced under Sections 307/34 and 394/34 IPC to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 10,000 each, with a further two months’ simple imprisonment in default of payment, for each offence. The Court directed that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants be adjusted against their sentence as per rules, that all sentences run concurrently, and that any fine realised be paid as compensation to the complainant, Ravi Tripathi.

Title: Ramuram v. State of Rajasthan (connected with Vishnu Kumar v. State of Rajasthan)

Case No.: D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 352/2025, connected with D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 282/2025

Counsel for appellants: Mr. Kaushal Sharma with Mr. G.S. Rajpurohit; Mr. Rajak Khan with Mr. Manoj Kumar

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Rajesh Bhati, P.P., and Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, P.P.