1 2025:CGHC:8310-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 729 of 2021 Sonsingh Baghel S/o Shri Tulsi Baghel Aged About 45 Years Occupation Labour, Caste Gond, R/o Village Badebodla Dau Para, Police Station Frejarpur Parpa, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Frejarpur Parpa, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.02.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.20 14:01:41 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent / State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.06.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baster, Place- Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Session Case No. 59/2019, whereby the appellant have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 03 months. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Smt. Sangeeta Nag, wife of Venus Nag, aged 24 years, caste Gond, resident of village Kalaguda Thothpara, lodged a death intimation (Ex.P-4) in police station Fraserpur, Parapa on 15.08.2019 that she lives in village Kalaguda, Thothpara and they are three sisters and she is the eldest and has two younger sisters Geeta Baghel aged 14 years and Anita Baghel aged 12 years. Her father Sonsingh is addicted to alcohol. She was married to Venus Nag, son of Sonaram, resident of village Kalaguda Thothappara, one year ago. Her father Sonsingh used to fight with her mother Savita suspecting her character. When she came to her maternal home 3 Bade Bodal about 02 months ago, her mother Savita told her that she likes Bhimsen of Dau Para. On 14.08.2019 at about 02.00 pm, she came to her maternal home Bade Bodal to celebrate Rakshabandhan festival. At that time, her father Sonsingh was at home, her mother Savita was not at home. Then she asked her younger sister Anita about her mother. Anita told that her mother is hiding towards Jondhra Bari of Bhimsen and her father is searching for her to kill her. At around 8:00 PM, her father Sonsingh came home after consuming alcohol and left the house with the tangia and a red torch in his hand saying, "Today I will kill your mother". At around 11:00 PM, her father Sonsingh came back home and told her that "I have killed your mother Savita in Bhimsen's garden with the tangia". Seeing blood on the tangia, she asked her father while crying that where did you kill her mother. Then her father told her and her two sisters Geeta Baghel and Anita Baghel, "Come, I will show you your mother". All the three sisters went to Bhimsen's house half way and ran away. Then she and her two sisters went to Bhimsen's house towards the garden to look for their mother Savita. At that time Bhimsen and his brother Ramdhar were at home. When Bhimsen was asked, he said that Sonsingh came to his house looking for your mother Savita with a tangia in his hand and a torch. He got scared and ran away from the house and hid. Your mother Savita also hid in the Jondhra garden. Then he went to the garden looking for Savita and found her mother lying dead on the ground. There 4 were marks of serious injury of tangia on her neck and head and she was covered with blood. Her mother Savita was killed by her father Sonsingh by hitting her with a tangia due to suspicion on her character. 4. On the information given by the informant Smt. Sangeeta Nag that her mother Savita Baghel was murdered by her father Sonsingh Baghel, Inspector Chandrashekhar Shrivas registered FIR No. 65/19 (Ex.P-4) on 15/8/2019. On the same date 15/08/2019, on the basis of the FIR written above, the said Inspector registered the Diary Entry No. 19 regarding the incident and registered the First Information Report (Ex.P-5). 5. During the investigation, Sub-Inspector Satyanarayan Dewangan visited the place of incident at village Kalaguda Thothapara and investigated where as per the statement given by Sangeeta Nag, the map of the place of incident was prepared (Ex.P-6) and in front of witnesses at the place of incident, the death investigation panchayatnama (Ex.P-7) and map panchayatnama (Ex.P-8) of the body of deceased Savita Baghel were prepared and the details of the map panchayatnama were separately prepared (Ex.P-26). Memorandum statement of accused Sonsingh Baghel was recorded in front of witnesses (Ex.P-9) and on the basis of the said memorandum statement, an iron tangia with a bent wood was seized from the shade of the house of the accused and seizure sheet (Ex.P-10) was prepared and blood stained and plain 5 soil was seized from the place of incident in front of witnesses and seizure sheet (Ex.P-11) was prepared and the broken bazaaru mangalsutra of the deceased and red colour torch were seized in front of witnesses and seizure sheet (Ex.P-13) was prepared and the clothes worn by the accused at the time of incident were seized in front of witnesses and seizure sheet (Ex.P-12) was prepared and the accused was arrested and arrest sheet (Ex.P- 14) was prepared and information regarding the arrest of the accused was given to his family members vide Ex.P-31 and duty certificate (Ex.P-27) was given to lady constable No. 1028 Vandana Jhadi. Application (Ex.P-28) was sent for postmortem of the body of deceased Savita Baghel. 6. Medical Officer Dr. Gyanendra Kumar conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased Savita Baghel and after examination, postmortem report (Ex.P-20) was given and following external injuries were found in the dead body of the deceased:- (i) There was a straight scratch on the left side of the dorsum of the deceased's body, the size of which was 7 cms by 0.1 cms. This injury was 13 cms below the scapula and had a red scab. (ii) There was a tremor line contusion in the middle on the right side of the dorsum of the deceased's body, the size of which was 5 cms and was blue in colour . (iii) There was a torn wound on the right side of the 6 back of the head of the deceased, the size of which was 8 cms by 2 cms which was sunken upto the bone. The second torn wound was on the parietal part of the right side of the deceased, 6 cms above the right ear, the size of which was 3 cms by 1 cms. It was embedded in the bone, there was a pit-like fracture in the bone, the muscles inside were red. The temporalis muscle on the right side was red. (iv) There were many fractures in the skull. There were multiple broken pieces, mostly on left side. Meningeal membrane was tensile torn and subdural, subcranial blood clots were present over the entire brain on the inner side. Brain fluid was haemorrhagic. Cerebellum was reddened. (v) There were multiple lacerated wounds on the front portion of the neck of the deceased measuring 3.5 cm by 1 cm, about 2.5 cm below the middle portion of chin, which were cutting and cutting the muscles and techia inside, 1 cm below this wound there was another lacerated wound measuring 2.5 cm by 0.5 cm, which was embedded upto the muscle and 0.5 cm below this wound there was another deep gash measuring 2 cm by 0.5 cm. (vi) The muscle of 6th rib on left side of chest of the deceased was red and fractured. 7 7. Medical Officer Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-11) further stated that in the internal examination of the dead body of the deceased, some amount of blood was present in the heart of the deceased. The remaining organs were pale, about 20 ml of grey pasty colour was present in the stomach. The internal mucosa was reddish. According to his opinion, the death of the deceased was due to shock and excessive bleeding due to injuries on the head and neck. These injuries were the cause of death. These injuries were sufÏcient to be causative. These injuries were caused by heavy hard and sharp edged instruments. The nature of death was homicide. 8. During the investigation, an application (Exhibit P-29) was given to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur on 22.08.2019 for recording the statement of the informant Mrs. Sangeeta Nag under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on which the statement of the informant Mrs. Sangeeta Nag was recorded in the court under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 16/08/2019, after the post-mortem, the doctor in charge seized the clothes worn by the deceased Sangeeta Baghel and the three boxes containing the preserved viscera in a sealed packet when they were brought to the police station Fraserpur Parapa by lady constable number-1028 Vandana Jhadi and presented in front of the constable and seizure memo (Exhibit P-15) was prepared. On 8 19/09/2019, letter (Ex.P-21) was given to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Dimrapal, to examine the seized iron tangia and submit a report on which, on 25/09/2019, query report (Ex.P-22) was received from the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Dimrapal. 9. Sub-inspector Satyanarayan Devangan sent a letter to the Medical Officer for giving the examination report of the seized iron tangia in the case, on Ex.P-21, the doctor has given his report (Ex.P-22) on the page of the query application itself, reporting that the injury on the head and neck of the deceased was possible to be made by the seized tangia and that dried blood-like stains were visible on the tangia. The seized tangia was sealed and handed over to the concerned constable No.-275 Ashok Kumar with the advice to send it to FSL in Raipur for chemical examination, regarding the presence of human blood in it. The investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Satyanarayan Devangan had sent letter (Ex.P.-30) to the Tehsildar Jagdalpur for providing the site map of the incident and as per the instructions of the Tehsildar, the Patwari had prepared the site map and Panchnama (Ex.P.-1 and 2) of the incident. The seized exhibits were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Jagdalpur and Raipur for chemical examination through the Superintendent of Police, letter (Ex.P.-32 and 33), on which receipt (Ex.P.-23 and 24) were received for depositing the exhibits in the Forensic Science Laboratory of Raipur and Jagdalpur. The report given by the State 9 Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur (Ex.P-34) was received, according to which Exhibit A, B, C, viscera and sample fluid of the deceased were reported to have no chemical poison and according to the report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur, Exhibit A, C, D, F1, F2, F3, soil, tangia and blood on the clothes of the accused and the deceased and the accused's half shirt and the deceased's clothes were reported to have blood on them. It was reported that there was human blood on the blouse and petticoat. During the investigation, the statements of the witnesses Sangeeta Nag, Panch witnesses Sukaru Kashyap, Bhimsingh Kawasi, Ramdhar Kawasi, Sukaman Dhruv, Anita Baghel, Geeta Baghel were recorded by the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Satyanarayan Dewangan. 10. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was presented against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, on which he submitted the case under Section 209 of the CrPC and sent it to the Sessions Court for trial. 11. When the charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the accused, he denied the allegations. In the trial under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused said that he was innocent and that he was falsely implicated. He did not give any evidence in his defence. 10 12. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents Exs.P-1 to P- 35. 13. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 18.06.2021, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused / appellant. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 302 of the IPC as there was no reason or any motive has been proved by the prosecution to do such type of crime. He further submits that in the present case, there is no eye witness to the incident and case rest on circumstantial evidence which is so weak in nature that is insufficient to convict the appellant for the aforementioned offence. The main witness of the cae is Kumar Geeta Baghel (PW-2), Kumari Anita Baghel (PW-3) and also PW-4 informant Smt. Sangeeta Nag have not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile, inspite of that, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of imagination. The learned trial Court ought to have believed that medical evidence is not corroborated by ocular evidence. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned 11 judgment and submits that the appellant has caused murder of deceased by deadly attacking her with tangia due to which, she succumbed to her injuries, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and it is not a case where the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC and as such, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 16. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 17. The first question for consideration would be whether the deceased died under unnatural circumstances ? 18. With regard to this question, statements of Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-11), who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Savita Baghel is taken into consideration. 19. Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-11), this witness has stated in his judicial evidence while conducting the postmortem of the deceased Savita Baghel, in the internal examination, he found that some amount of blood was present in the heart of the deceased. The remaining organs were pale, about 20 ml of grey pasty colour was present in the stomach. The internal mucosa was reddish. According to his opinion, the death of the deceased was due to shock and excessive bleeding due to injuries in the 12 head and neck. These injuries were the cause of death. The injuries were sufficient to be causative. These injuries were caused by heavy hard and sharp edged instruments. The nature of death was homicide. 20. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the medical witnesses Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-11), who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Savita Baghel. Hence, the trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-11) and PM report (Ex.P-20) has come to the conclusion that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances. 21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions advanced by them, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the deceased Savita Baghel died under unnatural circumstances is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 22. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question? 23. Miss Geeta Baghel (PW-2) has stated in her statement that she knows the accused Sonsingh, who is her father and the deceased 13 Savita Baghel was her mother, who was killed by her father. They are three sisters, she, Sangeeta and her younger sister Miss Anita Baghel and they live in Thotapara of village Badebodal. About 06 months ago, two days before the date of incident, her mother was not at home, on the date of incident, she and her two sisters and father were at home. On the date of incident itself, in the evening, her mother Savita Baghel came to the village, but did not come to their house, she was staying in the house of Sudhuram in the neighbourhood. She had gone to the village and on the same night her father had gone out somewhere and came back home at around 11:00 pm and told her that he has killed her mother. At the same time her two sisters, who were sleeping, also woke up. Then all the sisters asked their father why did he killed their mother, then the father told that she was with another man so he killed her. Her father also told that her mother was killed near the neck with a tangia in the forest near the village. Hearing this, the three sisters ran to the scene of the incident as told by her father. Then they saw that their mother was lying there, there were marks of injury on her neck. When they went closer and saw, the mother had died. Scared from there, they came back home because it was late in the night and it had become very dark. Then they were waiting for the light to come. In the morning, when it became bright, they went to Vimala Aunty who lived in the neighbourhood and told her about the incident and with Vimala Aunty, the three sisters again went to the scene of the incident. The incident was 14 told to his uncle Sukuldhar, who was a relative of the village, at that time his father was at home. Later, other people of the village gathered at the site of the incident because his aunt Vimala and uncle Sukuldhar had told about the incident, at the same time his father also came to the site of the incident for some time and went back home, at that time his father told that he has killed their mother with a tangia (stained iron rod) and at that time he had also told that her mother was with some other man Bhimsen, that is why he have killed her and when their father came home after the incident at 11:00 pm, at that time he was holding a tangia and a torch in his hands. 24. She further stated that later the villagers had informed the police about the incident, but she does not know who had given the information. She stated that the police came to the spot and conducted investigation proceedings and during the police investigation proceedings, she was at her home and later on being called by the police, she went to her elder sister Sangeeta, who was present at the scene of the incident, where the police interrogated her, in which her sister and she told about the incident, but the police did not record her statement. In her cross- examination, she accepted that her parents used to quarrel often because her father used to drink a lot and her father used to doubt her mother's character and being fed up with her father's fights and quarrels and beatings, her mother used to leave the house. She had left her and since the evening of the incident her 15 father was very drunk and on the date of the incident at about 8:00 pm, he left the house with a tangia and torch in his hand and when her father returned home at 11:00 pm on the night of the incident, he was holding the tangia and torch and the tangia was covered with blood and at that time her father had told her that he had killed her mother Savita Baghel near Bhimsen's orchard. After her father told her about the incident, the three sisters had gone to the place of incident and then to Bhimsen's house, at that time her brother Ramdhar was also present in Bhimsen's house, where Bhimsen told them that at night their father had come to his house with a tangia to look for their mother, then he hid in fear on seeing Sonsingh and their mother also went to hide towards the orchard where Sonsingh went and beat her and killed ther monther with a tangia. He also said that he was watching the incident hiding behind a bush but he did not come to save their mother due to fear. 25. Child witness Anita Baghel (PW-3) stated in her evidence that accused Sonsingh is her father and deceased Savita Baghel is hers her mother and that she was killed by her father. She has stated that on the date of incident during Raksha Bandhan festival, she and her two elder sisters Geeta and Sangeeta were at home at night and they were sleeping in their house at night, at that time her father came home and told that he has killed her mother, then all three sisters went to see the spot of incident where her father had told that her mother was killed and when he 16 went there, he saw that there was an injury mark on his mother's neck and that her mother had died. Thereafter, they came back to their home from the scene of incident and the police officers later came to the village and investigated and recorded statements from the three sisters after questioning them about the incident. In the cross-examination, the she accepted that before the incident, his father used to get drunk and fight with his mother and being fed up with his father's fights and drinking, his mother left the house two days before the incident and on the date of the incident, his father had gone out with a tangia and a torch and he himself said that before the incident, when his elder sister's marriage was taking place, his mother had also gone to Bhimsen, he had explained this to his mother many times, but she did not listen, therefore, on the date of the incident, his father got upset and killed his mother in anger and his father had left the house with a tangia on the date of the incident and when he returned at night and told about the incident, there was blood on the tangia he was holding and at the same time her father had told them that he has killed their mother by hitting her on the head and neck with the tangia and he has told all these things to the police in her statement. 26. Similarly, Sangeeta Nag (PW-4) has stated her statement that accused Sonsingh is her father and deceased Savita Baghel was her mother, she was killed by her father Sonsingh. They are three sisters named Sangeeta, Kumari Geeta and Anita and she was 17 married to Vinas Nag of village Kalaguda two years ago and 06 months ago she had come to her maternal home village Badebodal to celebrate Rakhi festival, at that time her mother was not at home. On the night of the incident, her father left the house after dinner with a tangia and torch and at about 11:00 pm, he returned and told her that he has killed her mother with a tangia. Hearing this, the three sisters went crying to the incident site near Bhimsen Ramdhar's house at Thotapara and on questioning Bhimsen, he told that half an hour ago their mother was shouting towards the garden, they also did not leave the house due to fear. Then they went to the garden near Bhimsen's house where her mother was lying, there were injury marks on her neck and head and she had died. Then from the spot itself she called her maternal uncle Sukaman, who lives in village Kaikagarh, and told him about the incident and they went to the garden. She stayed at the site of the incident. As it was late in the night, when it became light in the morning, she told Vimala and Sudu about the incident in the village, who live near her house. They also visited the site of the incident. Other people from the village also came to the site of the incident. In the morning, her father Sonsingh also informed the Kotwar of the village about the incident and came to the site of the incident along with the Kotwar, where after telling all the villagers about the incident, they went to the police station to lodge a report. At the police station, she told the police about the incident. As per her information, the police have registered the 18 Merg Intimation (Ex.P-4). At the same time, the police registered the First Information Report regarding the incident. After filing the report, the police came to the village and conducted investigation at the site of the incident. The police had recorded her statement after questioning her about the incident. She said that the police had brought her to the court two to four days after the incident to record her statement wherein she stated that her father came at night on the date of the incident and told her about killing her mother with a tangia, when she asked him why he killed her, he told her that her mother was roaming with another man Bhimsen, that's why he killed her. 27. Geeta Baghel (PW-2), Anita Baghel (PW-3) and Sangeeta Nag (PW-4), as per the evidence available in the case, being real daughters of accused Sonsingh Baghel, are members of his family members (daughter), in such a situation the prosecution case has not been literally supported by them under human nature to save the accused, but these witnesses have firmly stated in their evidence that the deceased was hit with a tangia by her father, accused Sonsingh, and at that time he also had a blood-stained tangia in his hand, due to which the deceased died, which clearly shows that they have given clear information regarding the incident about their father, accused Sonsingh, who hit the deceased, which is completely reliable, and there is no reason to disbelieve it. 19 28. Sukru Kashyap (PW-5) has stated in his statement that he knows accused Sonsingh who is a resident of his own village and that the deceased Savita Baghel was the wife of accused Sonsingh, whom accused Sonsingh says he has killed. Last year during the rainy season, on the date of the incident, he was at his home, then at about 7:00 a.m., Sonsingh Baghel / accused came to his home and told him that he had killed his wife Savita Baghel with a tangia near Bhimsen's garden. Then he went with Sonsingh to the place of incident, Bhimsen's garden, where Savita Baghel's dead body was lying there, injury marks were visible on her head and neck and after that he took Sonsingh to the police station and a report was registered regarding the incident. The police came to the village for investigation proceedings and did some paperwork at the scene of the incident. He said that when the police asked about the incident from accused Sonsingh Baghel, Sonsingh told that he had kept the tangia used in the incident hidden in the house and on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P-09), the police seized the tangia as per seizure memo (Ex.P-10). The police had seized blood stained and plain soil from the scene of incident in his presence and the police seized the clothes of the accused at the same time. 29. So far seizure of weapons is concerned, witness Sukru Kashyap (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that on the memorandum of accused Sonsingh Baghel, tangia was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-10. 20 30. Sub-Inspector Satyanarayan Devangan (PW-15), Investigating witness has stated in his evidence that during investigation, he had taken memorandum statement (Ex.P-9) of accused Sonsingh Baghel in front of witnesses on 15.08.2019 and on the basis of memorandum statement of accused Sonsingh, a wooden bent iron tangia was seized in front of witnesses when the accused produced it from the shade of his house and seizure sheet (Ex.P- 10) was prepared and from the place of incident, broken bazaaru mangal sutra and a torch of the deceased was seized and seizure sheet (Ex.P-13) was prepared and from the place of incident In front of witnesses, he had seized the blood stained and plain soil and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-11). He further stated in his cross-examination that the said mangalsutra was identified as belonging to the deceased by the deceased's daughter, the informant. His signature on the significant part of the said statement memorandum and also on the significant part of the seizure memo Exhibit P-10. The proceedings of Exhibit P-9 and Exhibit P-10 done by this witness have been supported by PW-5 Sukaru Kashyap during his evidence. 31. This witness has further stated that during the investigation itself, on 16.8.2019, after the postmortem of the deceased, lady constable No.-1028 Vandana Jhadi, seized the clothes worn by deceased Savita Baghel at the time of the incident and the viscera in three boxes given by the doctor in-charge to preserve them and when produced before her, as per Exhibit P-15, on which her 21 signatures are there from B to B, which has also been confirmed by PW-11 (Dr. Gyanendra Kumar), which has not been denied by the defence, due to which the above action taken by this witness is proved. 32. It has also been stated by this witness that the articles (exhibits) seized as per Exhibit P-10, Exhibit P-11, Exhibit P-12 and Exhibit P-15 were sent by him to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur through Superintendent of Police for chemical test under the advice of medical witness PW-11 Dr. Gyanendra Kumar, letters regarding which are Exhibit P-32 and 33 and the test report is Exhibit P-34. It is clear from the perusal of Exhibit P-30 that chemical poison has not been found in viscera and saline solution of the deceased as Exhibit A, B and C and the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory has sent the same to the concerned witness. It is clear from the observation of the Jagdalpur report, that the blood-soaked soil and plain soil seized from the scene of the incident have been marked as Exhibit A, B and the clothes worn by the deceased Savita Baghel at the time of the incident, sari, blouse and petticoat are Exhibit F1, F2 and F3 and the half-shirt of accused Sonsingh Baghel is Exhibit D and lungi is Exhibit E and Tangiya is Exhibit C which have been seized from the possession of accused Sonsingh and in the chemical test report, it has been mentioned that blood has been found in Exhibit A, C, D, 22 F1, F2 and F3 and human blood has been found in Exhibit D, F2 and F3, the lungi of the accused, blouse and petticoat of the deceased. Here the notable and important evidence is that human blood has been found in the lungi seized from the accused and the blouse and patticoat of the deceased, and blood has been found in the tangia seized from the accused, regarding which the accused was unable to explain how human blood was found in the lungi seized from him and how blood has been found in the tangia seized from him. 33. In such a situation, the fact is confirmed that the accused himself had murdered the deceased Savita Baghel. The deceased died due to being hit with a 1.5 kg heavy tangia on the head, neck and 6th rib, which is a delicate part of the body, which is confirmed by the statement of PW-2 Sangeeta, PW-3. Anita Baghel, PW-4 Sangeeta Nag, PW-5 Sukru Kashyap, because within a reasonable time of the incident, the accused had informed PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 that accused Sonsingh Baghel had killed the deceased Savita Baghel by hitting her with a tangia. 34. Considering the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased due to which he died. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 35. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for 23 consideration, whether the case of the appellant is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 36. The cause of death assigned in the post-mortem report of both the deceased as already noticed are ‘shock on account of consequential trauma’. It is a trite law that “culpable homicide” is a genus and “murder” is its species and all “murders” are “culpable homicides, but all “culpable homicides are not “murders” as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rampal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1. The intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of actual circumstances, but in the light of what is supposed to be the circumstances. 37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basdev Vs. State of Pepsu2 has made the following observations : “Of course, we have to distinguish between motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin 1 (2012) 8 SCC 289 2 AIR 1956 SC 488 24 but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote different things. Even in some English decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this has led to a certain amount of confusion.” 38. It requires to be borne in mind that the test suggested in the aforesaid decision and the fact that the legislature has used two different terminologies, ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ and separate punishments are provided for an act committed with an intent to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death and for an act committed with a knowledge that his act is likely to cause death without intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it would be unsafe to treat ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ in equal terms. They are not different things. Knowledge would be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring the requisite intent. Where the evidence would not disclose that there was any intention to cause death of the deceased but it was clear that the accused had knowledge that his acts were likely to cause death, the accused can be held guilty under second part of Section 304 IPC. It is in this background that the expression used in Indian Penal Code namely “intention” and “knowledge” has to be seen as there being a thin line of distinction between these two expressions. The act to constitute murder, if in given facts and circumstances, would disclose that the ingredients of Section 300 are not satisfied and such act is one of extreme recklessness, it would not attract the said Section. In order to bring a case within Part 3 of Section 300 25 IPC, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. In other words, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. 39. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana3 has observed as under:- “21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.” 40. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana4 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into 3 (2002) 3 SCC 327 4 (2009) 15 SCC 635 26 consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which state as under :- “23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under : (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members 27 or close relations; (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. 24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.” 41. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda5, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is 5 (2012) 8 SCC 450 28 likely to cause death. 42. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh6 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :- “20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under :(SCC p. 220, para 7) “7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.” 21. Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 596, para 9) “9. …. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without 6 (2017) 3 SCC 247 29 premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”. 43. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 44. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)7 has laid down four ingredients which 7 (2019) 6 SCC 122 30 should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under: “16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Anbazhagan vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police in Criminal Appeal No.2043 of 2023 disposed of on 20.07.2023 has defined the context of the true test to be adopted to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act as under: “60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus: (1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate: ‘A’ is bound hand and foot. ‘B’ comes and placing his revolver against the head of 31 ‘A’, shoots ‘A’ in his head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of ‘B’ in shooting ‘A’ was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, ‘B’ sneaks into the bed room of his enemy ‘A’ while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of ‘A’, ‘B’ forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of ‘A’ and runs away. ‘A’ dies shortly thereafter. The injury to ‘A’ was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that ‘B’ intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of ‘B’ within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused. (2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the 32 intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC. (3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’. (4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder. (5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression 33 ‘sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’ but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury ‘likely to cause death’ and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. (6) The word ‘likely’ means probably and it is distinguished from more ‘possibly’. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will ‘probably happen’. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death. (7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, 34 the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC. (8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack. (9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused 35 and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries. (10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. (11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies. (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.” 46. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the 36 above-stated judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that on the date of incident i.e. on 14.08.2019, the appellant was drunk and was searching his wife / deceased due to suspicion on her character and when he got to know about the location of the deceased, he went there with tangia and torch in his hand and killed his wife and when he returned back home, he himself told his daughter that he has killed their mother Savita in Bhimsen's garden with the tangia. Though there was no motive or premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of deceased, but in heat of passion, he became furious and with intention to cause death of deceased caused such injuries and by doing so, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely cause death of the deceased, as such, his case would falls within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of appellant herein completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 47. Considering the above-stated facts, further considering the evidence of Geeta Baghel (PW-2), Anita Baghel (PW-3), Sangeeta Nag (PW-4) and Medical witness Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-11), taking into consideration the age of the appellant at present, also considering the postmortem report of the deceased 37 (Ex.P-20) and the material available on record, it would meet the end of justice that if the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered/converted to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. 48. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part- I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years. 49. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 15.08.2019 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above. 50. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 51. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 52. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet