1 2025:CGHC:35351-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 699 of 2017 Nobel Sanwra S/o Rathram Sanwra Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Baghnipali, Thana- Chandrapur, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Chandrapur, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 23.07.2025 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused is not in touch with him and as per the order dated 16.01.2025, bailable warrant was issued for his appearance before this Court for today, but the learned State counsel submits that there is no report of the Superintendent of Police concerned with respect to the execution of MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.24 10:48:04 +0530 2 bailable warrant for appearance of the appellant. In view of the same, as the appeal pertains to the year 2017, this Court proceeds to hear the appeal finally as the appellant is represented by his counsel. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.02.2017, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 25/2016, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.06.2016, Rathram Sanwara, a resident of village Baghnipali, police station Chandrapur, appeared before the police station and informed them that he had gone to irrigate his garden in the morning. His younger brother, Amritlal, had gone to work. After irrigating the fields, Rathram went for a stroll in the colony street. At about 9:30, he heard a crying sound from his house and went inside to find his nephew, Bhupendra Sanwara, bleeding from the neck and had died. There was a mark of cutting with a sharp tool on his neck. His brother Amritlal had also arrived. Based on this information, the police station in-charge registered an inquest report (Ex.P-2) and initiated an investigation. 3 4. During the investigation, the police station in-charge went to the scene and served notice (Ex.P-9) to the witnesses. In their presence, a panchnama (Ex.P-10) of the deceased Bhupendra Sanwara's body was prepared. The body was sent to Community Health Center Dabhra for a post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-14). The post-mortem report (Ex.P-22) confirmed that the injuries were antemortem and caused by a sharp-edged weapon, resulting in death due to shock caused by external bleeding from the cutting of the neck vein. Upon interrogation, the suspected accused, Nobel Sanwra, confessed to the crime, stating that Bhupendra's constant fighting had led him to commit the murder using a sickle. Thereafter, the accused/appellant herein was taken into custody, and his memorandum statement (Ex.P-14) was recorded. Based on his statement, an iron sickle was seized from him in front of witnesses, and a seizure memo (Ex.P-16) was prepared. A T-shirt and towel with blood-like stains were also seized from the accused, and a seizure memo (Ex.P-17) was prepared. The First Information Report (Ex.P-33) was registered against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Blood-stained soil and plain soil were seized from the scene, and a seizure memo (Ex.P- 15) was prepared. A pant and T-shirt of the deceased Bhupendra were seized from Constable Shiv Kumar, and a seizure memo (Ex.P- 27) was prepared. 5. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was presented against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra. The case was 4 later committed to the Sessions Court and transferred to the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa. 6. When the court framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and read them out to him, the accused denied the crime and claimed trial. 7. During the trial, the prosecution examined 16 witness in support of its case. Based on the facts and circumstances revealed in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged crime, a statement of charge was prepared under Section 313 of the CrPC and the answers and explanations of the accused were recorded. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 23.02.2017, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 9. Mr. Deepak Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to the deceased in spur of moment. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in 5 anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsels for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant has caused murder of deceased by deadly attacking him with iron sickle due to which, he succumbed to his injuries, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the 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. 11. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration would be whether the deceased died under unnatural circumstances ? 13. With regard to this question, statement of Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW- 14), posted as Medical Officer at Community Health Center 6 Dabhra, is taken on record. 14. Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-14), Medical Officer conducted the postmortem and produced the report (Ex.P-25) and stated that according to him the injury found on the body was antemortem, which appears to have been caused by a sharp weapon, which was within 06-11 hours from the postmortem. Blue coloured half pant and dark green coloured half T-shirt, which had red-white horizontal line, were found on the body. Both were stained with blood, which were packed in a packet and handed over to the same constable and he was advised to get their chemical test done. In his opinion, the death of Bhupendra Sidar, son of Amritlal Sidar, age 12 years, was due to shock caused by external bleeding caused by cutting of the neck vein, which was of homicidal nature. 15. Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-14) has further stated in the examination-in- chief that on 20/06/16, constable Shiv Kumar No. 199 of Chandrapur police station sealed a tin box containing blood mixed soil and another sealed tin box containing plain soil seized from the scene of incident separately and handed them over to the same constable and advised him to get the chemical test done. The report given by him in this regard is Ex.P23. On the same date, the same constable brought a sealed sickle along with query report for examination. On examining the sickle, it was found that 7 it had two parts, the first was a wooden handle whose length was 15 cm and width 4.5 cm, the second was an iron part of 47 cm and thickness 03 cm and on the inside of the iron part there were small saw-like sharp teeth, on the surface of which there were blood-like stains, which were sealed and handed over to the same constable and were advised to get them chemically tested. In his PM report, it was stated that the injuries sustained by Bhupendra Sidar could have been caused by the sickle examined above. This witness certified Ex.P.-24 as a query report prepared by him in this regard. 16. Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-14) has stated in his further judicial examination-in-chief that on the same date the same constable had seized the clothes worn by the accused at the time of the incident and sent them in a sealed envelope for examination and had examined them. In the examination it was found a half T-shirt, the front part of which was labeled 'Ghar Moko', the blue coloured part of which had blood-like stains and a cotton and terrycot mix, lining check towel which had marks of frozen blood stains and was sealed and handed over to the same constable and was advised to get it chemically tested. The report given by him in this regard is Ex.P-25. 17. Thus, from the above evidence analysis and perusal of the medical evidence and documents available on record, it is proved that on the incident date, his death was caused by causing injury 8 to the neck with a sharp-edged weapon and the nature of death was homicidal. 18. Therefore, the trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-14), has come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to shock caused by external bleeding caused by cutting of the neck vein, which was of homicidal nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that cause of death of the deceased was due to cutting of the neck vein and nature of death is homicidal is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 19. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accused- appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 20. In this case, the prosecution had not presented the evidence of any eyewitnesses, rather the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. 21. Khilesh (PW-4) has stated in his judicial examination-in-chief that the accused is his brother. They are two brothers, the deceased Bhupendra was his elder brother. On the date of the incident, the accused Nobel Sanwara chased him and his brother Bhupendra with a sickle, he ran away from home due to fear and Bhupendra 9 remained in the shed. After that when he returned, his brother Bhupendra was lying dead in the shed. This witness has also stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused had hit his brother Bhupendra in the neck with a sickle in the shed and after hitting him, the accused had gone to Mahi Didi's house and when he returned, his elder father had hit the accused, so his hand was also swollen, after that everyone was crying saying that brother has died. 22. Police Station Incharge Inspector V.S. Marawi (PW-15) has deposed that he had recorded the memorandum statement of the accused in front of witnesses Devanand and Tuklal on Ex.P.-14 dated 01/06/2016. In the memorandum statement, the accused stated that he has hidden that iron sickle in the tamarind bush near his house and he has hid the T-shirt and towel that he was wearing at the time of the incident in the clothes hanger after taking it off. The accused further took out the iron sickle and his cloths and handed over. The above statement has been admitted by the accused in Ex.P.-14. According to Ex.P.-14, the above statement of the accused regarding giving the memorandum statement has also been supported by Tuklal (PW-4) and Devanand (PW-9) in their main examination. He further deposed that on 01/06/2016, he had seized an iron sickle from the accused in presence of witnesses Devanand and Tuklal as per seizure memo Ex.P.16 and on the same date, he had seized a T-shirt and a towel from the accused which had blood stains on it and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P.17). 23. Supporting the above statements of Police Station Incharge 10 Inspector V.S. Marawi (PW-15) and Tuklal (PW-8), Devanand (PW- 9) has also stated in their main examination that in their presence the accused had given an iron sickle, which was seized by the police as per seizure memo Ex.P-16. There was blood on the iron sickle, which was seized by the police from the accused and they have also stated that the clothes worn by the accused were also seized by the police. 24. Thus, on the basis of the said evidence, it is well established in this case that the Police Station Incharge Inspector V.S. Maravi (PW-15) had taken the accused Nobel Sanwara in custody and after questioning him, had duly recorded the memorandum statement of Ex.P.-14 and on the basis of the said memorandum statement of the accused, when the accused produced the iron sickle after taking it out from the bush of the tamarind tree, as per seizure memo Ex.P.- 16, one T-shirt and one towel of the accused Nobel were seized as per Ex.P.-17. 25. Station House Officer Inspector V.S. Maravi (PW-15) further stated in the judicial trial-in-chief that in front of witnesses Devanand and Tuklal, he seized blood-stained soil and plain soil from the crime scene and made seizure memo Ex.P.-15 and on 11/06/2016, he seized a pant and a T-shirt of deceased Bhupendra in a sealed packet from constable Shiv Kumar and made seizure memo Ex.P.27. According to Ex.P.-15, his statement regarding seizure of blood-stained soil and plain soil from the crime scene has also been supported by Tuklal (PW-8) and Devanand (PW-9). 11 26. Besides this, Kaushal Prasad (PW-2) has also stated in his judicial examination in chief that the accused had told the police that he had killed the deceased Bhupendra with the sickle and had kept the sickle on the tamarind tree. The accused had given the sickle by taking it out from the tamarind bush and that iron sickle had blood on it. Firturam (PW-3) and Amritlal (PW-5), Rathram (PW-12), Jivanlal (PW-7) and Shantaram (PW-10) have also stated that the accused had also told the police that he had hidden the sickle in the tamarind bush. 27. Therefore, it is also evident from the statements of these witnesses that the accused Nobel Sanwara had told the police that the iron sickle with which he had killed the deceased Bhupendra Sanwara was hidden in the bush of the tamarind tree and the accused had also got the said iron sickle confiscated by the police. 28. So far as FSL Report (Ex.P.-31) is concerned, it has been stated in FSL Report (Ex.P.-31) that blood was found in soil seized from the scene of incident, object A, sickle seized from the accused, object D, half pant of deceased Bhupendra, object E-1 and T-shirt of deceased Bhupendra, object E-2. In FSL Report Ex.P.-31, it has been mentioned in No.-2B that due to disintegration of the stains of exhibits A, D, E-1 and E-2, the type of blood stains found in the said objects could not be ascertained. Thus, it is true that the type of blood found in the said exhibits has not been mentioned in the FSL Report, but blood has been found in the said exhibits, which has not been denied by the defence. 12 29. The next question for consideration is whether the constant fight between accused Nobel Sanwara and deceased Bhupendra Sanwara is the cause of the crime? 30. In this regard, Rathlal Sanwara (PW-1), has stated that he has two sons, the elder son's name is Nobel (accused) and the younger son's name is Kaushal. Nobel is in jail, he has committed the murder. He was not at home at the time of the murder of deceased Bhupendra and when he returned from Kola side, his younger brother Amrid told him that Bhupendra is dead, then he ran towards Kola, when he came home, he saw that Bhupendra's neck was cut with a sickle and Bhupendra was dead, after that they sat in the house, then some people gathered. He, the village Kotwar, Mohan had gone to Chandrapur police station, after informing the police about the incident, the police came to the village and questioned the accused, then the accused told the police that Bhupendra used to fight and quarrel with him, so he killed him by hitting his neck with the sickle of the house. 31. Kaushal Prasad (PW-2) has stated in his judicial chief examination that the accused is his elder brother. The deceased Bhupendra was murdered by his brother Nobel by hitting him with a sickle. On the day of the incident his aunt came out of the house crying, then he saw her and what happened and went inside the house. He saw from a distance that the deceased Bhupendra was lying dead and there was a lot of blood around him. After that he went to call his uncle Amridlal and brought him. Then he also called his mother and 13 grandmother. After some time, many people of the village gathered around their house. After that, the police came to their house and questioned the accused. He confessed his crime. When he saw the dead body of Bhupendra, his throat was cut and blood was flowing on the ground. The accused also said that Bhupendra Sawara was quarreling, so he killed him by cutting his throat with the sickle of the house. 32. Firtaram (PW-3) has stated in his judicial chief examination that the accused has killed the deceased Bhupendra. On the date of the incident, they had gone to the field for farming. He came home from the field at about 8-9 in the morning. He cut some wood at home. After that, he was going to the pond to take a bath with clothes etc., when his brother Amritlal's wife was shouting loudly that someone has killed her son. Then he went there and looked inside the house in the shade. The deceased Bhupendra was lying dead in the shade. Blood had collected around him. Bhupendra had injuries on his neck and hand. After that, the people around gathered. Amritlal was crying a lot. He was consoling him. When he reached Bhupendra, the accused was not there. He had gone to the place where he lives. When Amritlal was crying and wailing in his house, the accused came there. After that, when the police came and asked the accused, he admitted to killing Bhupendra with a sickle. 33. Maheshwari (PW-5), Amritlal Sidar (PW-6), Jeevanlal (PW-7), Tuklal (PW-8) and Devanand Mahant (PW-9) have also deposed in their statements the facts stated by above witnesses. 14 34. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for 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 ? 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana1 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.” 1 (2002) 3 SCC 327 15 36. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana2 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into 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; 2 (2009) 15 SCC 635 16 (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members 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.” 37. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda3, 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 likely to cause death. 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450 17 38. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh4 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. …. '18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without 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 4 (2017) 3 SCC 247 18 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”. 39. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the 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. 40. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 has laid down four ingredients which 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.” 41. Reverting to the facts of the present case and in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above- 5 (2019) 6 SCC 122 19 stated judgments (supra) and the statements made by the witnesses Rathlal Sanwra (PW-1), Kaushal Prasad (PW-2), Firturam (PW-3), Maheshwari (PW-5), Amritlal Sidar (PW-6), Jeevanlal (PW-7), Tuklal (PW-8) and Devanand Mahant (PW-9) regarding the incident, it is quite vivid that the accused and the deceased are cousin brothers and there was a constant fight going on between accused Nobel Sanwara and deceased Bhupendra Sanwara and on the date of incident i.e. on 01.06.2016, deceased Bhupendra fought and quarreled with the accused, so the accused out of that anger and in heat of passion, hit the deceased with an iron sickle on the neck, due to which he fell bleeding and died at the spot. The appellant did not have any intention to cause death of deceased, but by causing such injuries, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely to cause death of deceased, as such, his case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfied 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. 42. Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the evidence of Rathlal Sanwra (PW-1), Kaushal Prasad (PW-2), Firturam (PW-3), Maheshwari (PW-5), Amritlal Sidar (PW-6), Jeevanlal (PW-7), Tuklal (PW-8) and Devanand Mahant (PW-9) and evidence of Khilesh (PW-4), statement of medical officer Dr. N.P. Mishra (PW-14), FSL 20 report, nature of injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased, postmortem report (Ex.P-22) and the fact that the appellant has already served jail sentence for a period of more than 07 years, 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-II of the IPC. 43. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 01.06.2016. He was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2017, but he could not furnish the bail bonds and was not released on bail and he supposed to be enlarged on bail only by order dated 17.04.2023 and has completed near about 7 years of jail sentence. 44. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo for the period already undergone by him. He need not surrender. 45. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 46. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellants are undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellants informing them that they are 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. 21 47. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet