1 2025:CGHC:36030-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 413 of 2016 1 - Raju Maurya S/o Biru Maurya Aged About 30 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Chhindbahar, P.S. Lohandigura, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Lohandigura, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent / State : Shri Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput (Judgment On Board) (25.07.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been filed by the appellant calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31/12/2015 passed by the learned 2 Sessions Judge, Bastar, place at Jagdalpur, District -Bastar (CG) in Sessions Trial No.86/2015 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 03/08/2015 at about 7 PM, the appellant formulated a plan to kill his elder brother-Budhram Mourya and in furtherance thereof assaulted him with hands, fists and stick and also slammed on the ground and again assaulted him on his neck, head and forehead with stone, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment on 30/08/2025 at about 1.25 AM and, thereby the appellant is said to have committed the offence. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that the son of the deceased died on 03/08/2015 by drowning in a canal, for which deceased – Budhram Mourya received compensation of Rs.1.50 lakh. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was aggrieved that Budhram Mourya (deceased) did not share the compensation money with him. With the compensation money, Budhram Mourya started cattle purchasing and selling business. On 03/08/2015, while Budhram Mourya was coming after purchasing bull, the appellant started arguing regarding share of compensation 3 money and assaulted him, as stated above due to which, deceased suffered grievous injuries and died on 30/08/2015. 4. Dehati Nalishi was registered vide Ex.P/11 by the complainant – Somdi Bai on 08/08/2015 at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, upon which, FIR was registered in Ex.P/12 against the appellant under Section 323, 506 and 336 of IPC. Wearing apparels of the deceased was seized under seizure memo (Ex.P/14). Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P/13. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded in Ex.P/2 and, according to his statement, articles like stone and bamboo stick were seized from his house vide Ex.P/3. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/1) and information to that effect was given to his family members vide Ex.P/16. Merg was registered in Ex.P/22. Panchanama of the dead body was prepared in Ex.P/23. Autopsy report was prepared by Dr. Pawan Tekaade in Ex.P/8. Viscera of the deceased was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/6. Seized articles were sent of chemical analysis vide Ex.P/19. Post Mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr.N.S.Nag (PW11). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jagdalpur, who committed the case for consideration to the Sessions Court. The appellant abjured guilt and claimed trial. 4 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. No defence witness was examined. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant pleaded innocence. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned trial Court has committed gross error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the statement of the witnesses cannot be relied upon. He also submits that as per the evidence on record, at the most makes out a case under Section 304-II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC, as the deceased died after 27 days of the incident. He futher submits that the appellant remained in jail from 26/08/2015 to 09/03/2017 i.e. for about 1 year 7 months, therefore, offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. may be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he has rightly been convicted for the 5 aforesaid offence. He submits that the appellant assaulted his elder brother on account of not getting share of compensation money, therefore, this is not a case where the conviction under Section 302 IPC can be converted into Section 304 IPC. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration is whether the death of deceased Budhram Mourya was homicidal in nature. This has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-8) proved by Dr. N.S.Nag (PW-11) according to which, cause of death was stated to be “Bilateral Pneumonitis, in a case of head injury”, which is considered to be correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. We find the finding of the learned trial neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, affirm the said finding. 10. Now, the next question arises whether the appellant has caused injury to the body of Budhram, for which, the learned trial Court relied upon oral and documentary evidence available on record that a dispute was going on between the appellant and the deceased with regard to getting share in the 6 amount of compensation received by Budhram, on account of death of his son Balman. Learned trial Court found that due to the aforesaid dispute, the appellant intercepted him, assaulted him with hands, fists and stone on 03/08/2015 and during treatment in the hospital, he died on 30/08/2015 i.e. after 27 days. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant who had caused injuries on the body of Budhram is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and therefore, we hereby affirm the said finding. 11. Now, the question would be whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C. and, as such, his conviction under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 3 SCC 62 observed as under - “15. In Ganga Dass V. State of Haryana, 1994 Supp(1) SCC 534, the accused gave iron pipe single blow on the head of the deceased and the deceased died eighteen days after the occurrence due to septicaemia and other complications, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC was altered by this court to Section 304 Part II IPC. This court observed as under (SSC pp 535 – 36 para 6) 7 “6. We find considerable force in this submission. As stated above the occurrence took place on 18-11-1988 and the deceased died 18 days later on 5–12-1988 due to septicaemia and other complications. The doctor found only one injury on the head and that was due to single blow inflicted with an iron pipe not with any sharp-edged weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the appellant intended to cause death nor it can be said that he intended to cause that particular injury. In any event the medical evidence shows that the injured deceased was operated but unfortunately some complications set in and ultimately he died because of cardiac failure etc. Under these circumstances, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder. Instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to undergo six years’ RI. The sentence of fine of Rs.2000 along with default clause is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.” 13. Coming to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the deceased was the elder brother of the appellant and a dispute arose with regard to sharing the amount of compensation received by the deceased on account of death of his son. There was no premeditation and 8 intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of Budhram. As per the statement of Dr. N.S.Nag (PW-11) who has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased vide Ex.P-8, there was contusion of 5 x 5 cm. over the left ankle of the deceased, swelling in brain, blood clots and contusion over both temporalis muscle and, in his opinion, the death caused due to the injury caused on the head. As such the injuries caused over the body of the deceased were not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further, the incident occurred on 03.08.2015 and, Budhram died on 30.05.2015 i.e. after 27 days of the incident. The aforesaid consideration leads us to hold that the appellant would not be guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC, but Section 304-II IPC.Therefore, conviction of the appellant deserves to be altered to that under Section 304-II IPC. 14. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and considering the fact that the appellant remained in jail from 26/08/2015 to 09/03/2017 i.e. for about 1 year and 7 months, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. He is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender; however, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in 9 view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of CrPC. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.07.30 11:18:32 +0530