1 2025:CGHC:31523-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1573 of 2021 Dengaram Mandavi S/o Budhuram Mandavi Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Binjoli, Dongaripara P.S. Makari, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer P.S. Makari District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somya Rai, 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. 09.07.2025 1. 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 17.11.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.42/2021, whereby the appellant-accused MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.10 10:39:04 +0530 2 has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Farisram Baghel lives in village Bijli Bhujiapara, District Kondagaon. On 02.07.2020, his uncle Baliram Baghel went to Dongripara Bijoli Ghodsoda forest at around 2 PM in the afternoon to cut bushes to make a mound, next to which the accused had also cut the forest and planted maize in the mound. There was already a dispute going on between Baliram Baghel and the accused on the matter of cutting the forest land. On 02.07.2020, at around 4:00 pm, while Baliram Baghel was cutting bushes, the accused came from behind, hiding and hit Baliram Baghel with an axe on the neck above the head, due to which he fell bleeding and died at the spot. On the report of the complainant Farisram, a case under section 302 IPC was registered against the accused and investigation was done. During the investigation, a spot map of the spot was prepared, the map Panchayatnama was prepared and postmortem of the dead body was done, postmortem report was obtained from the doctor, Patwari map of the crime scene was obtained, on the basis of memorandum statement of the accused, the axe used in the murder and the towel kept by the accused on his shoulder at the time of the incident were seized, blood soaked soil, plain soil, iron shovel were seized from the crime scene, on being brought and presented by constable Rakesh Mandavi, an old blue T-shirt worn by the deceased at the 3 time of the incident, sealed by the doctor, was seized, the seized iron tangia, accused's towel, deceased's T-shirt were sent to the doctor and query report was obtained, the accused was arrested, the seized exhibits were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur for examination and the test report was obtained, statements of witnesses were taken. After other necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was presented before the competent Court. 3. On 03.04.2021, charges were framed against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial commenced when the accused denied committing the alleged offence. 4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 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. When the accused was admitted at the defence level, he expressed his disapproval of giving evidence in his defence. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 17.11.2021, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 6. Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant 4 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 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. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Somya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant has caused murder of deceased by deadly attacking him with axe 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. 5 8. 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. 9. The first question for consideration would be whether the deceased died under unnatural circumstances ? 10. With regard to this question, statement of Dr. Devesh Gharat (PW- 12), posted as Medical Officer at Community Health Center Makdi, is taken on record. 11. Dr. Devesh Gharat (PW-12), Medical Officer stated that on 03.07.2020, when the dead body of the deceased was brought for examination by constable Rakesh Mandavi of Makdi police station, after examining it, he found that there was a deep cut injury of 4 cm X 3"X 2" on the back of his body, a deep cut injury of 1X1X1 cm below the ear on the right side of the head and a broken bone and the bone above the ear on the back of the head and on the right side was broken. He gave his report (Ex.P-4). In the opinion of this witness, the deceased died due to severe injury on the head caused by a hard and sharp object, due to excessive bleeding and stopping of heart and respiratory movement and the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. 12. Therefore, the trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. Devesh Gharat (PW-12), has come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was due to the injury on the head causing 6 excessive bleeding. 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 the injury on the head and nature is 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. 13. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accused- appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 14. In this case, the trial Court relied on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused regarding the incident to Semalal Kashyap (PW-3), Sukhram Mandavi (PW-5) and Dhansai Mandavi (PW-6). 15. With regard to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused in relation to the incident, Semalal Kashyap (PW-3) stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day of Balram's death, before seeing the dead body of Balram, at about 5 p.m., the accused Dengaram came to his house and told him that he has done a wrong thing and have killed Balram. At the time when the accused Dengaram told him the above statement, the accused was alone and he was also alone. The witness also stated that the accused did not tell him how and where he killed Balram. This witness is acquainted with the accused Dengaram since before the incident as he is a person from the same village, hence there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness 7 regarding the identity of the accused Dengaram. 16. Semalal Kashyap (PW-3) stated in his main examination that after the accused told him the above mentioned thing, he first went to the house of Sarpanch's husband Chandulal to tell him the above mentioned thing but he was not found at home, the family members told that he had gone to the field, then he went to his field. When he found him in his field, he told him that Dengaram is saying that he has murdered Baliram, let's go and see. Then he and Chandulal went from there to Kotwar Dhansai Mandavi, then he also told him that Dengaram is saying that he has murdered Baliram, let's go and see. Then from there, all three of them went to the house of accused Dengaram along with Deputy Sarpanch Ravi. Accused Dengaram was in his house. He went to his house after Chandulal dropped Kotwar and Deputy Sarpanch to Dengaram's house. 17. Sukhram Mandavi (PW-5) states in his examination-in-chief that on being told by his wife Somvati that accused Dengaram had told her that he had murdered a man, he alone went to the house of accused Dengaram and asked him as to which man he had beaten up, then accused Dengaram told him that he had beaten up Balram. He asked why he had beaten him, then accused told him that he had explained to Baliram but he did not understand, so he beat him. The accused also said that he had hit Baliram with a tangia in the Marhan. The accused then asked the witness to go with him to Marhan to see the deceased, then the said witness said that he would not come and then came back to his house and from there he 8 went to the Marhan of the accused along with other villagers and saw the deceased lying dead. This witness and the accused Dengaram are both residents of the same village and are already acquainted with each other. This witness has been asked by his wife to tell him about the accused Dengaram killing Baliram. In such a situation, it is natural for this witness to go to the house of the accused and question him to find out the facts. 18. Dhansai Mandavi (PW-6) says in paragraph 2 of his main examination that when he went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased, the accused Dengaram was standing near the dead body. When they asked him who killed the deceased Balram, the accused Dengaram said that he killed him with a tangia. The accused Dengaram also said that Balram used to cut his mango plant repeatedly, so he killed the deceased Balram. 19. From the above evidence discussion, the trial Court find the fact proved in the case that the accused had made an extra-judicial confession of the mentioned crime before Semlal Kashyap (PW-3) immediately after the incident, thereafter he made an extra-judicial confession of the mentioned crime before Sukhram Mandavi (PW-5) on the same date of the incident and he made an extra-judicial confession of the mentioned crime before Dhansai Mandavi (PW-6). All these extra-judicial confessions have been made voluntarily on different occasions before different persons without any reasonable delay. Therefore, all these extra-judicial confessions provide an 9 important evidence on the point of the accused causing the death of deceased Balram. 20. Sub-Inspector Jitendra Gupta (PW-10) stated in his his main examination that on the basis of the memorandum statement of the accused, the accused had seized an iron tangia in front of the witnesses after taking it out from inside his house and presenting it on its tip and bearing the stains like human blood and in this regard he had prepared the seizure sheet (Ex.P.11) on which his signature is present on all parts. By perusing the document of Ex.P.11 it appears that this witness has seized the said tangia in front of witnesses Chandulal Baghel and Semalal Kashyap. 21. The next question for consideration is whether the tangia (axe) seized on the basis of the memorandum of the accused is the same with which the deceased Balram was injured? 22. In this regard, Dr. Devesh Gharat (PW-12) has stated in his evidence that he was asked about the tangia whether the deceased Balram could die by hitting him on the head with the said tangia, then he had given the opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the said tangia. 23. Sub-Inspector Jitendra Gupta (PW-10) has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of seizure, the iron tangiya had stains like human blood on its blade and head. Medical Officer Dr. Devesh Gharat (PW-12), after examining the iron tangiya brought by Makdi Police Station and giving specific details about its size, has 10 stated that he found blood stains on the blade of the tangiya brought for examination. The evidence given by the above witnesses regarding the presence of blood stains on the blade of the iron tangiya is also confirmed by the chemical test report. On the said point, the investigating officer (PW-10) Sub-Inspector Jitendra Gupta stated in his main investigation that he sent the seized tangia marked with Article C for chemical test. Investigating officer Sub-Inspector Jitendra Gupta (PW- 10) marked the test report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Jagdalpur as Ex.P-23. In the said test report, it is stated that human blood was found in the seized tangia article C sent for testing. 24. The above opinion of human blood being found in the said tangia in the chemical test is also confirmed by the evidence of the above- mentioned witness Jitendra Gupta and Dr. Devesh Gharat in which they have said that they saw blood stains on the blade of the said tangia. 25. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the accused, the presence of human blood in the said tangia seized from him indicates that the deceased Balram was injured with the said tangia. The persons who saw the body of the deceased at the scene of the incident have said that blood had come out from the injury spot and had got on the clothes of the deceased and it has also been proved that human blood was found in the soil of the scene of the incident. This strengthens the possibility that the blood found in the said tangia was of the deceased Baliram. The said tangia was in the 11 possession of the accused before it came under the possession of the police. The accused had taken out the said tangia from inside his house and given it to the police. The accused has not proved anything that the said tangia could have come inside his house in any other way or that the said tangia was in the possession of any person other than him. It will be presumed that at the time of the incident, the said tangia was in his possession. After this, the said tangia was in the possession of the accused and this also proves that the accused has caused the death of the deceased by injuring him with the said tangia. 26. 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 ? 27. 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 1 (2002) 3 SCC 327 12 300 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.” 28. 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; 2 (2009) 15 SCC 635 13 (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 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.” 14 29. 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. 30. 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 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450 4 (2017) 3 SCC 247 15 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 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”. 31. 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. 32. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT 16 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.” 33. 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- stated judgments (supra) and the extra-judicial confession made by the accused regarding the incident to Semalal Kashyap (PW-3), Sukhram Mandavi (PW-5) and Dhansai Mandavi (PW-6), it is quite vivid that there was a previous dispute going on between the appellant and the deceased on the matter of cutting the forest land and on the date of incident i.e. on 02.07.2020, at around 4:00 pm, while Baliram Baghel (deceased) was cutting bushes, the accused out of that anger and in heat of passion, hit the deceased with an axe on the neck above the head, 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 5 (2019) 6 SCC 122 17 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. 34. Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the evidence of Semalal Kashyap (PW-3), Sukhram Mandavi (PW-5) and Dhansai Mandavi (PW-6), also considering the evidence of Dr. Devesh Gharat (PW-12), nature of injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased, postmortem report (Ex.P-4) and the fact that the appellant is in jail, 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. 35. 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 RI for 7 years. 36. The appellant is stated to be in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. 37. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 38. 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 18 Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 39. 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