1 2025:CGHC:8469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1892 of 2024 1 - Lakhpati Singh S/o Late Rai Singh Aged About 19 Years Village Vishalpur, Police Station - Chandni, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Chandni, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 18/02/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is herd finally. This appeal 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 10.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG) in 2 Sessions Trial No. 32/2022 whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,00/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that in between 13.01.2022 from 8.00 pm to 14.01.2022, 11.00 pm. the appellant with intention to kill the deceased Rai Singh hit him on his head with a bamboo stick as a result of which he died. Report was lodged by the complainant Ramgiri Singh at police station Chandni alleging that he went to his maternal uncle’s house at village Basnara where his uncle Mahendra Singh informed him that his father had died. On receiving this information, he returned home where Shyamlal Saket informed him that there was fight between his father and the appellant and the appellant hit his father on the head and he died. On the basis of the said information merg No 0/2022 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the appellant was arrested. The incident was reported at police station and Crime No. 04/2022 for the offence under Section 302 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, charges were framed against the accused/appellant and after examination of the prosecution case and conclusion of trial, the present appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 3 4. After hearing the parties, trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. Hence this appeal. 5. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment impugned is perverse and contrary to the facts. It is submitted that Smt. Sonmati Singh (PW-4) and Anarkali (PW- 10) are the eyewitnesses and they have not supported the case of prosecution and only one injury was found on the head of the deceased. He further submits that the bamboo stick which was seized from the possession of the appellant does not contain the blood stains and the conviction has been made only on the basis of the statement of Rudal Singh (PW-2). He submits that the trial court has erred in not relying the statements of PW-4 and PW-10. He further submits that the doctor (PW-12) Dr. Bipul Kumar Pandey, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased had opined that there was only one injury on the head and the it might have been caused due to falling or hitting by any solid object on the ground. It is submitted that the memoradum and seizure has not been proved and the prosecution has failed to prove the intention /motive. Lastly, he submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned conviction and sentence and submits that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and the impugned judgment warrants no interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 4 8. To appreciate the rival submissions and in order to test the validity and correctness of the impugned conviction I have perused the entire record. 9. It is the case of prosecution that on the date of incident, on the basis of information given by the complainant, the FIR Ex.P-34 was lodged alleging that the accused/appellant had assaulted the deceased with bamboo stick and committed his death. On the basis of the said information, Crime was registered under Sections 302 IPC. Spot map was prepared and the body was sent for postmortem examination. From the facts of the case, first of all, it has to be looked into the cause and nature of death of deceased Raisingh. 10. Ramgiri Singh (PW-1) has stated that deceased Raisingh is his father and on the date of incident, he had gone to the village of his maternal uncle and after receiving the information that his father has died, he came home where his mother and sister-in-law informed that his brother had assaulted his father and caused his death. Thereafter, he lodged report at the police station. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was prepared and Merg intimation was given and the body was sent for postmortem examination after the panchanama and notice to that effect was repapred vide Ex.P-4 and P-5. After preparing arrest memo vide Ex.P-7 his brother ie appellant Lakhpati was arrested vide Ex.P-8. 11. Rudal Singh (PW-2) has stated that on the date of incident, when he was returning home, in front of the house of appellant Rai Singh, there was some quarrel between the appellant and his father and he tried to pacify and the appellant went from there. After a while, the appellant assaulted his father with bamboo stick and the deceased fell on the ground. He took the appellant crossing the road and made him 5 understand. Thereafter he returned home. On the next day, Rai Singh died. On the basis of the statement of the appellant Ex.P-9, the bamboo stick was seized. 12. Shyam Lal Saket (PW-3) is the village who had stated that when he went to the house of the deceased on the next day of the incident, his wife informed that the appellant and deceased had consumed liquor and some quarrel took place between them as a result of which the appellant assaulted with bamboo stick on the head of his father and committed his death. Dr. Bipul Kumar Pandey, Medical officer at Medical College, Ambikapur, District Surguja had conducted the postmortem and opined that the cause of death was head injury and its consequences and death was homicidal in nature. 13. Thus, according to the eye-witnesses, the way the incident happened would show that there was some quarrel between the father and son ie. deceased and the appellant as they were drunk and the appellant assaulted him with a bamboo stick on is head and caused his death. Now referring to Section 299, 300 & 304 would be relevant to quote the Section for the purpose. 299. Culpable homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. 300. Murder – Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or - Secondly - If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or 6 Thirdly - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 304. 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend toten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 14. As has been laid down in State Through Police Station, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda, AIR 2012 SC 3104, Section 299 of I.P.C. defines as under : “Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code defines culpable homicide as an act of causing death (i) with the intention of causing death; (ii) with the intention of causing some bodily injury as is likely to cause death; and (iii) with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death. The first and second clauses of the section refer to intention apart from knowledge and the third clause refers to knowledge apart from intention. “Intention” and “Knowledge” postulates the existence of positive mental attitude. The expression 'knowledge' 7 referred to in Section 299 and Section 300 is the personal knowledge of the person who does the act. To make out an offence punishable under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code, 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 such act of his is likely to cause death.” 15. The Supreme Court in Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh(2009) 14 SCC 771, held that Section 304 Part-II comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 16. In case of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another,(1976) 4 SCC 382 the Court succinctly examined the distinction between Section 299 and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and in para 12 of the judgment held as under: “In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans' special characteristics of murder', is 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the 1st part of Section 304. Then there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree.' This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, 8 also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second Part of Section 304.” 17. It was further held that the difference between Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. The word “likely” in Clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of 'probable' as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words “bodily injury...sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death” mean that death will be the “most probable” result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature. 18. It was laid down that the question whether is a murder or culpable homicide not amount to murder has to be decided on the suggestions. The first suggestion would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code is reached. 19. In the principles as has been cited would show the nature of dispute which resulted into death. However, they both were drunk and quarrel took place between them and the appellant assaulted the deceased with a bamboo stick and caused his death. Thus, taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, it would not be 9 reasonable and legal to hold that the accused/appellant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the deceased; thereby he was liable to be convicted under Section 304-II of I.P.C 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is hereby maintained. So far as the sentence part is concerned, he is in jail since the date of his arrest ie. 15.01.2022, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to 5 years from that of 7 years. Since the appellant is in jail and therefore no further order for his surrender or arrest is required. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.23 13:24:30 +0530