1 2025:CGHC:58801-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1527 of 2021 Budhram Bharti S/o Ishwar Bharti Aged About 36 Years R/o Matnar Village, Station Nagarnar, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Nagarnar, District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on board Per Ramesh Sinha, C hief Justice 04.12.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused 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 22.10.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.04 17:48:53 +0530 2 No.60/2019, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the complainant, Smt. Balo Bharti (PW-2), was residing in village Talnar under Police Station Nagarnar and was engaged in agricultural and labour work for her livelihood. Her house was situated adjacent to the residence of the accused, Budhram Bharti, who was her husband’s paternal cousin, and also to that of her uncle-in-law, the deceased Ishwar Bharti. On 14.08.2019, when the complainant’s husband was away for work, she remained at home along with her daughter Chapala and mother-in-law Ramrati. At about 9:00 PM, after having dinner, the complainant and her daughter stepped out to wash their hands. At that moment, they allegedly saw the accused, Budhram Bharti, running from his house towards the street while holding a thick firewood log and shouting that he had killed his father, referring to Ishwar Bharti, and thereafter fleeing from the scene. Alarmed by this, the complainant, accompanied by her daughter and mother-in-law, rushed to the first room of Ishwar Bharti’s house, where they found him lying face down on the floor. Neighbours Puran Bharti and Santram Bharti were immediately called, but despite their efforts, Ishwar Bharti was found unresponsive, his pulse absent 3 and body cold. Upon removing his clothes, a visible injury was noticed on the right side of his chest. The complainant thereafter informed her husband telephonically and proceeded to lodge a report at Police Station Nagarnar. The prosecution case is that, owing to a family dispute, the accused assaulted the deceased with the firewood log, resulting in his death. 3. On the same night, at about 11:50 PM, Sub-Inspector Khomraj Thakur (PW-13) received telephonic information from a villager regarding the incident. Shortly thereafter, the complainant appeared at the police station and orally reported the matter, pursuant to which the Rural Merg Intimation (Ex. P-5) and Rural Nalsi (Ex. P-6) were registered at 00:30 AM on 15.08.2019. Consequently, FIR No. 190/2019 (Ex. P-26) was lodged. The dead body was thereafter sent to the morgue at Medical College, Dimrapal, where inquest proceedings (Ex. P-9) were conducted. Constable Satyaprakash Goyal (PW-8) was deputed with the postmortem application (Ex. P-18), and upon completion of the postmortem examination, the body was handed over to the family. 4. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the spot map (Ex. P-7) at about 9:30 AM on 15.08.2019. On the same day, the memorandum statement of the accused (Ex. P-12) was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, pursuant to which the alleged weapon of offence, namely the firewood log was recovered and seized (Ex. P-13) from bushes 4 near the road leading to Marghatti Aam Bagicha Paikpal. The accused was thereafter arrested vide Ex. P-14. The Patwari also prepared the spot map (Ex. P-1), and Panchanama (Ex. P-2) was drawn. Sealed viscera bottles (Ex. P-17) were seized. The seized log was forwarded for query (Ex. P-23), in response to which the Query Report (Ex. P-20) was received. The seized articles were thereafter sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, and the FSL Report (Ex. P-30) was obtained. Statements of material witnesses were duly recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial in accordance with law. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents (Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-30) in support of its case. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., denied all incriminating circumstances put to him and claimed false implication. However, he did not examine any defence witness nor produce any documentary evidence in rebuttal. 7. The learned trial Court, upon a thorough appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, by judgment dated 22.10.2021, held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 5 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal appeal has been preferred. 8. Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kacchawaha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are contrary to the facts, evidence, and the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, and thus, cannot be sustained in law. It is urged that the learned trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence brought on record and has erroneously convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, even though the material on record, if appreciated in its correct perspective, would reveal that the occurrence was sudden, devoid of premeditation, and took place in the heat of passion, without any motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. 9. Mr. Kachhawaha further submits that the complainant, Smt. Balo Bharti (PW-2), turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version in material particulars. Despite this, the prosecution has sought to rely substantially upon her initial version, which, according to counsel, is impermissible. It is contended that there was no motive whatsoever for the appellant to cause the death of the deceased, who was his own father. Counsel argues that the remaining witnesses supporting the prosecution case belong to the same family and are interested witnesses, and their 6 testimonies, being inimical towards the appellant, ought not to have been relied upon by the learned trial Court to record a conviction for the offence of murder. 10. In light of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Kachhawaha contends that: (a) the incident was not premeditated; (b) it occurred in the midst of a sudden quarrel; (c) the appellant was in an inebriated condition at the time of the occurrence; (d) the assault was a single blow; and (e) there was no intention to cause death, though at best, knowledge may be attributed to the appellant. It is therefore urged that the case falls squarely within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC deserves to be modified to one under Section 304 IPC (Part I or Part II, as may be deemed appropriate). Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed, either fully or at least to the extent of altering the conviction and reducing the sentence. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and submits that the prosecution has duly established the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt through consistent and credible evidence. It is argued that the circumstances proved on record, including the disclosure statement of the appellant and the consequent recovery of the 7 weapon of offence, coupled with the medical and forensic evidence, unerringly point towards the involvement of the appellant in the homicidal death of the deceased. Learned Panel Lawyer submits that minor inconsistencies or the hostility of the complainant Smt. Balo Bharti (PW-2) do not dent the prosecution case, particularly when other material witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version. 12. Mr. Jain further submits that the appellant inflicted a fatal blow with a heavy firewood log on a vital part of the body of the deceased, resulting in his instantaneous death, which clearly reflects the requisite intention attracting the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. It is contended that the defence plea of sudden quarrel, absence of premeditation, or intoxication is wholly unsupported by the evidence on record and has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court. Learned Panel Lawyer thus submits that none of the ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC are satisfied, and therefore, the conviction under Section 302 IPC has been rightly recorded. He accordingly prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 13. 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. 14. The first question for consideration before this Court is whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature ? 8 15. In this regard, the prosecution has examined Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-12), who was posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Dimrapal, Jagdalpur, and who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased, Ishwar Bharti, on 15.08.2019. The witness stated that the body was brought for postmortem by Constable Satyaprakash Goyal (PW-8) along with a requisition from the Station House Officer, Police Station Nagarnar, and was identified by the accompanying constable as well as the deceased’s relative, Narsai, at about 11:30 AM. The doctor deposed that the deceased was a male of average build. The body was covered with a reddish-brown shawl and otherwise naked except for a red thread tied around the waist. Rigor mortis was present over the entire body, and postmortem lividity was fixed on the posterior aspect. The face appeared reddish, eyes were closed, pupils hazy, and the mouth and lips closed. 16. On external examination, a single reddish abrasion-like injury measuring 9 cm × 3.1 cm, triangular in shape with the base upwards, was found on the upper part of the right side of the chest. The injury bore a dry red crust and was located 128 cm above the inner aspect of the right leg. 17. Internal examination revealed that the muscles overlying the first to third ribs were contused; the second and third ribs were fractured. The pericardium was reddish and torn, and 9 approximately 30 ml of clotted blood was present inside the pericardial sac (haemopericardium). Reddish contusions were also observed on the right side of the heart. The stomach contained about 80 ml of semi-digested rice, and its mucosa was reddish; other internal organs were similarly congested. 18. Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-12) deposed that three viscera packets were sealed and handed over to Constable Satyaprakash Goyal (PW-8) for chemical analysis. He opined that the cause of death was cardiac and respiratory arrest resulting from haemopericardium caused by the chest injury. He categorically stated that the injury was inflicted by a hard, heavy and blunt object and that the nature of death was homicidal. The postmortem report (Ex. P-19), bearing his signatures, was proved by him. 19. The testimony of Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-12) has remained unchallenged in cross-examination, and no contrary medical evidence has been brought by the defence. Thus, the medical evidence conclusively establishes that the death of the deceased, Ishwar Bharti, was homicidal in nature. 20. From the collective appreciation of the medical and ocular evidence available on record, it stands established that the deceased sustained a deliberate and forceful blow on the head with a blunt weapon, resulting in multiple skull fractures and 10 intracranial hemorrhage. The injury was located on a vital part of the body and was of such severity that it caused irreversible damage to the brain, leading to his death. The consistent medical findings and eyewitness testimonies clearly negate any possibility of the injuries being accidental or self-inflicted. Though the defence attempted to cast doubt on the exact time of death by relying on the doctor’s general observation regarding the stage of rigor mortis, such an opinion is merely indicative and cannot outweigh the specific and consistent ocular and documentary evidence on record. The nature, location, and severity of the injury, coupled with the internal hemorrhage, are wholly inconsistent with any accidental fall and fully consistent with a forceful assault by a blunt object. 21. In light of the discussion above and the corroborative ocular and medical evidence on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on cogent, reliable, and unimpeached evidence and is hereby affirmed. 22. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accused–appellant herein, namely Budhram Bharti is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 23. In order to establish his involvement, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, Smt. Balo Bharti (PW- 11 2) and Smt. Rambati (PW-4), who categorically stated that the accused had assaulted and killed his father, Ishwar Bharti, with a wooden stick (khotla). In addition to these two crucial witnesses, the prosecution further relied on the depositions of PW-5 Baliram Bharti, PW-6 Gurudas, PW-7 Tularam and the Investigating Officer PW-13 Sub-Inspector Khomraj Thakur. 24. PW-2 Smt. Balo Bharti, the complainant and an eyewitness to the occurrence, deposed that on the night of 14.08.2019, she had been present in her house along with her mother-in-law, Ramrati, and her daughter. At about 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM, a quarrel took place between the accused, Budhram Bharti, and the deceased, Ishwar Bharti, who was the father of the accused. She categorically stated that during the quarrel, the accused, who was under the influence of liquor, brought a wooden stick (khotla) and assaulted the deceased on his chest with great force, causing him to fall to the ground. She further stated that the accused continued shouting that he had killed his father. She deposed that she, along with Ramrati, shifted the deceased to the porch of the house and informed her husband, PW-3 Baliram Bharti, about the incident over the phone. PW-3 reached the spot shortly thereafter. PW-2 also stated that the accused was present at the scene after the assault, holding the stick and repeatedly proclaiming that he had killed his father. According to her testimony, several villagers gathered after hearing the commotion, and she narrated the incident to them as well. 12 25. Smt. Balo Bharti (PW-2) denied the defence suggestion that she had not witnessed the incident or that she was falsely implicating the accused on account of a land dispute. She maintained that she had seen the assault with her own eyes and reiterated that it was the accused who had struck the fatal blow on the chest of the deceased with the wooden stick. 26. PW-4 Smt. Rambati, the mother of the accused and wife of the deceased, deposed that on 14.08.2019 she had been present at her house along with her daughter-in-law, PW-2 and granddaughter. She stated that at about 7:00–8:00 PM, the accused, Budhram Bharti, who was intoxicated at the time, entered into a quarrel with the deceased, Ishwar Bharti, on some domestic issue. She further stated that during the quarrel, the accused picked up a thick wooden stick (khotla) and delivered a forceful blow on the chest of the deceased, causing him to collapse immediately on the floor. PW-4 deposed that immediately thereafter the accused started shouting loudly that he had killed his father, and fled from the spot. 27. Smt. Rambati (PW-4) stated that she and PW-2 Smt. Balo Bharti lifted the deceased and brought him to the porch of the house. She also stated that PW-2 informed PW-5 Baliram Bharti over the phone, and he reached the spot shortly thereafter. According to her, several villagers assembled on hearing their cries, and she informed them that the accused had assaulted the deceased with 13 the wooden stick. 28. Smt. Rambati (PW-4) denied the defence suggestion that she had not witnessed the incident or that she was making a false statement due to family disputes. She firmly asserted that she had seen the accused inflicting the blow on the deceased and reiterated that the accused alone was responsible for the fatal assault. Her testimony is consistent with and corroborates the statements of PW-2 and PW-4, particularly with respect to the presence of the accused at the scene, the manner of assault, and the immediate conduct of the accused following the incident. 29. PW-5 Baliram Bharti, a neighbour and relative, stated that upon hearing a commotion, he went to the house of the deceased and saw the body lying with visible injuries. PW-2 and PW-4 informed him at once that the accused had killed the deceased with a stick. Though declared hostile on a limited point, he admitted during the prosecution’s cross-examination that the accused had confessed before him that he had killed his father. His deposition thus substantially supported the prosecution version, particularly the extra-judicial confession of the accused. 30. PW-6 Gurudas further supported the prosecution by stating that the accused had admitted before him on the night of the incident that he had killed his father with a khotla stick. He also witnessed the accused producing the stick before the police, and he affixed his thumb impression on the Memorandum and Seizure 14 documents. His evidence, therefore, corroborated both the accused’s confession and the seizure of the weapon. 31. PW-7 Tularam deposed that he reached the spot upon hearing noise and found villagers and police present. In his presence, the accused admitted before the police that he had killed his father with the wooden stick. He proved his signatures on the Memorandum (Ex.P-12), the Seizure Memo (Ex.P-13), and the Arrest Memo (Ex.P-14). His testimony further strengthened the prosecution case regarding the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused. 32. PW-13 Sub-Inspector Khomraj Thakur corroborated the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 by stating that he had recorded the Memorandum Statement of the accused (Ex.P-12), in which the accused confessed that he had thrown the wooden log used in the assault into nearby bushes and had offered to get it recovered. Pursuant to this disclosure, the wooden log was recovered and seized under Ex.P-13. The recovery, having been effected at the instance of the accused and witnessed by independent witnesses, constituted a strong incriminating circumstance. 33. From the combined reading of the ocular and medical evidence, it is evident that the incident occurred in the evening of 14.08.2019 inside the house of the deceased, when a sudden quarrel ensued between the accused Budhram Bharti and his father, Ishwar 15 Bharti. The consistent and trustworthy testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, PW-2 Smt. Balo Bharti and PW-4 Smt. Rambati, clearly establish that during the quarrel, the accused, who was in an intoxicated condition, picked up a thick wooden stick (khotla) and delivered a forceful blow on the chest of the deceased, which proved fatal. Their versions find substantial corroboration from PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7, who not only reached the spot immediately after the incident but also heard the accused admitting that he had killed his father. 34. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused before these witnesses, coupled with the recovery of the wooden log at his instance vide Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13, provides strong and reliable corroboration. Further, the medical evidence of PW-12 Dr. Gyanendra Kumar, who found a significant chest injury resulting in haemopericardium and fatal damage to vital internal structures, fully supports the ocular account. Thus, the cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence unerringly points to the fact that it was the accused and the accused alone who inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased, resulting in his homicidal death. 35. Thus, while the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant was the author of the injury which resulted in the death of the deceased, the circumstances of the case, the single blow, absence of premeditation, and the conduct of the appellant- accused indicate that the act was committed without intention to 16 cause death, but with knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. 36. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration whether the case of the appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and whether, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC ought to be altered to one under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant. 37. The distinction between intention and knowledge in the context of Sections 299 and 300 IPC is pivotal to determining the degree of culpability. Intention connotes a conscious objective to bring about a particular consequence, whereas knowledge signifies awareness that a particular result is likely to ensue from the act. In the present case, though the act of the appellant was undoubtedly culpable, the circumstances do not establish any deliberate intention to cause the death of his wife. However, it can safely be inferred that the appellant was aware that his act was likely to cause grievous harm, possibly leading to death. 38. Reverting to the factual matrix, the following circumstances emerge as significant and undisputed: (i) There was no prior enmity, premeditation, or motive on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased, who was none other than his own father. (ii) The incident occurred inside the house of the 17 deceased late in the evening, ensuing out of a sudden quarrel between the two. (iii) The weapon of offence was not a pre- selected weapon but an ordinary wooden stick (khotla) lying within the premises, picked up in the heat of the moment. (iv) Only a single blow was delivered by the appellant on the chest of the deceased, and there is no material to suggest any repeated assault, chase, or continuation of the attack. (v) The appellant was under the influence of liquor at the time of the occurrence, as consistently deposed by the prosecution witnesses, which further impaired his capacity to form a deliberate or conscious intention to cause the death of the deceased. 39. In Anbazhagan v. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2023 INSC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated the legal parameters distinguishing intention from knowledge and clarified that where the act is done with knowledge of likely consequences, but without the intention to cause death, the case would appropriately fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. 40. Similarly, in Velthepu Srinivas v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 107, the Apex Court once again emphasized that where the assault occurs in the heat of passion, without premeditation, and with a weapon available at the spot, the offence is properly classified under Section 304 Part II IPC. The Court reasoned that though the accused might possess knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, absence of 18 intention to cause such consequence distinguishes it from murder under Section 302 IPC. 41. Applying the settled principles to the present case, this Court finds that the incident satisfies the well-recognized fourfold test for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC— • the act was committed without premeditation; • it occurred upon a sudden quarrel; • the act was done in the heat of passion; and • the appellant did not take undue advantage nor act in a cruel or unusual manner. 42. As regards the recovery and medical corroboration, it is significant to note that the wooden stick (khotla) used in the assault was recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P-12), and the said recovery was duly proved through Ex.P-13. The medical evidence led by PW-12 also confirmed that the chest injury sustained by the deceased could be caused by a hard and blunt object such as the recovered wooden stick. This corroborative material satisfactorily establishes the actus reus, namely that the appellant inflicted the blow in question. However, such recovery and medical consistency, by themselves, do not establish the mens rea required for conviction under Section 302 IPC. The surrounding circumstances, including the testimonies of Smt. Balo 19 Bharti (PW-2) and Smt. Rambati (PW-4), clearly indicated that the incident occurred inside the house during a sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, his father, without any premeditation. Only a single blow was inflicted on the chest in the heat of the moment, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant acted with cruelty, deliberation, or took undue advantage of the situation. 43. Cumulatively considering the evidence on record, this Court finds that the entire incident was the outcome of a sudden and heated exchange between the appellant and the deceased within the confines of their home. No prior motive or prior preparation was proved, nor is there any material to suggest that the appellant intended to cause the death of his father. The weapon used was merely a wooden stick lying in the house, picked up in the spur of the moment. The assault consisted of a solitary blow on the chest, and the medical evidence reflects that although the injury proved fatal, the deceased survived for some time thereafter. These facts clearly indicate that while the appellant had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, he lacked the intention to cause death or to inflict an injury of such a nature as was likely to cause death. The case, therefore, squarely fell within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, being a homicide committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Consequently, the act of the appellant 20 amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. 44. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, namely the absence of motive, the sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, the intoxicated condition of the appellant, the use of a wooden stick available within the house, the infliction of only a single blow without continuation of the assault, and the lack of any evidence suggesting cruelty or undue advantage, the conviction is liable to be modified. The appellant’s act clearly falling under Section 304 Part II IPC, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and substituted by a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appeal was, therefore, entitled to be allowed to the extent of alteration of conviction and sentence. 45. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside. 46. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant has been in custody since 15.08.2019. Consequently, the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 07 years. The sentence shall stand modified to that extent, and the appellant shall serve out the remainder of his sentence as per law. 21 47. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC are modified accordingly. 48. 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. 49. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu