1 2025:CGHC:47998-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 291 of 2025 Uttam Manhare S/o Late Mitthu Lal Manhare Aged About 44 Years R/o Shanichri Bazar, Siddhart Nagar, Durg P.S. Durg- District- Durg ( C.G. ). ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Durg District- Durg (C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18/09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent. 2. Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant/convict. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard finally as the appellant is in jail since 21.07.2018. 2 3. This criminal appeal by the appellant-convict under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.2021, passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg in Sessions Trial No. 158/20218, whereby the appellant-convict has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.07.2018 in between 2:30 to 3:00 a.m., (PW-2) Bhoomi Manhare knocked on the door of Tanmay Manhare's (PW-1) house and woke him up and told him that her father, i.e. the appellant-Uttam Manhare, was beating her mother, Sarita Manhare (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), and when she tried to intervene, she got an injury on her right thumb. Tanmay Manhare (PW- 1) told the same to his mother and younger brother and when the above four persons went to the house of accused-appellant, they saw that the deceased, who is the wife of the appellant, was was lying unconscious in the bed, covered in pool of blood, with an injury on her head, which was cased by the appellant with a heavy object like a weight by deliberately hitting her on the head, due to which the deceased became unconscious. 5. The deceased was admitted to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai for treatment. However, due to the lack of a neurosurgeon there, she could not be treated. She was then taken to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, where the ICU was not available. As there was no vacant bed, the deceased was brought to Steel City Hospital, Durg for treatment, where her clothes 3 were changed and her head injury was treated. The bandage dressing was done and after that, the deceased was brought to the District Hospital, Durg and admitted for treatment, but on referring the deceased to Medical College Hospital, Raipur for treatment, she was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Raipur, in the evening of 20.07.2018 and during the course of her treatment, the deceased died in the evening of 26.07.2018 at about 06:00 p.m. An intimation regarding the death was given by Wardboy Premlal Sahu to Police Station, Maudahapara, Raipur on which merg intimation (Exhibit P/21) was recorded and the inquest report (Exhibit P/5) of the deceased was prepared after giving notices to the witnesses and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination vide memo (Exhibit P/22) and the report was obtained vide Exhibit P/8 from Dr. O.P.Tandon (PW-18). As the case fell under the jurisdiction of City Kotwali, Durg, on giving information of Zero merg intimation to Police Station City Kotwali, Durg, a numbered merg intimation being 104/2018 (Exhibit P/20) was registered. 6. On complainant Tanmay Manhare’s (PW-1) lodging a report of the incident at the Police Station Kotwali, Durg on 20.07.2018 at 15:05 hours, an FIR (Exhibit P/1) was registered and the matter was taken up for investigation. Memos were sent to conducting the MLC of the deceased as well as the injured Bhoomi Manhare and the reports were obtained from Dr. Savita Banchhor and Dr. Manoj Jain, vide Exhibit P/10 and Exhibit P/25. The District Medical Officer Durg was sent a memo Exhibit P/32 for recording of the dying declaration of the deceased but it was reported that the deceased was not in a state to give any statement. By sending a memo (Exhibit P/26) to the Medical Officer, Steel City Hospital, Padmanabhpur, the X-ray report and bedhead ticket Exhibit P/24 of Bhumi Manhare were obtained. By sending letter (Exhibit P/27), 4 to the Medical Officer, Medical College Hospital, Raipur, the X-ray report and bedhead ticket (Exhibit P/24) of the deceased were obtained. 7. During investigation, a site map (Exhibit P/7) of the incident was prepared as per the statement of Ankit Manhare (PW-5). From the incident site, pillow cover, iron hammer without haft, cotton collected from the blood stains on the bed, plain dust stained part collected from the bed by rubbing it with a piece of cotton were seized and sealed in presence of witnesses as per seizure memo Exhibit P/13. Memorandum statement of appellant Uttam Manhare (Exhibit P/14) was recorded as per his statement, according to which the appellant/accused used to doubt the character of his wife/deceased and as per the plan, he killed her by hitting with an iron hammer without haft on her head and thereafter he went out of his house wiping the blood from his hand on the T-shirt which was light yellow in colour with round neck scarf on which MTIV was written. The said T-shirt was seized in presence of the witnesses at the instance of the appellant/convict. 8. On sending a letter (Exhibit P/18) to Tehsildar Durg for getting the Patwari map of the incident site prepared, T.R. Sarve (PW-9) prepared the Patwari Map (Exhibit P/2) as per the statement given by Tanmay Manhare (PW-1) and Bhoomi Manhare (PW2). Query was made in respect of the seized hammer, T-shirt, and cotton vide memo Exhibit P/28 and its report was obtained vide Exhibit P/28-A. The seized articles were further sent to the FSL, Raipur vide memo (Exhibit P/29) and its report were obtained vide Exhibit P/31. 9. The Police, on finding evidence of crime against the appellant, was arrested as per arrest memo (Exhibit P/16) and information regarding the said arrest was given to Ankit Manhare, nephew of accused vide memo 5 Exhibit P/9. The appellant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, for having committed offence under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC but since the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed that case to the Court of Sessions vide its order dated 26.10.2018 which was received by the learned trial Court on 27.11.2018. 10. Charges were framed against the appellant/convict by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC but when the charges were read out to the convict, he denied the same and prayed for trial. 11. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 33 exhibits. 12. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the appellant expressed his ignorance to most of the questions and some of them were denied as well. He stated that he was falsely implicated and in support of his case, he examined Smt. Kaushal Manhare as DW-1. 13. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 14. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The appellant is the husband of the deceased and there was no motive for the 6 appellant to cause death of her own wife. Even if the case of the prosecution is believed to be correct that the appellant committed a culpable homicide, at the most, the present case would fall under Section 304 Part I or Part II and not under Section 302 of the IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court is too harsh in the present facts and circumstances of the case and as such, this appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 15. On the other hand, Mr. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant and the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question. The judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, the same does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 17. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. O.P.Tandon (PW-18) who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased was homicidal in nature due to head injury. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 7 18. Tanmay Manhare (PW-1) is the nephew of the appellant. He has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Bhoomi Manhare (PW-2) is the child witness aged about 14 years who stated that the deceased sustained head injuries as some articles fell from a rack and when she ran towards her brother to inform about the incident, she fell down from the stairs and also sustained injuries on her hand. She stated that her father i.e. the appellant is a mental patient and had slept after taking his pills and when he woke up, he imagined that she had committed the offence and as such, ran towards the police station. Labhansh Manhare (PW-3) is also a child witness and son of the deceased and the appellant, who has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. Lakhmay Manhare (PW-4) and and Ankit Manhare (PW-5) both are nephew of the appellant and the deceased. They both have also not supported the prosecution case and denied the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question. Dilip chandel (PW-8) who is a Driver and was witness of memorandum statement (Exhibit P/14) of the appellant and arrest memo (Exhibit P/16) but has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile. 19. Shekh Kalim (PW-7) stated that when Radheshyam Jurri (PW-17), the Investigating Officer, was questioning the daughter of the deceased, she had informed that at about 2-3 a.m. her father had assaulted her mother with a iron weight. He is witness to the seizure of blood lifted on a cotton (Exhibit P/13) from the bed after wiping it. He is also witness to the memorandum statement of the appellant (Exhibit P/14), seizure of clothes worn by the appellant (Exhibit P/15) and arrest memo (Exhibit P/16). Abhishek Manhare (PW-12) is also one of the nephew of the appellant and the deceased. In cross examination, he admitted that Anita Manhare, who is her aunt (Chachi) had informed him that the appellant 8 had assaulted the deceased with an iron weight with an intent to cause her death because of which she had became unconscious. However, he admitted that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased were cordial. 20. T.R.Sarve (PW-9) is the Patwari who had prepared the spot map (Exhibit P/2). Dr. Manoj Jain (PW-10) is the Orthopaedic Surgeon of Steel City Medical Centre, Durg, who had treated the daughter of the deceased, Bhoomi who had sustained injuries on her right wrist. 21. Most of the witnesses in this case are relatives of the deceased and the appellant being the son, daughter and nephews. Bhoomi Manhare (PW- 2), the daughter appears to be the eye-witness but she has also turned hostiel. It is quite natural that in order to save the appellant from conviction, they all have turned hostile in their deposition before the Court being their blood relative. 22. In the FSL report (Exhibit P/31), the four articles namely A, B, C and D, which are pillow cover, hammer, T-shirt and cotton was found to have human blood. The pillow cover and the hammer was seized from the place of incident whereas the T-shirt was recovered from the accused. He could not give any explanation as to how the blood came on his T- Shirt. There was a motive for the appellant as he used to object the appellant from working in the school and doubted her character. The appellant further failed to explain as to how the deceased sustained such serious injuries at her own house. 23. The medical evidence, when read alongwith forensic report and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely Shekh Kalim (PW-7) and 9 Abhishek Manhare (PW-12) unequivocally demonstrates that it was the appellant who had caused death of the deceased. 24. 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 ? 25. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana1 has observed that the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and if the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner, his case would be covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh2 has elaborately dealt with the issue making similar observations. 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. 26. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)3 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; 1 (2002) 3 SCC 327 2 (2017) 3 SCC 247 3 (2019) 6 SCC 122 10 (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.” 27. The distinction between intention and knowledge in the context of Section 299 and Section 300 IPC is crucial in determining the culpability of the appellant. Intention denotes a conscious desire to bring about a particular result, whereas knowledge implies awareness that a particular consequence is likely to ensue. In the present case, while the appellant's actions were undoubtedly culpable, the circumstances suggest that he did not intend to cause the death of his wife. However, it is evident that he knew that his actions were likely to cause harm. 28. Exception 4 applies where (i) the act is committed without premeditation, (ii) in a sudden fight, (iii) in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and (iv) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently applied Exception 4 in single-blow/limited-blow cases arising from sudden altercations lacking pre-planning, while carefully examining the seat of injury, weapon, force, and conduct before/after the event. 29. The dividing line between Part I and Part II of Section 304 turns on mens rea. Part I applies when there is intention to cause death or intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; Part II applies where intention is absent, but the accused had knowledge that death was likely. 30. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the following facts are salient viz. no premeditation or prior motive has been proved by the prosecution, the incident occurred inside the home following a sudden quarrel late at night, there was one fatal blow with a iron weight and that is not a weapon but a household item, and there is no evidence of repeated 11 assault or pursuit. There is no evidence that the appellant exploited a helpless victim or continued assault after incapacitation. 31. On these facts, the matrix of Exception 4 to Section 300 is prima facie satisfied, subject to the Court’s assessment on “undue advantage” and cruelty. The baseline offence is culpable homicide, not murder. 32. Now when the matrix of Exception 4 of Section 300 is prima facie satisfied, the next question for consideration is whether the case falls under Section 304 Part I or Part II? 33. The medical opinion terms the injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The blow was aimed at head. Dr. Savita Banchhor (PW-6) in the MLC report (Exhibit P/10) states that there was one open wound at left parietal region with forehead and one lacerated wound over left index finger. The appellant had given a single blow on the head of the deceased with a iron weight and one injury has been found on one finger. The incident happened late night while everyone was sleeping. Had it been a case of premeditation, the appellant could have easily caused death of her wife by that iron weight. The Court is, therefore, satisfied that Section 304 Part I and not 304 Part II correctly captures the culpability. 34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Anbazhagan v. State4, had gone into great detail and discussed the difference between the terms 'intention' and knowledge, relying on various decisions rendered by it on earlier occasion. Recently, in the matter of Hare Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar5, the Supreme Court has observed that in cases of a sudden fight without premeditation, where the accused acted neither cruelly nor with 4 2023 INSC 632 5 2024 INSC 936 12 undue advantage, the conviction under Section 302 IPC may be reduced to Section 304 Part I IPC. The Court directed immediate release of the appellant who had already served nearly 9 years and 10 months in prison as the period sufficed for the offense. 35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goverdhan & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh6, while considering analogous circumstances, has categorically held that where the incident arises out of a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender having taken undue advantage, the case falls within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. In paras 14 to 17, the Court explained the absence of pre-planning and the suddenness of the incident. In para 19, the Court reiterated the legal position that such cases constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Finally, in paras 21 and 22, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and imposed a sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. 36. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we consider rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC would be just and proportionate. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 302 is set aside and altered to Section 304 Part I and is sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment. 37. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 21.07.2018. He shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as has been modified by this Court. 38. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 69 13 39. 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. 40. 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 Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.23 18:30:01 +0530