1 2026:CGHC:585-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 744 of 2017 (Arising out of judgment dated 31.01.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 56/2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District-Jashpur) 1 - Jagnath S/o Sudhwa Kindo, Aged About 35 Years, Caste Urao, R/o Village Jhargaon Dumertoli Chowki Sonkyari, Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. G.L. Uikey, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (06.01.2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal , J. (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 31.01.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 56/2016, whereby the appellant has SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.01.07 16:05:37 +0530 2 been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 13.06.2016 at about 7:00 pm, in village Jhargaon Dumertoli, Chowki- Sonkyari, Police Station -Sanna, District Jashpur, the appellant assaulted his father Sudhwa Kindo (now deceased) who is aged about 55 years, by way of knobstick, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died, thereby, committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC. (3) The further case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that a Merg was lodged vide Ex.P-1 and P-16 by complainant Jageshwar Kindo (PW-1) stating that the appellant-accused had beaten up and killed his father, Sudhwa Kindo (deceased). On 14.06.2016, in the morning, his sister-in-law, Balkumari (PW-6), informed the complainant about the death of his father. Upon which, the complainant went to the house of the accused- appellant and found signs of physical assault on the deceased’s body, with the right wrist broken and the neck appearing to be fractured. On the said information, FIR was registered vide Ex. P-2 and P-17 against the appellant-accused. The Crime Details Form was prepared vide Ex. P-3, a spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-4, a Panchnama was drawn vide Ex. P-5 and Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-10. The dead-body of deceased was sent for 3 postmortem examination, and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/11), Dr. Roshan Bariar (PW-4) opined that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to rapture of spleen and contusions on the neck and back and the death was homicidal in nature. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/08, Memorandum statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.P-06. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused-appellant, seizure of one sarai batta and knobstick was made vide Ex. P-7. (4) During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, the appellant-accused has only examined two witnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) in support of his defence. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4 (6) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant assaulted his father by way of knob-stick, and therefore, the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is made out against the appellant. 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 can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, further, since the appellant is in jail from 14.06.2016 to 30.06.2021 i.e. more than 05 years, taking into consideration the period he has already undergone, the appellant-accused be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. (7) Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that Karmu Ram (PW-2) and Lalku Ram (PW-3) are the eye-witnesses as they have clearly supported the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Exception 04 to Section 300 of IPC is not attracted in this case and it is not a case where the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. (8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the 5 records with utmost circumspection. (9) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Roshan Bariar (PW-4). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) and the statement of Dr. Roshan Bariar (PW-5), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. (10) Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased? (11). Considering the statements of Karmu Ram (PW-02) and Lalku Ram (PW-03), who were the eye-witnesses of the incident and both of them have supported the case of the prosecution and relying upon their statements, trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant assaulted his father by means of knob-stick due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died, which in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby 6 affirm the said finding of the trial Court. (12) The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, which is, whether the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC or his case is covered with Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, thus, his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part II of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? (13) The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh1 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 entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.” 1 (2017) 3 SCC 247 7 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”. (14) 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 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 IPC. (15) Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir vs. 8 State (NCT of Delhi)2 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested for 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.” (16) Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the appellant is said to have assaulted his father by the hands and fist and that by the knob- stick by which the deceased’s spleen has been ruptured and sustained contusions on the neck and back, but there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. Furthermore Dr. Roshan Bariar (PW-4) opined in his statement in para 15 that if the deceased have received immediate treatment for the injury to his spleen, he might have recovered as it appears from the nature of the injury that only there was a rupture of spleen and Dr. Roshan Bariar (PW-4) who examined did not opine that the injuries caused to the deceased by the appellant were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, as such, considering the nature of the injuries, we are of the considered opinion that there was no intention but knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him on the body of the 2 (2019) 6 SCC 122 9 deceased would likely to cause his death, as such, this is a case which would fall within the purview of Section 304 Part-II of IPC. (17) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and the injuries caused by him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e., more than 05 years. However, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. (18) This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. (19) Appellant is already on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (20) Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Patel.