1 2026:CGHC:547-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1349 of 2015 {Arising out of judgment dated 10.03.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.195/2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh} Puran Manjhi, S/o. Chheraram @ Jheraram Manjhi, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Buranupani, Kharabhouna, P.S. Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kapu, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. Govt. Advocate (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (06.01.2026) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.01.06 18:00:26 +0530 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.03.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.195/2014, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along-with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, 2 years additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 13.07.2014 at 8:00 A.M., the appellant assaulted Madwari Manjhi (now deceased) by Axe, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died on 14.07.2014 at 7:00 A.M. and thereby, the offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, zero merg was registered vide Ex.P-16 and numbered merg was registered vide Ex.P-17, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-13, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-11 and dead body of deceased Madwari Manjhi was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. A.S.Thakur (PW-4), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-9, according to which, cause of death was stated to be coma as 3 a result of head injury caused by hard & blunt object. The query report is Ex.P-10. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-1), blood-stained axe was seized vide Ex.P-2, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL, but the FSL report has not been brought on record. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited the document i.e. Ex.D-1. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4 5. Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that taking into the prosecution case as it is, at the best, the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. is made out against the appellant and he remained in jail from 14.07.2014 to 06.01.2020 i.e. for more than 5 years. Therefore, the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he be sentenced for the period already undergone and the appeal be allowed in part. 6. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He would further submit that it is not a case where the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C.; therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Madwari Manjhi was homicidal in nature has been 5 answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-9) proved by Dr. A.S.Thakur (PW- 4), according to which, cause of death was stated to be coma as a result of head injury caused by hard & blunt object, as there was fracture of right temporal bone, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 9. Now, considering the statement of eye-witness Anita Manjhi (PW-2), wife of the deceased and further considering the statement of Santram Yadav (PW-3) and recovery of blood- stained Axe, the conviction of appellant is well merited. However, the question is whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C. and, as such, his conviction under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 10. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh1 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 & 21, which reads as under :- 1 (2017) 3 SCC 247 6 “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 is it 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 hit 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.” 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) 7 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”. 11. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that when and if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C. 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 I.P.C. 8 12. Similarly, considering the statement of Dr. A.S.Thakur (PW-4), there is only one fracture in the temporal bone of deceased and, as such, it is a case of single injury. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Stalin v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police2 deserves to be noticed herein where in para 7.2, it has been held as under : “7.2. From the above stated decisions, it emerges that there is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence.” 2 (2020) 9 SCC 524 9 13. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, Anita Manjhi (PW-2), wife of the deceased came into house of the appellant complaining against her husband and thereafter deceased also came while searching his wife and then appellant came to the spot and assaulted the deceased by axe, as wife of the deceased used to complaint against her husband/ deceased. Considering the fact that the appellant had caused only single injury to the deceased as per the post-mortem report (Ex.P-9) proved by Dr. A.S.Thakur (PW-4) and further considering the fact that the incident took place on 13.07.2014, whereas deceased died on 14.07.2014 as per the merg intimation (Ex.P-16 & Ex.P-17), there was no intention on the part of appellant to cause death, but the appellant must have had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death. As such, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. deserves to be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. 14. In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced to the 10 period already undergone, as he remained in jail from 14.07.2014 to 06.01.2020 i.e. for more than 5 years. 15. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 16. The appellant is on bail, he need not surrender; however, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ashok