1 2026:CGHC:4899-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1816 of 2025 Ratiram Manjhi S/o Late Shri Amar Saya Manjhi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Saskoba, Police Chowki - Rairumakhurd, Police Station - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station In-Charge, Police Chowki - Rairumakhurd, Police Station - Dharamjaigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.29 17:53:43 +0530 2 2. Today, though the criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, stands disposed of. 4. 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 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.54/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable 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, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.07.2019 at about 10:30 a.m., the informant Smt. Gonda Bai Manjhi (PW-1), wife of the deceased Gopal Manjhi, reported at Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) that a quarrel had taken place between her husband and his father-in-law, the accused Ratiram, on the previous night. It was alleged that during the quarrel, the accused taunted the deceased on issues relating to family and 3 children, suggesting that he should “find another woman”. At about 01:00 a.m., both the accused and the deceased left the house. After some time, the accused returned and informed the family members that the deceased had run away after being beaten near Hudar Jharkha. Thereafter, the informant along with her uncle-in-law Anil Manjhi (PW-2) went in search of the deceased and found Gopal Manjhi lying unconscious near Hudar Jharkha, with burn marks on his face and multiple injuries from which blood was oozing. The injured was immediately shifted to the hospital by a 108 ambulance and taken to Community Health Centre, Pathalgaon, where he was declared dead. 6. On the basis of the information furnished by PW-1 Gonda Bai Manjhi, a case was initially registered at Police Station Pathalgaon. Inquest Intimation (Exhibit P-1) was recorded by Inspector Omprakash Dhruv (PW-9) and the information was forwarded to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. During the inquest proceedings, a spot map (Exhibit P-16) was prepared and Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit P-4) was drawn in the presence of witnesses and relatives of the deceased. An application for post- mortem (Exhibit P-18) was prepared, and the dead body was sent to the Community Health Centre, Pathalgaon through Constable Dinesh Kumar Pankra (PW-11), under Duty Certificate (Exhibit P- 19). Statements of PW-1 Gonda Bai Manjhi and PW-2 Anil Manjhi were recorded during the inquest. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. J. Minj (PW-10), who prepared the 4 postmortem report (Exhibit P-20). The doctor opined that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on the head and face, resulting in profuse bleeding, and the cause of death was homicidal. 7. As the incident had occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rairumakhurd, the inquest diary was transferred accordingly. At Police Station Rairumakhurd, Sub-Inspector Dhaniram Rathore (PW-12) registered FIR (Exhibit P-2) under Section 302 IPC against the accused. Subsequently, a numbered Marg Intimation (Exhibit P-15) and FIR (Exhibit P-14) were registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh. 8. During investigation, PW-12 Sub-Inspector Dhaniram Rathore prepared the spot map (Exhibit P-3) and seized blood-stained soil and plain soil from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo (Exhibit P-6) in the presence of witnesses Nityanand Bhoi (PW-3) and Mukesh Chauhan (PW-15). 9. The memorandum statement of the accused (Exhibit P-8) was recorded in the presence of PW-3 Nityanand Bhoi and PW-4 Sanatram Manjhi, pursuant to which an iron sickle and a blood- stained white stone were seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit P-9). The T-shirt worn by the accused at the time of the incident was also seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit P-7). The accused was arrested vide Arrest Memo (Exhibit P-23) and intimation of arrest was sent to his family vide Exhibit P-24. 5 10. After postmortem, the blood-stained towel and vest of the deceased were sealed by the doctor and seized vide Exhibit P-22. A requisition (Exhibit P-13) was sent to the Tehsildar, Dharamjaigarh, for preparation of a revenue map, pursuant to which Patwari Govind Kumar Bada (PW-6) prepared the Patwari map (Exhibit P-10), Panchnama (Exhibit P-11) and furnished the revenue map (Exhibit P-12). The seized sickle and stone were sent for medical examination to PW-10 Dr. J. Minj, who opined vide Query Report (Exhibit P-21) that the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by the seized weapons and advised chemical examination. 11. All seized articles, including weapons, clothes, and soil samples, were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur through Draft (Exhibit P-25). As per the FSL report (Exhibit P-27), human blood was detected on the iron sickle, stone, T-shirt of the accused, and clothes of the deceased; however, the blood group could not be ascertained. 12. After completion of investigation in Crime No. 116/2019, a charge- sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. 13. Upon framing of charge under Section 302 IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-16) 6 and exhibited 30 documents Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-30. In order to prove defence, the appellant neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations, pleaded false implication, and did not lead any defence evidence. 14. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.07.2025 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as as mentioned in the fourth paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this criminal appeal has been filed. 15. Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the appellant, most respectfully submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the present case in their entirety and in the correct legal perspective. It is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction is illegal, erroneous, perverse, and contrary to law. The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record, resulting in erroneous findings and grave miscarriage of justice. The conviction has been recorded on mere conjectures and surmises, despite the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the 7 prosecution witnesses, which strike at the root of the prosecution case. The learned trial Court has also erred in convicting the Appellant without any specific and incriminating question being put to him under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, the case of the present appellants falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the 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 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) IPC. Further, as appellant is in jail since 22.07.2019 and therefore, considering the period he had already undergone, he be awarded the sentence of the period already undergone by him. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 16. Per contra, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. He further submits that in view of statements of the prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. It has been contended that appellant has committed heinous crime of murder and in such circumstances, it is not the case where conviction of 8 the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 18. Smt. Gonda Bai (PW-1), wife of the deceased and the informant, categorically stated that after the quarrel between the accused and the deceased, her husband was found lying injured near Hudar Jharkha with severe bleeding injuries on his face. She specifically stated that her husband had sustained injuries caused by a sickle, and thereafter he was taken to Pathalgaon Hospital, where he was declared dead. She also proved the inquest intimation Exhibit P-1 and the FIR Exhibit P-2. 19. The testimony of Anil Manjhi (PW-2), uncle of the deceased, corroborates the version of PW-1. He stated that upon being informed by PW-1, he reached the spot along with his wife and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on his face caused by a sickle and stone. He further stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital in a 108 ambulance, where he was declared dead. 20. Pitaram (PW-5), an independent witness, stated that he was informed that the deceased was lying unconscious outside the village. He reached the spot and saw the deceased lying in a pool 9 of blood with multiple injuries on the face. He arranged for the 108 ambulance, and the injured was taken to the hospital. His testimony lends assurance to the prosecution case regarding the condition of the deceased and the nature of injuries. 21. Nityanand Bhoye (PW-3) also stated that when he saw the deceased, there were clear cut injuries on his face caused by a sickle and crushing injuries caused by a stone. 22. Sumit Ram Manjhi (PW-14) further corroborated that the deceased had suffered injuries in a quarrel and was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. 23. The oral evidence regarding the condition of the deceased finds complete corroboration from the official witnesses. Inspector Omprakash Dhruv (PW-9) proved the inquest proceedings, preparation of Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-4), and the forwarding of the dead body for post-mortem. Constable Dinesh Kumar Pankra (PW-11) proved that the dead body was produced before the medical officer and after postmortem was handed over to the legal heirs. 24. The most crucial evidence in this regard is the medical evidence. Dr. J. Minj (PW-10), who conducted the postmortem examination, found as many as six sharp-cut injuries on the chin, face, eyebrow, scalp, and frontal region of the head, all extending up to the bone. On internal examination, multiple fractures of the skull bones, tearing of dura mater, rupture of brain tissue and collection 10 of blood were found. The postmortem report (Exhibit P-20) clearly records that the cause of death was excessive hemorrhage due to multiple injuries on the face and head, and that the nature of death was “homicidal”. The medical opinion remained unimpeached during cross-examination. Nothing could be elicited by the defence to discredit the medical findings or the opinion of the doctor. 25. The injuries described in the postmortem report are not self- inflicted, accidental, or consistent with a fall. The presence of multiple sharp-cut injuries on vital parts such as the face and head, coupled with skull fractures, clearly rules out an accidental or natural death. 26. Thus, upon cumulative consideration of: (i) consistent ocular evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, and PW-14, (ii) inquest and procedural evidence of PW-9 and PW-11, and (iii) the clear, cogent, and reliable medical evidence of PW-10, thus, this Court finds that the prosecution has conclusively established that the death of Gopal Manjhi was homicidal in nature. 27. The trial Court, after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly held that the cause of death was multiple injuries on the face and scalp leading to hemorrhagic shock, and the nature of death was homicidal. 28. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon re- appreciation of the evidence, we are of the considered opinion 11 that the finding recorded by the trial Court on this aspect is a pure finding of fact, based on reliable evidence. The said finding is neither perverse nor contrary to the material available on record and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court that the death of deceased Gopal Manjhi was homicidal in nature is hereby affirmed. 29. The next question for consideration is whether the accused– appellant Ratiram Manjhi is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 30. The prosecution has relied upon the consistent and cogent testimonies of Smt. Gonda Bai (PW-1), Anil Manjhi (PW-2), Nityanand Bhoye (PW-3), Pitaram (PW-5), and Sumit Ram Manjhi (PW-14), all of whom have spoken about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the fateful night and the condition in which the deceased was found shortly thereafter, lying injured with profuse bleeding on his face and head near Hudar Jharkha. 31. The medical evidence of Dr. J. Minj (PW-10) fully corroborates the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses. The doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like a sickle and that the death was homicidal in nature due to excessive hemorrhage. The seizure of the sickle pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused and the forensic report further lend support to the prosecution case. 12 32. The chain of circumstances stands firmly established: the quarrel between the accused and the deceased, the accused being last seen with the deceased, the immediate disclosure made by the accused about having beaten the deceased, the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, and the medical evidence conclusively proving homicidal death. 33. Upon a cumulative appreciation of the oral, documentary, and medical evidence, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that it was the accused–appellant Ratiram who caused grievous injuries to the deceased Gopal Manjhi, resulting in his death. 34. The finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, the said finding is hereby affirmed. 35. 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 IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 36. The cause of death assigned in postmortem report (Exhibit P-20), as proved by Dr. J. Minj (PW-10), is death due to excessive hemorrhage as a result of multiple grievous injuries on the face 13 and head, leading to shock. The medical evidence further establishes that the skull had suffered multiple fractures, the dura and brain matter were ruptured, and there was profuse bleeding. The doctor has unequivocally opined that the nature of death was homicidal. It is well settled that “culpable homicide” is a genus and “murder” is a species, and that all murders are culpable homicides though the converse is not always true, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1. The intention or knowledge attributable to the accused is required to be gathered not merely from the result of the act, but from the nature of the weapon used, the number of injuries caused, the part of the body targeted, and the manner of assault. 37. In the present case, the injuries were multiple, inflicted by a sharp- edged weapon on vital parts of the body such as the face and head, resulting in skull fracture and rupture of brain tissue. The nature, location, and extent of injuries clearly indicate that the assailant had the intention, or at least the knowledge, that such injuries were likely to cause death. 38. While dealing with The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Anbazhagan v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police in Criminal Appeal No.2043 of 2023 disposed of on 20.07.2023 has defined the context of the true test to be adopted to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act as under:- 1 (2012) 8 SCC 289 14 “60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus: (1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate: ‘A’ is bound hand and foot. ‘B’ comes and placing his revolver against the head of ‘A’, shoots ‘A’ in his head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of ‘B’ in shooting ‘A’ was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, ‘B’ sneaks into the bed room of his enemy ‘A’ while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of ‘A’, ‘B’ forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of ‘A’ and runs away. ‘A’ dies shortly thereafter. The injury to ‘A’ was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that ‘B’ intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of ‘B’ within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused. (2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not 15 amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC. (3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’. (4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder. (5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression ‘sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’ but is of a lower 16 degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury ‘likely to cause death’ and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death. To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. (6) The word ‘likely’ means probably and it is distinguished from more ‘possibly’. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will ‘probably happen’. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death. (7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under 17 any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC. (8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack. (9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries. (10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. (11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the 18 intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies. (12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.” 39. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of Smt. Gonda Bai (PW-1), wife of the deceased, supported by circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, medical evidence, and forensic corroboration. 40. Gonda Bai (PW-1) has stated that on the night of the incident, the accused Ratiram and the deceased had gone towards the garden after quarreling. At about 1:00–1:30 a.m., she heard their voices and came out of the house. She saw the accused carrying a sickle and assaulting her husband Gopal Manjhi. Being frightened, she returned home, took her child, and immediately went to inform her uncle-in-law Anil Manjhi (PW-2). Her testimony is natural, consistent, and inspires confidence. Her conduct in immediately informing PW-2 and then returning to the spot, where 19 the deceased was found lying injured and bleeding profusely from the face and head, rules out any possibility of concoction or false implication. Her statement remained unshaken during cross- examination. The defence plea that the deceased fell down in an intoxicated condition is not supported by medical evidence, as no smell or trace of alcohol was found in the post-mortem report, nor was such a suggestion put to the doctor. 41. Anil Manjhi (PW-2) corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and has further stated that while proceeding to the spot with PW-1, the accused himself stated that he had assaulted Gopal Manjhi with a sickle. Though PW-2 is not an eyewitness to the assault, the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to him is admissible, voluntary, and reliable. There is no suggestion of any animosity that would lead PW-2 to falsely implicate the accused, who is his real brother. 42. Though Pitaram (PW-5), Ratan Sai Manjhi (PW-13), and Sumit Ram Manjhi (PW-14) did not fully support the prosecution case and were confronted with their previous statements, their evidence to the extent that the deceased was found lying injured in a pool of blood and was taken to hospital immediately is consistent with the prosecution story. It is settled law that the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution version, particularly when corroborated by medical evidence. 20 43. The place of occurrence has been firmly established as Basan Tikra, village Saskoba through the site map (Exhibit P-3), seizure of blood-stained soil (Exhibit P-6), and the consistent version of the witnesses. No contradiction of a material nature has been brought out in cross-examination regarding the location of the incident. 44. The recovery of the weapon of offence further strengthens the prosecution case. Investigating Officer Dhaniram Rathore (PW- 12) proved the memorandum statement of the accused (Exhibit P- 8), pursuant to which a blood-stained sickle, stone, and the T-shirt worn by the accused were recovered vide Exhibits P-7 and P-9. The seizure witnesses Nityanand Bhoye (PW-3) and Sanat Ram Manjhi (PW-4) are independent villagers, and no motive has been shown for them to falsely implicate the accused. 45. As per the evidence of Dr. J. Minj (PW-10), who conducted the postmortem examination, the deceased Gopal Manjhi sustained multiple incised wounds on the face and head, which resulted in fractures of skull bones, rupture of meninges and brain tissue, and excessive internal and external bleeding. The doctor opined that the cause of death was hemorrhage due to multiple grievous injuries to the vital parts, and the nature of death was homicidal. The medical opinion further confirms that the injuries could have been caused by the sharp-edged sickle and stone seized in the case. 21 46. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the evidence on record clearly establishes that a quarrel took place between the accused Ratiram and his son, the deceased Gopal Manjhi, on the night of the incident. It has also come on record through Smt. Gonda Bai (PW-1) and other witnesses that the accused was annoyed due to domestic discord and demands relating to remarriage, and during the quarrel, both the accused and the deceased left the house together. The occurrence took place in the heat of passion, without any prior preparation or premeditation. 47. From the material available on record, it is evident that the incident was the result of a sudden fight arising out of a domestic dispute between father and son. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused had pre-planned or premeditated the assault with an intention to commit murder. Though the accused assaulted the deceased with a sickle and stone, resulting in fatal injuries, the circumstances clearly indicate absence of deliberate intention to cause death. 48. At the same time, considering the nature of weapons used and the fact that the injuries were caused on vital parts of the body such as the head and face, it can safely be inferred that the accused had the knowledge that such acts were likely to cause death. However, the assault having occurred in a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, and in the heat of passion, the case would fall within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. 22 49. The conditions required for attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, namely: (i) a sudden fight, (ii) absence of premeditation, (iii) commission of the act in the heat of passion, and (iv) not taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, stand satisfied in the present case. Therefore, the offence committed by the accused is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 50. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the accused Ratiram is the author of the injuries which resulted in the death of Gopal Manjhi, his act would fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC, and not under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC is set aside and is converted to Section 304 Part-I IPC. 51. Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner of commission, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The fine sentence imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. The appellant is stated to be in jail since 22.07.2019 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above. 23 52. The criminal appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 53. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence 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, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu