1 2026:CGHC:5154-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 613 of 2017 {Arising out of judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.243/2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon} 1 - Lacchi Potai, S/o. Chamru Gond, Aged About 44 Years, R/o. Village Radhna, Police Station Benur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chainu Potai, S/o. Chamru Gond, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Radhna, Police Station Benur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dhansai Badde, S/o. Sukhuram Gond, Aged About 57 Years, R/o. Village Radhna, Police Station Benur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Benur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.01.30 17:32:46 +0530 2 Judgment on Board (30.01.2026) 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 08.03.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon in Sessions Trial No.243/2012, by which three appellants herein have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along-with fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, 2 months additional rigorous imprisonment to each appellants. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that, on 16.07.2011 at about 12:00 P.M. at village Randhna, Police Station Benur, District Narayanpur, the appellants herein in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Mangiya Korram (now deceased) by hand & fist, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died on 17.07.2011 at 11:20 P.M.; thereby, the aforesaid offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-4, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-8, 3 Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-10 and dead body of deceased Mangiya was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. P.K.Dhote (PW-6), who proved the post- mortem report vide Ex.P-5, according to which, cause of death was stated to be syncope due to internal haemorrhage in vital organs and nature of death was homicidal. After due investigation, the appellants were 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 appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents and the appellants-accused in support of their defence have neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellants herein for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4 5. Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants on the basis of statement of eye- witness Mangal Ram (PW-4), which is not of sterling quality. Furthermore, in alternative, he would submit that considering the nature of injuries, as there were only contusions over the body of the deceased and he died after two days of the incident, at the most, the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. is made out and the appellants be sentenced for the period already undergone, as they were remained in jail for around 6 years. 6. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, 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 appellants for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 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. 5 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Mangiya was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-5) proved by Dr. P.K.Dhote (PW-6), according to which, cause of death was stated to be syncope due to internal haemorrhage in vital organs and death was homicidal in nature, 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, the next question is, whether the appellants have caused the death of deceased Mangiya ? 10. Considering the statement of Mangal Ram (PW-4), who is the eye-witness to the incident, which the trial Court has also relied upon, the finding of the trial Court that the deceased died on account of the injuries caused by the appellants is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 11. Now, the question would be whether the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-I or 6 Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellants ? 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh1 has held that 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. 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, as per the prosecution case, deceased Mangiya had outraged the modesty of sister-in-law of the appellant No.2-Chainu Potai, therefore, the appellants are said to have caused to the deceased by hand & fist, which is apparent from the statement of Dr. P.K.Dhote (PW- 6), as number of contusions and fracture in chest were found. As such, considering the nature of injuries and considering the statement of eye-witness Mangal Ram (PW-4), no dangerous weapon was used for causing injury to the deceased. As such, there was no intention on the part of appellants to cause death, but the appellants must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by them is likely to cause 1 (2017) 3 SCC 247 7 death. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 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 appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone, as they were remained in jail from 18.07.2011 to 13.07.2017 for around 6 years. 15. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 16. The appellants are on bail, they need not surrender; however, their bail bonds 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) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Ashok