1 2026:CGHC:23733-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 399 of 2024 1 - Shanichara Kodaku S/o Bipat Kodaku Aged About 62 Years R/o. Village Karamtoli, School Para, Lurghutta, Ps Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ____ For Appellant : Shri CK Sahu, Advocate. For State : Shri Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 15.06.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. Though the matter was listed for consideration on IA No.02/2024, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, in Sessions Case No.72/2022 whereby the appellant has INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.06.17 17:29:56 +0530 2 been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for six months. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 30.03.2022 at about 10 PM the appellant asked food from his wife Sukhni Kodaku (Since deceased) and when she did not provide food, the appellant assaulted her by hand & fist and Danda by which she received injuries on all parts of her body and subsequently died on the next day at about 7 AM. The appellant informed witness PW-2 Sant Kumar and then the matter was informed to witness PW-1, Ashok Kindo, who lodged merg intimation Ex.P/1 to the police and thereafter the police started merg inquiry. FIR Ex.P/2 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Inquest of dead body of deceased, Ex.P/6 was prepared in presence of witnesses and dead body was sent for its postmortem to Community Health Centre, Ramanujganj where PW-6, Dr. Sharad Chand Gupta conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report Ex.P/11. While conducting postmortem, the doctor noticed lacerated wound in left arm, lacerated wound in right forearm, fracture of right tibia and fibula bone, lacerate wound in medial side of right leg and fracture of bone was also found, lacerated wound in left leg, fracture in right and left fronto parietal bone and extradural hemorrhage was also found in corresponding region. He opined that cause of death is hemorrhagic shock, extradural hemorrhage and complications and nature of death is homicidal. Spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared by the police and P/4 by the Patwari. Bloodstained and plain soil were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/8. 3 The clothes of deceased was seized vide Ex.P/18. The appellant was arrested on 31.03.2022 and based on his memorandum Ex.P/16 one wooden club and half pant was seized vide Ex.P/17. The wooden club and half pant seized from appellant were sent for its query report to the doctor who gave query report Ex.P/12&13. As per query report, the doctor opined that injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the said wooden club and for confirmation of blood on the half pant, it was referred for its FSL examination. The bloodstained and plain soil, wooden club and half pant seized from appellant and clothes of deceased were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL Ambilapur, Surguja. 4. The statement under Section 161 CrPC of witnesses were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ramanujganj. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Balrampur for its trial. The Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict him in the offence in question. There is no eyewitness to the incident. Motive has not been proved to commit murder of the deceased. The appellant has been implicated in the case only for the reason that he is the husband of deceased. The deceased was in habit of consuming liquor and due to excessive consumption of liquor she was intoxicated and fell down on a rough surface by which she received injuries and ultimately died. Even if it is considered that the appellant has caused injuries to the deceased, the offence of the appellant, if any, does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 IPC for the reason that the incident of quarrel occurred on the issue of non providing food to the appellant by the deceased. During domestic quarrel the incident occurred which cannot be said to be the intended assault made by the appellant upon the deceased. Therefore, the appellant may be acquitted from the alleged offence and in alternative his conviction may be altered under Section 304-II IPC and his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the appellant and would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable. Various injuries including fracture of hand and head bone were found which itself shows the intention of the 5 appellant to commit her murder. The incident was occurred inside the house during night and the appellant could not impute involvement of any third person and he has not explained as to how his wife received such grievous injuries on her body by which she died. Therefore, the evidence available on record clearly suggest that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime and none else. Although the incident occurred on the issue of non providing food to the appellant, but that itself is not sufficient to dilute the offence of the appellant for conversion of the offence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence is absolutely justified and not required to be interfered with. 9. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 10. The first and foremost question arises for consideration would be the nature of death of the deceased. The prosecution’s case is based on the witnesses of inquest, merg intimation and Doctor who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. PW-1, Ashok Kindo, PW-3, Hiramati Devi and PW-7, Panchu Ram who witnesses to the inquest Ex.P/6, have proved the injuries found on the body of the deceased when they saw the dead body inside the house of appellant. It is not in dispute that deceased was wife of the appellant and her body was found inside their house in injured condition. 11. PW-6, Dr. Sharad Chand Gupta, have stated that on 31.03.2022 he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and found lacerated wound on his right forearm, right & left leg, found fracture of his right tibia fibula, fracture of bone of left leg and fracture 6 of right and left fronto-parietal bone. He opined that cause of death is hemorrhagic shock, extradural hemorrhage and complication and nature of death is homicidal. The only suggestion given by the doctor that same type of injuries found on the body of the deceased could also have been caused to a person when he/she fell down in a rough surface after consuming liquor. 12. As per postmortem report, the liquor contents have not been noticed on the body of the deceased. Even there is no suggestion to the doctor that the deceased had consumed liquor at the time when she received injuries or any liquor content have been found on her dead body. In absence of such content, it cannot be said that deceased died due to fall on the rough surface after consuming liquor. The trial court having considered the evidence of witnesses and doctor held that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, in which, we do not find any infirmity or perversity. 13. So far as involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is concerned, the incident is of night time and inside the house of the appellant and deceased. The appellant is unable to prove that any third person have caused injuries to the deceased. It is the defence of the appellant that after consuming liquor, she fell down on a pit due to which she received injuries. This is found to be improbable explanation from the appellant in view of injuries found on the body of the deceased. The appellant and the deceased were only the person present inside the house in the night and in the next morning the deceased was found dead in injured condition. It is only the appellant who has to explain as to how his wife received numerous injuries on 7 her body including fracture of hand and head bone, in which the appellant failed. 14. In the case of Nagendra Sah Vs. The State of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 23 has held as under: “23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances.” 15. In the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) Live Law (SC) 861 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 33 and 34 has held as under: “33. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, states as under: "106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket, The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him. 34. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience.” 16. From the aforesaid piece of evidence and non explanation by the appellant about homicidal death and injuries of the deceased, it can 8 safely be concluded that it is the appellant who is the perpetrator of the crime and none else. 17. The aforesaid findings bring us to the next question for consideration whether the case of the appellant is covered within exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C. vis-a-vis culpable homicidal not amounting to murder and whether his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(3) SCC 327, has observed as under:- “21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.” 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, 2009(15) SCC 635 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which state as under :- “23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not 9 exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under : (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations; (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. 24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.” 10 20. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012(8)SCC 450, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death. 21. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2017(3) SCC 247 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraph 20, 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.” 11 22. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Hon'ble 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 the same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 23. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019(6) SCC 122 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; (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.” 24. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it transpires from the evidence that in the night the appellant and deceased were inside the house. The incident occurred due to non providing food to the appellant and then appellant assaulted the deceased by hand and fist and Danda. No traditional weapon has been used by the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. The witnesses have admitted that the deceased was also in habit of consuming liquor and after consuming liquor the quarrel took place. These circumstances clearly suggest that the incident occurred in a heat of passion and on sudden provocation. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the offence of the appellant may be converted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC instead of offence under Section 302 IPC. 12 25. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside and, instead thereof, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, failing which he shall undergo additional RI for six months. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 31.03.2022. He shall serve the remaining sentence as awarded/modified by this court. 26. The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 27. Registry is directed to 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 with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 28. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder