1 2026:CGHC:24625-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 549 of 2024 1 - Jagwat Yadav S/o Late Shri Gokul Yadav, Aged About 48 Years R/o Gram Taro P.S. Kawardha District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt.Triveni @ Pratigya Banjare W/o Jagwat Yadav, Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Taro P.S. Kawardha District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. … Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Kawardha District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 18/06/2026 1. Today, although the matter is listed for hearing on I.A. No. 2 of 2024, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, considering the fact that the appellants have been in jail since 08.05.2022 and with VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.06.23 10:58:07 +0530 2 the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing and is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CRPC’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 39/2022, arising out of Crime No. 357/2022, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with a default stipulation to undergo R.I. for 01 month to each of the appellants. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 08.05.2022, the complainant Buglu Dahariya (PW-2) received an information that, a dead body is lying in the house situated in the field of Badu Khan. After having seen the dead body, he informed the police about the same and then the Dehati Merg (exhibit P-3) and Dehati Nalisi (exhibit P-4) were recorded by the police. Dead body was identified by the witnesses to be of Bhuwan Gandharv @ Bhawan Gandharv and the inquest (exhibit P-6) of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses, in which injuries have been noticed on the dead body and therefore, the Division Bench was sent for its postmortem to District Hospital, Kabirdham, where Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sahu (PW-1) conducted postmortem and gave his report (exhibit P-1). According to 3 the postmortem report, the doctor has noticed four lacerated wounds on right frontal, left frontal, left occipital region and found fracture of frontal bone, occipital bone and right side of zygomatic area. The doctor has opined that cause of death is neurogenic shock due to traumatic brain injury due to head injury and the death is homicidal in nature. Numbered Merg intimation (exhibit P-25) was recorded by the police and then the FIR (exhibit P-26) was registered against unknown person for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Spot map (exhibit P- 7) was prepared by the police and exhibit P-8 was prepared by the patwari. Blood stained and plain soil have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo (exhibit P-16) and one danda, one empty liquor bottle and plastic disposal glass and black coloured plastic chappal have also been seized from the adjacent place, where the dead body was found vide seizure memo (exhibit P-17). The appellants were arrested and interrogated on 08.05.2022 and the memorandum statement of the appellants Jagwat Yadav and Triveni @ Pratigya Banjare (exhibit P-14 and P-15) were recorded. Based on the memorandum statement of the appellants, one iron crowbar has been seized from the appellant Jagwat vide seizure memo (exhibit P-10). His clothes have also been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-11) and the clothes of the appellant Triveni @ Pratigya Banjare has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-12). The danda seized from the spot, crowbar seized from the appellant Jagwat and the clothes of the accused persons were sent for its query report from the doctor, who gave query report (exhibit P-2) and opined that by the said danda and crowbar, the injuries could have been caused, which has been found on the body of the deceased and for confirmation of blood, it was sent 4 for FSL examination. The blood stained and plain soil, danda seized from the spot, crowbar and cloths seized from the appellant Jagwat Yadav, clothes of the appellant Triveni Bai and clothes of the deceased were sent for its chemical examination to State FSL Raipur from where report (exhibit P-22) was received and according to the FSL report, blood was found on the blood stained soil, crowbar seized from the appellant Jagwat Yadav and clothes of the deceased. 4. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha. District Kabirdham for the offence under Section 302, 34 of IPC. 5. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham for its trial. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Both the appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the witnesses under Section 313 of CRPC have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgement, hence this appeal. 5 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which are not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the alleged offence. He would further submit that there is no eyewitness to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of circumstances is not complete and various links are missing in the case. There is no last seen of the appellants with the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was found in the house of Badu Khan and there is no motive proved by the prosecution against the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. He would further submit that the evidence available on record is not clinching, so as to pointed towards the fact that it is only the appellants, who caused murder of the deceased and none else, therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. He would further submit that, even it is found that the appellants have caused injuries to the deceased, the offence of the appellants, if any, does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 of the IPC as the incident occurred in a heat of passion and on sudden provocation during consuming of the liquor, therefore, the appellants may be acquitted from the alleged offence and in alternative, their conviction may be altered from the offence of Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 part-I or Part-II of IPC and their sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by them. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted 6 that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the alleged offence. From the evidence of Badu Khan (PW-3), it is established by the prosecution that the house, where the dead body was found, was in possession of the appellants, as the accused persons were employed by him as a caretaker of his property. The motive has also been proved by the prosecution that, after consuming liquor the deceased was intended to make physical relation with the appellant No.2 and then the quarrel occurred between them. In the FSL report, blood was found in the crowbar seized from the appellant Jagwat. All these circumstances have not been explained by the appellants in their 313 CRPC statements. When the dead body was found in the premises of the appellants, which was in injured condition, it was for the appellants to explain the facts in their special knowledge, but they failed to explain it. After considering the entire facts and evidence of the case, the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the alleged offence, in which there is no infirmity or perversity and the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 11. With respect to the nature of death of the deceased, Buglu Dahari (PW- 2) deposed that, when he received the information about the dead body, he went on the spot and saw the dead body having injury on his head. Blood was oozed out from the injuries and then he informed it to 7 the police. PW-3/Badu Khan @ Amiruddin is also a witness to the inquest, who also proved the injuries on the head of the dead body. Jaiprakash (PW-5) is a nephew of the deceased and witness to the inquest and he too witnesses the injuries on the body of the deceased. Their testimony finds corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sahu (PW-1), who conducted the postmortem and found four lacerated wound on head including fracture of head bone. The doctor opined that the cause of death is neurogenic shock due to traumatic brain injury due to head injury and the death is homicidal in nature. In cross-examination, the doctor has stated that, he could not tell in certainty that the deceased was consumed liquor or not before his death. He took the blood sample for its chemical examination. He denied that if a person fell down on the ground after consuming liquor, the injuries found on his body could have been caused by the said fall on the ground. Thus, the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly establishes that the deceased died on account of the head injuries sustained by him and his death is homicidal in nature. 12. So far as the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question is concerned, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence that the dead body was found in the premises, where the appellants are residing, motive to commit murder and blood stains have been found on the crowbar seized from the appellant Jagwat and the injuries could have been inflicted by the said crowbar. 13. PW-3, Badu Khan @ Amiruddin who is the owner of the property, where the dead body was found. He stated in his evidence that he employed the appellants as caretaker of his property and cattle grazer 8 of his cattle. The appellants were residing in the house constructed in the field. In the usual course of his routine, when he went to his field, he saw the dead body in his field just in front of the house, where the appellants are residing. The injuries were found on the dead body and police was informed about the same. On suspicion the police interrogated the appellants, then they disclosed about the quarrel between them and when the deceased tried to outrage the modesty of the appellant No.2, they assaulted him. Though he admitted that, the deceased may have died due to the motor accident, but he also admitted that they were having quarrel with the deceased. The deceased was in the influence of liquor and hurling abuses. 14. PW-2, Buglu, who is the Kotwar of the village has stated in his evidence that when he came to know about the incident, he went on the spot and saw that a dead body was lying just in front of the house, where the appellants were residing. Injuries were also noticed on the head of the deceased and then he informed to the police. He too has stated that the appellants were residing in the house of Badu Khan, and the crowbar has been seized from the appellant Jagwat. In cross- examination, he stated that there was no other houses adjacent to the house of Badu Khan and the house is situated deep in the field. 15. From the evidence of these two witnesses and also from perusal of the spot map (exhibit P-7 and P-8), the dead body was found just outside of the house situated in the field of Badu Khan @ Amiruddin (PW-3) where the appellants were residing and there is no other houses adjacent to it. The appellants have not denied that they are not the residents of the house of Badu Khan (PW-3). The defence of the 9 accidental death of the deceased has also found no support from the evidence of these two witnesses as well as the evidence of doctor and also from the spot map. The dead body was not found on mid of the road, but it has been found deep inside in the field and away from the road. 16. PW-5, Jaiprakash is the nephew of the deceased and witness to the inquest (exhibit P-6), memorandum statement of the accused persons, seizure of crowbar from the appellant Jagwat and seizure of their clothes. In cross-examination, he admitted that the appellants disclosed the incident at the time, when police interrogated them and he also remained firm in seizure of crowbar from the appellant Jagwat. 17. Similar, is the evidence of the Ashok (PW-6), who also is a nephew of the deceased Bhuwan and made similar statement as PW-5 has given. 18. PW-11, Gitanjali Sinha is the investigating officer, who proved the the investigation and collected evidence against the appellants. Being the procedural witness, he duly supported the prosecution’s case and the investigation conducted by her. 19. The evidence produced by the prosecution duly suggests that on the date of incident, the appellants and the deceased were consumed liquor and during that, the deceased tried to outrage the modesty of appellant No.2 and then quarrel arose between them and they assaulted the deceased by crowbar. In the crowbar seized from the appellant Jagwat, blood was found in the FSL report. The dead body of the deceased was found just outside of the house of the appellants, where they were residing in normal course of their employment, the 10 appellants have not explained as to how the dead body of the deceased was found just outside of their house in injured condition and the defence of the appellants that the deceased died due to motor accident is not found supported by the evidence available on record and thus, the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question is established by the prosecution. 20. The next question for consideration would be, what offence has been committed by the appellants and whether the act of the appellants are covered within Exception-4 to Section 300 of IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and whether their conviction can be altered to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellants? 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 2002 (3) SCC 327 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 11 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.” 22. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, 2009 (15) SCC 635, 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 exhaustive. Each case has to be seen for 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; 12 (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, 13 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.” 23. Likewise, in the matter of State Vs. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012 (8) SCC 450, 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. 24. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2017 (3) SCC 247, 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 14 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.” 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 : “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 15 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”. 25. 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 the 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 of the IPC. 26. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 (6) SCC 122, has laid down four ingredients 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; 16 (iii) he 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.” 27. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that on the date of incident the deceased and the appellants were consuming liquor and during that the deceased the deceased tried to outrage the modesty of the appellant No.2 which she objected and then quarrel took place between them. Thus the incident occurred in a heat of passion and on sudden provocation and then the appellants caused injuries to the deceased. In these circumstances, it is evident that the act of the accused persons were without knowledge of the likely consequences, and the nature of injuries inflicted clearly shows that they had the knowledge that such assault was likely to cause death, but without intention, thereby the offence of the appellants does not travel beyond Section 304 of the IPC. 28. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 and also the evidence of PW-1/Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sahu, it stands proved that the deceased Bhuwan sustained injuries by the act of the accused persons, however, taking into account that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel, when they consumed liquor and the deceased tried to outrage the modesty of the appellant No.2, and there being no evidence of premeditation to commit the murder, though the act was committed with the knowledge that such assault was likely to cause death, but it was without intention and therefore, the conviction of the appellants 17 under Section 302 of IPC is liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. 29. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, they are convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 30. As the appellants are in jail since 08.05.2022, they shall serve the remaining sentence as modified by this Court. 31. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are 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. 32. 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 ved