1 2026:CGHC:24310-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 88 of 2026 1 - Nirmal Manjhi S/o Mahesh Ram Aged About 23 Years R/o Khokhroama, P.S. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh 2 - Niranjan Manjhi S/o Mahesh Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Khokhroama, P.S. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 17/06/2026 1. Today, though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, considering the fact that the appellants are ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.06.23 10:51:58 +0530 2 in jail since 29.12.2019, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 17/2022, arising out of Crime No. 244/2019, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default stipulation to undergo R.I. for 01 months. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.12.2019 at about 10:30 PM, in village Khokhroama, Pakhnakot, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), the accused persons namely Nirmal Manjhi and Niranjan Manjhi, under the influence of liquor, were creating nuisance and hurling abuses in the locality. When the deceased Mahetter Manjhi objected and asked them not to create disturbance, both the accused persons picked up a quarrel with him. It is alleged that accused Nirmal Manjhi assaulted the deceased with an iron rod on his head and accused Niranjan Manjhi assaulted him by fists and blows. As a result of the assault, the deceased sustained serious injuries, became unconscious 3 and fell on the ground. He was initially taken to Community Health Centre, Gharghoda and thereafter referred to K.G.H. Hospital, Raigarh for better treatment. During treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 28.12.2019 at about 10:30 AM. On the basis of the report lodged by Bahartin Manjhi (PW-1), wife of the deceased, FIR Ex.P-1 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. During merg inquiry, inquest proceedings were conducted and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. 4. Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami (PW-12) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found as many as 18 ante-mortem injuries on different parts of the body, including contusions and abrasions over the face, forehead, upper limbs and buttocks, along with serious internal injuries on the head. On internal examination, extensive contusions were found over the occipital, parietal, frontal and temporal regions of the scalp, along with subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage involving both sides of the brain and accumulation of about 100 ml of blood within the cranial cavity. 5. After conducting the post-mortem examination, the doctor opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and that the cause of death was head injuries resulting in shock and haemorrhage, and that the death had occurred within about eight hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report is Ex.P-21. 4 6. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded during investigation and, after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused persons under Sections 302/34 IPC. 7. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), as the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Trial Court framed charge against accused persons Nirmal Manjhi and Niranjan Manjhi for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited several documents including the FIR, merg intimation, inquest report, memorandum statements, seizure memos, medical examination report, query report and post-mortem report. The statements of both the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. However, no witness was examined in defence. 5 8. After considering and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and the evidence available on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the death of deceased Mahetter Manjhi was homicidal in nature. Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami (PW-12), who conducted the post-mortem examination, did not specifically opine in Ex.P-21 that the death was homicidal. The prosecution also failed to examine any doctor who treated the deceased during his hospitalization, thereby leaving a serious gap in proving the cause of death. It is further submitted that the bed-head ticket was not proved in accordance with law and, therefore, could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court. The alleged weapon of offence, namely the iron rod, was neither properly connected with the injuries nor exhibited as a material object during trial, and the seizure witnesses having turned hostile, the alleged recovery itself becomes doubtful. 10. Learned counsel would further submit that there was considerable and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, despite the prosecution case that the police had received information regarding the incident much earlier. It is argued that the evidence on record 6 does not establish any prior meeting of minds or common intention between the appellants so as to attract Section 34 IPC. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the incident arose suddenly during a quarrel when the parties, who were close relatives and had no previous enmity, were under the influence of alcohol. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises rather than reliable and legally admissible evidence. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the involvement of the appellants in the crime has been established by the cogent and reliable testimony of eyewitnesses Bahartin Manjhi (PW-1) and Jethuram Manjhi (PW-2), who consistently deposed that accused Nirmal Manjhi assaulted the deceased with an iron rod and accused Niranjan Manjhi assaulted him by fists and blows. Their evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami (PW-12), who found as many as 18 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the death was caused by head injuries resulting in shock and haemorrhage. It is further submitted that merely because the seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution case in its entirety, the otherwise reliable ocular evidence cannot 7 be discarded. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased sustained fatal injuries during the assault made by the appellants and succumbed to those injuries during treatment. The conduct of the appellants, the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the severity of the injuries caused clearly demonstrate their intention and knowledge sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and the impugned judgment warrants no interference by this Court. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 13. With respect to the nature of death of the deceased, Bahartin Manjhi (PW-1), the wife of the deceased, has deposed that on the date of the incident accused Nirmal Manjhi assaulted the deceased with an iron rod on his head, while accused Niranjan Manjhi assaulted him by fists and blows, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries, became unconscious and fell on the ground. Jethuram Manjhi (PW-2), an eyewitness to the incident, has also supported the prosecution case and stated that accused Nirmal Manjhi struck the deceased with an iron rod on his head and accused Niranjan Manjhi assaulted him by fists and blows. The witnesses to the inquest proceedings also noticed visible injuries on the face and head of the deceased. Thus, the ocular 8 and medical evidence collectively establish that the deceased died as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the incident. 14. P.W. 12, Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami, has stated in his deposition that on 28.12.2019 he conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased Mahetter Manjhi and found as many as 18 ante-mortem injuries on different parts of the body, including contusions and abrasions over the face, forehead, upper limbs and buttocks. On internal examination, he found extensive contusions over the occipital, parietal, frontal and temporal regions of the scalp, subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage involving the brain, and accumulation of blood within the cranial cavity. He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and that the death was caused due to head injuries resulting in shock and haemorrhage. He further stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could not have been caused merely by a fall in a drunken condition. In his cross-examination, no material contradiction or circumstance could be elicited by the defence to discredit his medical opinion regarding the cause of death. Thus, the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly establishes that the deceased died on account of the head injuries sustained by him. 15. So far as the involvement of the accused persons in the crime in question is concerned, P.W.-1 Bahartin Manjhi and P.W.-2 Jethuram Manjhi are the eyewitnesses to the incident. P.W.-1 Bahartin Manjhi, who is the wife of the deceased, has stated in 9 her deposition that on the date of the incident both the accused persons were under the influence of liquor and were creating nuisance near her house. When her husband Mahetter Manjhi objected to their conduct, accused Nirmal Manjhi assaulted him with an iron rod on his head and accused Niranjan Manjhi assaulted him by fists and blows, as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. P.W.-2 Jethuram Manjhi has also supported the prosecution case and deposed that he witnessed the quarrel and saw accused Nirmal Manjhi assaulting the deceased with an iron rod while accused Niranjan Manjhi participated in the assault by fists and blows. Both the witnesses have consistently stated that the deceased sustained injuries in the assault made by the accused persons and was thereafter taken for medical treatment. In their cross-examination, though certain omissions and contradictions were elicited, nothing substantial could be brought on record to discredit their presence at the spot or their version regarding the assault. Their evidence remains consistent on the material particulars of the occurrence and finds corroboration from the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased. 16. P.W. 2, Jethuram Manjhi, is another eyewitness to the occurrence. He has stated that on hearing the commotion, he reached the spot and witnessed accused Nirmal Manjhi assaulting the deceased with an iron rod, while accused Niranjan Manjhi was assaulting him by fists and blows. He has further deposed that 10 after the assault the deceased fell on the ground and became unconscious. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident or that the deceased sustained injuries by accidentally falling on the road. His testimony substantially corroborates the version of P.W. 1. 17. P.W. 3, Ram Kumar, has stated that on receiving information about the incident, he reached the spot and found the deceased lying in an injured condition. Thereafter, he assisted in taking the deceased home and subsequently to the hospital for treatment. Though he is not an eyewitness to the assault, his evidence supports the fact that the deceased had sustained injuries in the incident and was immediately taken for medical treatment. He was cross-examined by the defence, but nothing substantial could be elicited to discredit his testimony. 18. P.W. 4, Chamar Manjhi, is a witness to the memorandum and seizure proceedings. However, during trial he did not support the prosecution case in material particulars and was declared hostile. Though he admitted his signatures on the relevant documents, he did not support the prosecution version regarding the recovery of the iron rod at the instance of the accused. 19. P.W. 6, Dr. Vikas Kumar Sharma, medically examined the deceased on 23.12.2019 and found multiple injuries on his body. He prepared the medical examination report Ex.P-10. He has further stated that upon a query made by the Investigating Officer 11 regarding the seized iron rod, he furnished his report Ex.P-11 and opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the said iron rod and could also be caused by fists and blows followed by a fall on a rough surface. The defence cross- examined him at length, but his evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased remained substantially unshaken. 20. P.W. 9 Dr. Arun Kumar Patel, who conducted the medical examination of the injured Bahartin Bai, after her medical examination noticed pain in the left shoulder and restricted movement. After her examination, he gave his report Ex. P/18. In cross-examination, he admitted that the injuries noticed on the body of the injured Bahartin Bai could have also been caused by falling on the floor. 21. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 regarding the assault made by the accused persons finds substantial corroboration from the medical evidence of P.W. 12. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the assault attributed to the accused persons. 22. The next question for consideration is, whether the case of the appellants are covered within Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC vis- a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and their conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants ? 12 23. 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 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.” 24. 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; 13 (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.” 25. 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 14 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. 26. 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 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 15 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 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”. 27. 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. 16 28. 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; (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.” 29. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that on the date of incident i.e. 22.12.2019 at about 22:30 hours, there was an altercation between the accused persons and the deceased Mahhettar Manjhi when he objected to their creating nuisance in a drunken state. In the said occurrence, the accused persons got infuriated and in furtherance of their common intention, accused Nirmal Manjhi gave a blow by means of an iron rod on the head of the deceased, whereas co-accused Niranjan Manjhi assaulted him by fists and blows, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and became unconscious. As per the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, there was a consistent account that the accused persons on a sudden heat of passion and without premeditation, in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the deceased, and the defence plea that the deceased accidentally fell on a construction site was not found 17 trustworthy in view of the medical evidence. In these circumstances, it is evident that the act of the accused was neither accidental nor without knowledge of the likely consequences, and the nature of injuries inflicted, clearly shows that they had the knowledge without intention that such assault was likely to cause death, the offence of the appellants does not travel beyond Section 304 of I.P.C. 30. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the consistent ocular testimony of PW-1 (wife of the deceased) and PW-2, coupled with the medical evidence of PW-12 Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami and the postmortem report (Ex. P-21), it stands proved that the deceased Mahhettar Manjhi sustained injuries at the hands of the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. However, taking into account that the incident arose out of a sudden altercation when the deceased objected to the drunken nuisance caused by the accused persons, and there being no clear evidence of prior premeditation to commit murder, though the act was committed with knowledge that such assault was likely to cause death, ends of justice would meet if the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC is altered/converted to one under Section 304 Part-I/34 of the IPC. 31. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is set aside, however, they are convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced 18 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. 32. As the appellants are in jail, they shall serve the remaining sentence as modified by this Court. 33. 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. 34. 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 Alok