1 2026:CGHC:27381-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1043 of 2016 {Arising out of judgment dated 26.07.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.20/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh} Govind Patel, S/o. Usatram Patel, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Village - Dhanigaon, Police Station Baramkela, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate For Objector : Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.07.04 10:56:42 +0530 2 Judgment on Board (03.07.2026) 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 26.07.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.20/2015, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along-with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 year additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that, on 12.05.2015, at about 9:30 P.M., the appellant herein came with bamboo stick and abused and assaulted Loknath Patel (now deceased) on his head and left shoulder and thereafter, he left from the spot; thereby, the aforesaid offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-6, MLC was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW-9) in which lacerated wound in fronto parietal temporal region and abrasion on right forearm were found. Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-17, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of deceased Loknath Patel was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Somiya 3 Ranjan Nayak (PW-13), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-15, according to which, on the body of the deceased, partially healed stitched lacerated wound present vertically on vertex at left side, partially healed stitched incised wound present on right side of fronto parietal temporal area of scalp and death was homicidal in nature due to cardio cerebral injury. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-7, weapon of offence i.e. bamboo stick was seized vide Ex.P-10. After due investigation, the appellant was 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 appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has examined only 2 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4 5. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the appellant has been erroneously convicted by the trial Court without there being any evidence of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Two eye-witnesses namely Tekram Patel (PW-2) and Ram Lal Patel (PW-6) have stated that the deceased made single blow by club on the head of the deceased on the date of incident i.e. 12.05.2015. The deceased died on 19.05.2015, which may be result of lack of proper treatment. Apart from that, there is evidence to show that the appellant was addressed as an insane person because of which, he got irritated and he has committed the offence. The insanity of the appellant was also taken as ground for defence, which was not accepted by the trial Court, however, it is again raised in this appeal. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Furthermore, in alternative, she would submit that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the fact that he died after seven days of the incident, at the most, the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. is made out and the appellant be sentenced for the period already undergone. 6. Per contra, 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 5 offence. It is submitted that there is clear evidence of Tekram Patel (PW-2) and Ram Lal Patel (PW-6), who have stated that it was the appellant, who made assault on the deceased, which resulted in his death. He further submits that it is not a case where the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C.; therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Mr. H.S.Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the objector, would submit that the appellant has a criminal history and he was earlier prosecuted for offence under Section 294, 323 and 506 B of the Indian Penal Code in which he was convicted and sentenced. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Loknath Patel was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-15) proved by Dr. Somiya Ranjan Nayak (PW-13), according to which, on the body of deceased, partially healed stitched lacerated wound present vertically on vertex at left side, 6 partially healed stitched incised wound present on right side of fronto parietal temporal area of scalp and death was homicidal in nature due to cardio cerebral injury, 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. 10. Now, the next question arises, whether the appellant had caused injury to deceased Loknath Patel, for which the trial Court relied upon the statement of Tekram Patel (PW-2) and Ram Lal Patel (PW-6) and came to the conclusion that it is the appellant who has caused the death of deceased. The incident is of 12.05.2015 and deceased Loknath Patel died on 19.05.2015 while undergoing treatment at Burla Medical College, Odissa. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we affirm the said finding. 11. Now, the question would be whether the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 7 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 village meeting was convened in which a mango tree owned by Rohit Patel was cut by Jagesh Patel and thereafter, as per the statement of Tekram Patel (PW-2), the appellant came armed with bamboo stick and assaulted Loknath Patel on his hand on his forearm and thereafter, deceased was taken to Baramkela Hospital and from there he was taken to Raigarh Hospital and then Burla Medical College and he died on 19.05.2015 during treatment. A careful perusal of para 9 of the statement of Tekram Patel (PW-2) would show that the appellant was addressed to be insane person. As such, with regard to subject matter of meeting i.e. cutting of a tree owned by Rohit Patel and cut by Jagesh Patel, the appellant has no concern with the same and he was under wrong impression that he was addressed to be insane person in the meeting. Infact, he had no enmity with the deceased Loknath Patel and under the wrong impression, he is alleged to have caused injuries to the deceased 1 (2017) 3 SCC 247 8 Loknath Patel after someone at the meeting addressed him as an insane person and since deceased Loknath Patel came in his way, he was assaulted by the appellant. 14. Ramlal Patel (PW-6) has also made similar statement that the appellant came armed with bamboo stick in the meeting and said that who addressed him as an insane person and then assaulted deceased Loknath Patel. In para 14 of his statement, he has also stated that appellant came armed with bamboo stick and said that who is insane person and he did not name any of the person therein. As such, it appears that the appellant had no motive for the commission of offence and he had no intention to cause death of Loknath Patel, but definitely he must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by him is likely to cause death of Loknath Patel. Moreover, the incident is of 12.05.2015 and the deceased died after 7 days on 19.05.2015. As such, it is a fit case where the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. 15. In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he is now sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is directed to surrender to undergo the remaining jail sentence, if any. 9 16. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 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) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ashok