1 CGHC010076722025 2026:CGHC:27132-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 409 of 2025 Santram Satnami S/o Dhaniram Satnami Aged About 30 Years R/o Guddu, Police Station - Pusaur, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer Police Station - Pusaur, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02 .07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.07.06 18:35:53 +0530 2 2. Though the matter is listed today for consideration of I.A. No. 2 of 2025 (application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail), having regard to the fact that the appellant has been in custody since 28.05.2020, and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Third District & Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), in S.T. No. 35 of 2021, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), amended Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘BNS’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 months R.I. more. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant, Dhaniram Satnami (PW-7), resides in Village Guddu along with his two sons, the elder son Santaram and the younger son Hetram, his wife Jamuna Bai, his daughter-in-law Pushpa Bai, and her two minor children. On 27.05.2020, his daughter Meera and son-in-law Vidyasagar had also come to visit and stayed at the house. Santaram and Pushpa were sleeping in a room along with their children, while the remaining 3 family members were sleeping in the courtyard. The lights in the house were on. At about 11:30 p.m., upon hearing the cries of Pushpa, Dhaniram, his wife Jamuna Bai, his daughter Meera, his son-in-law Vidyasagar, and his younger son Hetram woke up. Pushpa came out into the courtyard holding her neck and screaming, followed by Santaram. When Dhaniram asked her what had happened, she gestured that Santaram had assaulted her. The family members noticed that there was a deep incised wound on her neck from which blood was profusely oozing and that her clothes were soaked with blood. They immediately laid her on a cot and arranged to take her to the Community Health Centre, Pusaur, for medical treatment, where the Doctor, upon examination, declared her dead. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid information furnished by the informant regarding the unnatural death of Pushpa Satnami, a merg intimation (Ex.P/10) and a First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P/11) were registered. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer prepared the spot map (Ex.P/12) and the site plan of the place where the dead body was found (Ex.P/13). Notices under Section 175 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/1) were issued to the witnesses requiring their presence during the inquest proceedings. In the presence of the witnesses, the inquest report (Ex.P/3) was prepared. A requisition for conducting the postmortem examination (Ex.P/2) was also prepared. The postmortem report submitted by the Doctor after conducting the autopsy has been exhibited as Ex.P/17. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased under the handover memo (Ex.P/4). The duty 4 certificate issued to Woman Constable Swarnlata (PW-9) for escorting the dead body for postmortem examination has been exhibited as Ex.P/20. 6. On 28.05.2020, approximately 100 grams of blood-stained soil and 100 grams of plain soil were collected from the place of occurrence and seized under the seizure memo (Ex.P/7). On the same day, the appellant was taken into custody and interrogated, and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/5) was recorded. Pursuant to the disclosure made by the appellant, he produced from beneath a cot kept behind a room in his house an iron axe, and also produced a pair of blue jeans hanging on a peg inside the room bearing blood-like stains near the thigh portion. These articles were seized under the seizure memo (Ex.P/6). The appellant was formally arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/8), and information regarding his arrest was communicated to his father, Dhaniram Satnami, through the intimation of arrest (Ex.P/14). A requisition (Ex.P/22) was sent to the Executive Magistrate, Pusaur, for preparation of the revenue site map, pursuant to which the Patwari's site map (Ex.P/16) was prepared. 7. After the postmortem examination, Woman Constable Swarnlata (PW-9) received from the Doctor, in a sealed condition for chemical examination, the blood-stained sari, petticoat, blouse and undergarment worn by the deceased. Upon bringing the sealed articles to the police station, the same were seized under the seizure memo (Ex.P/9). A requisition (Ex.P/21) was addressed to the Block Medical Officer, 5 Pusaur, seeking an expert opinion regarding the seized axe, and the Doctor's opinion is available on the reverse thereof as Ex.P/14. The seized articles were thereafter forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, for chemical examination vide forwarding letter (Ex.P/23), the acknowledgment whereof has been exhibited as Ex.P/24. A certified copy of the relevant entry in the Malkhana Register evidencing deposit of the seized articles has been exhibited as Ex.P/15- C. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report has been exhibited as Ex.P/25. Statements of the witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. 8. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh. The case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, from where it was made over to the learned trial Court for trial in accordance with law. 9. The learned trial Court framed a charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant, who denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. 10. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and stated that the deceased had sustained the injury during a mutual altercation between them. 6 11. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The appellant, however, did not examine any witness in his defence nor did he produce any documentary evidence. 12. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2024, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable in law as the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the evidence brought on record unmistakably indicates that the occurrence was the result of a sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, without any premeditation, in the heat of passion, and that the appellant neither took undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. It is, therefore, submitted that the case is squarely covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC (now corresponding to Exception 4 to Section 101 of the BNS). Learned counsel further submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC (now corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS) cannot be sustained and that, at the highest, the act attributed to the appellant would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or, in the alternative, Part II of the IPC (now 7 corresponding to Section 105 of the BNS). It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be modified accordingly. 14. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. It is contended that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the appellant intentionally inflicted a fatal blow on the neck of the deceased with an axe, which resulted in her death. The nature of the weapon used, the seat of the injury, and the manner in which the assault was carried out clearly establish the requisite intention to commit murder. It is, therefore, argued that the case does not fall within any of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC (now corresponding to Section 101 of the BNS). Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC (now corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS) is fully justified and warrants no interference by this Court. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire record of the case. 16. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 17. Dr. Rajni Nayak (PW-11), who was posted as Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre, Pusaur, deposed that on 28.05.2020, the dead body of the deceased, Pushpa Satnami, was brought for 8 postmortem examination by Woman Constable Swarnlata Minj (PW-9). The identity of the deceased was established by Dhaniram Satnami, Peel Lal Nirala and Shiv Satnami. Upon external examination, she found rigor mortis present all over the body. She noticed an incised wound measuring 6 cm × 2 cm × 1 cm on the right side of the neck extending from the thyroid cartilage to the sternocleidomastoid muscle. Frothy discharge was also present in the trachea. 18. On internal examination, the Doctor found the skull, brain, spinal cord, lungs, major blood vessels, liver, spleen, kidneys and other internal organs to be congested. The larynx and trachea were found to be cut, torn and congested with frothy material present therein. The stomach contained a small quantity of food and liquid, while the small intestine contained partially digested food. The urinary bladder was empty. After completing the postmortem examination, she preserved and sealed the blood-stained clothes of the deceased, namely, the sari, petticoat, blouse and undergarment, for chemical examination and handed them over to the accompanying police constable. The postmortem report has been proved as Ex.P/17. 19. The witness further deposed that on 25.06.2020, a sealed axe was produced before her by the Investigating Officer for obtaining her medical opinion. Upon examination of the weapon, she opined that the injury found on the neck of the deceased was possible by the said axe and that the death of the deceased could have been caused by such an injury. Her opinion has been proved as Ex.P/18. 9 20. During her cross-examination, the witness admitted that if the blade of a slowly rotating ceiling fan were to come into contact with the neck of a person, an injury similar to the one found on the deceased could be caused. However, nothing further could be elicited from her cross-examination so as to discredit her opinion regarding the cause of death or the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased. 21. From the testimony of Dr. Rajni Nayak (PW-11) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/17), it is evident that the deceased had sustained a deep incised injury on the right side of her neck resulting in damage to the larynx and trachea. The medical evidence unequivocally establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 22. The opinion of Dr. Rajni Nayak (PW-11) that the death was homicidal and that the injury found on the neck of the deceased could have been caused by the seized axe remains substantially unshaken in cross-examination. Merely because the witness admitted that a similar injury was possible under certain circumstances does not, by itself, dilute the otherwise cogent medical evidence, particularly in the absence of any material on record probabilising such a possibility. We, therefore, concur with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 23. Having held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, the next question that arises for consideration is whether the present case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC (now corresponding to Exception 4 to Section 101 of the BNS) and whether 10 the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC (now corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS) deserves to be altered to one under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC (now corresponding to Section 105 of the BNS), as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana1 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 1 (2002) 3 SCC 327 11 undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.” 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana2 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 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 2 (2009) 15 SCC 635 12 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 13 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.” 26. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda3, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have 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. 27. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh4 has elaborately dealt with the issue and 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450 4 (2017) 3 SCC 247 14 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.” 15 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 : (SCC p. 596, para 9) “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 16 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”. 28. 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 same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 29. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 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; 5 (2019) 6 SCC 122 17 (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.” 30. Dhaniram Satnami (PW-7), the father of the appellant and the informant, deposed that the appellant was residing separately with his wife, Pushpa (the deceased), and their two children, while he and his younger son, Hetram, were residing in another room. Although both portions of the house shared a common courtyard, the families were living separately. He stated that the incident occurred during the summer season. On the date of the occurrence, his daughter Meera and son-in-law Vidyasagar had also come to visit. After having dinner, the appellant retired to his room along with the deceased and their children, whereas the witness and his wife slept in the courtyard. At about 11:00 p.m., on hearing the cries of the deceased, they rushed towards the appellant's room. The deceased was found gesturing towards the inside of the room and had sustained an injury on her neck. She was immediately taken to the Community Health Centre, Pusaur, where the doctor declared her dead. 31. The witness further deposed that he lodged the merg intimation as well as the First Information Report on 27.05.2020. However, while deposing before the Court, he stated that he had informed the police 18 that the deceased sustained the injury after coming into contact with the ceiling fan installed in the room. As this version was contrary to the prosecution case, he was declared hostile. 32. During cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that the appellant's room was small in size and that a ceiling fan was installed therein. He further admitted that the appellant, the deceased and their two children used to sleep in the said room. According to him, if a person stood on the cot, the ceiling fan could come into contact with such person's head. He also stated that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased had gestured that she sustained the injury due to contact with the ceiling fan. 33. Jamuna Satnami (PW-6), the mother of the appellant, deposed that the appellant was residing separately with the deceased and their two children, whereas she and her younger son occupied another room. According to her, both portions of the house shared a common courtyard. She stated that on the night of the incident, while she was sleeping in the courtyard, she heard the cries of the deceased. On reaching the room, she found the deceased lying unconscious. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital at Pusaur. 34. As PW-6 also did not support the prosecution case, she was declared hostile. Though she admitted that she heard a sound followed by the cries of her daughter-in-law at about 11:30 p.m., she denied the suggestion that the deceased was holding her neck and had pointed towards the appellant indicating that he had assaulted her. During 19 cross-examination, she also admitted that a ceiling fan was installed in the appellant's room and that a person standing on the cot could come into contact with the fan. 35. Het Kumar (PW-2), the younger brother of the appellant, deposed that on the date of the incident, his sister Meera and brother-in-law Vidyasagar had come to their house. After dinner, all the family members retired to their respective places for the night. The appellant and the deceased went to their room along with their children, whereas the remaining family members slept in the courtyard. At about 11:00– 12:00 midnight, his father and brother-in-law woke him up and informed him that the deceased had sustained an injury on her neck and was required to be taken to the hospital. He further stated that he had heard that the appellant had assaulted the deceased on her neck with an axe. 36. During cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he had neither witnessed the occurrence nor had he stated before the police that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with an axe. His evidence, therefore, is confined to the facts noticed by him after the occurrence and the information subsequently received by him. 37. Pil Lal Nirala (PW-1) deposed that he received a telephone call from his brother Shiv Kumar informing him that the deceased had become unconscious and had been admitted to the Community Health Centre, Pusaur. Initially, he sent his nephew to the hospital and, thereafter, on receiving another telephone call, proceeded to Pusaur himself. On reaching the hospital, he learnt that the deceased had 20 succumbed to her injuries. He thereafter went to the mortuary and, after removing the covering sheet, noticed an injury on the neck of the deceased. According to the witness, on making enquiries from the appellant's father, he was informed that at about 11:00 p.m., while the family members were asleep, the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a tangi (axe), resulting in her death. 38. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that while giving his statement to the police, he had not disclosed the name of the person from whom he had learnt that the deceased had been assaulted with a tangi. His evidence, therefore, to that extent is based on the information received by him after the occurrence. 39. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it emerges that on the night of 27.05.2020, after having dinner, the appellant and the deceased retired to their room along with their two minor children, while the remaining family members slept in the common courtyard. At about 11:00 p.m., on hearing the cries of the deceased, the family members rushed to the appellant's room and found that the deceased had sustained an injury on her neck. It has also come in the evidence that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased came out of the room with the said injury. Although PW-2 stated that he had heard that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with an axe, admittedly, he had neither witnessed the occurrence nor made such a statement before the police. His testimony, therefore, is of limited evidentiary value on that aspect. 21 40. Much emphasis was sought to be placed by PW-7 Dhaniram Satnami on the plea that the deceased had sustained the injury after coming into contact with the ceiling fan installed in the room and that he had disclosed the said fact while lodging the merg intimation and the First Information Report. However, a careful perusal of the merg intimation (Ex.P/10) as well as the First Information Report (Ex.P/11), both recorded immediately after the incident, does not disclose any such version. The omission of such a material fact from the earliest version of the prosecution case renders the explanation subsequently advanced by PW-7 wholly unreliable and clearly suggests that it is an afterthought. Consequently, his testimony to that extent does not inspire confidence. 41. The consistent evidence of Dhaniram Satnami (PW-7), Jamuna Satnami (PW-6) and Het Kumar (PW-2) establishes that immediately before the occurrence, the appellant and the deceased had retired to their room along with their two minor children. No evidence has been brought on record to show that any other person had entered or remained inside the room at the relevant time. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the appellant and the deceased were together in the room immediately preceding the occurrence. 42. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses further establishes that when the deceased came out of the room, she had already sustained a bleeding injury on her neck. This circumstance stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Rajni Nayak (PW-11), who, during the 22 post-mortem examination, found an incised wound measuring 6 cm × 2 cm × 1 cm on the right side of the neck of the deceased. The medical evidence, therefore, completely rules out the possibility of a superficial injury and establishes that the deceased sustained a grievous incised wound immediately prior to her death. 43. G.S. Dubey (PW-13), the Investigating Officer, deposed that during investigation, the appellant made a memorandum statement (Ex.P/5) disclosing that he had concealed the axe used in the commission of the offence beneath the cot in his room and had kept the jeans worn by him at the time of the incident inside the same room. Pursuant to the said disclosure, and in the presence of seizure witnesses Lalit Kumar Gupta (PW-3) and Gokul Sarathi (PW-5), the appellant led the police party to the place of concealment and produced an iron axe fitted with a bamboo handle, measuring approximately 72.5 cm in length, with blood-like stains on its blade and handle. He also produced a blue and white jeans bearing blood-like stains on the thigh portion. Both the articles were seized under seizure memo (Ex.P/6). 44. Lalit Kumar Gupta (PW-3) supported the seizure of the aforesaid articles from the appellant's house. Similarly, Gokul Sarathi (PW-5) also proved the seizure proceedings and identified his signatures on seizure memo (Ex.P/6). Though PW-3 stated during cross-examination that the appellant was in police custody and had not personally produced the axe, he admitted that the seizure proceedings were conducted in the village and that he had signed the seizure memo there. His evidence, 23 therefore, does not demolish the prosecution case regarding recovery. More importantly, the testimony of the Investigating Officer with regard to the memorandum and consequential recovery remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination. The evidence on record, therefore, satisfactorily establishes the recovery of the axe and the appellant's jeans at his instance. 45. The Investigating Officer further deposed that on 28.05.2020, blood-stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence under seizure memo (Ex.P/7). He also stated that after completion of the post-mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased were produced by Woman Constable Swarnlata and seized under seizure memo (Ex.P/9). Thereafter, all the seized articles were forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report has been proved as Ex.P/25. 46. The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P/25) reveals that human blood was detected on the blood-stained soil collected from the place of occurrence, the seized axe, the jeans recovered at the instance of the appellant, and the sari, petticoat and blouse of the deceased. The scientific evidence, therefore, lends substantial corroboration to the prosecution case and reinforces the evidentiary value of the recoveries effected during investigation. 47. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant admitted that on the night of the incident he had a quarrel with the 24 deceased inside the room. However, he has not offered any explanation consistent with the medical and other evidence as to how the deceased sustained a fatal incised injury on her neck while she was in his exclusive company. 48. It is further borne out from the appellant’s memorandum (Ex.P/5) that a trivial dispute had arisen two days prior to the incident regarding a stand fan purchased by the appellant and the deceased, which was allegedly not functioning properly. It is stated that upon the appellant remarking about the fan, the deceased got annoyed and went to sleep, whereafter the appellant picked up a tangia lying in the room and inflicted a forceful blow causing the fatal injury. 49. The said circumstances, read with the appellant’s admission under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the medical evidence, indicate that the assault was not accidental. The recovery of the blood-stained weapon and other incriminating articles further completes the chain of circumstances, which is consistent only with the guilt of the appellant and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. 50. Reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established that it was the appellant who caused the fatal injury to the deceased. However, the evidence on record does not disclose that the occurrence was the result of any premeditated design or prior planning. On the contrary, the material available on record indicates that the incident occurred during the course of a sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased 25 inside their matrimonial home. It has also come on record that the quarrel was of a trivial domestic nature. There is nothing to suggest that the appellant had armed himself in advance or had acted pursuant to any pre-conceived intention to cause the death of the deceased. 51. It has further come in evidence that immediately before the occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased regarding a domestic issue relating to a stand fan purchased by them two days prior to the incident, which was allegedly not functioning properly. As per the memorandum of the appellant himself, the appellant had remarked about the stand fan being the deceased’s choice and not working properly, upon which the deceased got annoyed and went to sleep. The prosecution evidence does not indicate that the appellant acted with exceptional cruelty or that he took undue advantage of the situation. The occurrence thereafter appears to have taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without the appellant having sufficient time for reflection. It is also borne out from the appellant’s memorandum that he thereafter picked up a tangia lying in the room and inflicted a forceful blow, which resulted in a fatal injury to the neck of the deceased. 52. Though the incident appears to have originated from a trivial domestic altercation, the manner in which the assault was inflicted and the use of a sharp-edged weapon upon a vital part of the body cannot be ignored. The said circumstances, when read along with the appellant’s own version in the memorandum, indicate that while there 26 may not have been premeditation, the act was not merely accidental either, and the appellant clearly had the intention or at least the knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death. 53. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the act committed by the appellant would not amount to “murder” punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. However, having regard to the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the circumstances emerging from the appellant’s own memorandum as well as the prosecution evidence, it can safely be held that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Consequently, the offence would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part I of the IPC. 54. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the learned trial Court are set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. 55. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the manner in which the occurrence took place, the fact that it arose out of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant since 28.05.2020, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07 years. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court and the default stipulation shall 27 remain unaltered. 56. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC are modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 57. As a result, I.A. No. 2 of 2025, being an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, does not survive for consideration in view of the final disposal of the appeal and is accordingly disposed of. 58. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for compliance and to inform the appellant that he is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 59. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be sent to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan