1 2026:CGHC:7560-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 685 of 2016 {Arising out of judgment dated 24.06.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.38/2009 by the learned Sessions Judge Bastar, Place Jagdalpur} Jagtu Ram, S/o. Late Sonadhar Muriya, Aged About 55 Years, Caste Muriya, Occupation Agriculturist/ Labour, R/o. Village Bahaarguda Para, Chitrakot, P.S. Lohadiguda, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Civil & Revenue District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Aarakshi Kendra, Lohandiguda, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board (11.02.2026) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.02.11 17:35:08 +0530 2 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 24.06.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.38/2009, by which, the sole appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as under : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s. 302 of I.P.C. : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 201 of I.P.C. : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional rigorous imprisonment Both the sentence to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, in between 15.01.2009 to 18.01.2009 at 1:00 P.M. at village Chitrakot below Indrawati waterfall near Bakadi Ghat, the appellant first of all caused injury by axe to Jadgu (now deceased) and 3 thereafter pushed him into the Indrawati river and caused her death and in order to screen himself from the offence, he thrown the dead body into deep water of Indrawati river and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-10, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of deceased Madgu was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. C.Maitry (PW-5), who proved the post- mortem report vide Ex.P-6, according to which, cause of death was stated to be asphyxia due to drowning and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-2, axe was recovered from the house of the appellant vide Ex.P-3. 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 9 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents and the 4 appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that considering the finding recorded by the trial Court in para 3 of its judgment, at the most, the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. is made out against the appellant, therefore, the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he remained in custody from 21.01.2009 to 14.07.2009 and from 24.06.2010 to 29.03.2017 i.e. almost 8 years. 6. Mr. Anmol Sharma, 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 offence. He would further submit that it is not a case where the conviction of appellant for offence under 5 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. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Jadgu was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-6) proved by Dr. C. Maitry (PW-5), according to which, cause of death was stated to be asphyxia due to drowning and death was homicidal in nature, 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. 9. 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-I or Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 6 10. The trial Court in para 21 & 22 after considering the evidence available on record, recorded a finding that the appellant had no intention to cause death but he had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death, but proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 11. In this regard, 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. 12. 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, there was no intention on the part of appellant to cause death, but the appellant must have had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. deserves to be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. 1 (2017) 3 SCC 247 7 13. In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone, as he remained in jail from 21.01.2009 to 14.07.2009 and from 24.06.2010 to 29.03.2017 i.e. almost 8 years. He has already completed the sentence of 3 years for the offence under Section 201 of I.P.C. 14. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 15. The appellant is on bail, he need not surrender; however, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 16. 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) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Ashok