CGHC010043532025 2026:CGHC:36203-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 250 of 2025 Janki Mandavi S/o Rajkumar Mandavi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kursel, P.S. Tadoki District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tadoki District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri SS Baghel, GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 14.08.2026 Heard Shri Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sumit Singh, learned Dy GA for the State. 1. Present appeal has been listed for consideration on IA- 1 of 2025, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 27.06.2022, with consent of the parties, the appeal itself has been heard finally and the said IA stands disposed off. 2. Present appeal under section 415 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS 2023) filed by the appellant against the impugned Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.08.19 18:08:56 +0530 Cra 250 of 2025 2 judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bhanupratappur, District-North Bastar, Kanker CG in Sessions Trial No.39 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.06.2022 PW2-Ramesh Mandavi gave merg intimation to the police that at about 11.05 PM in the night, his daughter-in-law informed him that she committed mistake and she, after having quarreled with her husband, committed his murder by assaulting him by axe. When he had gone there, he found the dead-body of his son in injured condition. The merg intimation Ex.P4 was recorded and FIR Ex.P5 against the appellant has been registered for the offence under section 302 IPC. Inquest of dead-body of the deceased Ex.P8 was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the dead-body was sent to the postmortem to the Primary Health Centre, Tadoki, District Kanker. PW7-Dr Hemant Dhruv conducted postmortem of dead-body of the deceased and opined that death is hemorrhagic shock due to cumulative effect of multiple injuries and the manner of death is homicidal within 24 hours and his postmortem report is Ex.P15. Spot map Ex.P1 was prepared by Patwari and Ex.P6 was prepared by the Police. Plain soil and blood stained soil have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P.13. Appellant was arrested on 27.06.2022 and her memorandum statement Ex.P11 was recorded. Based on her memorandum statement, one axe, blouse and saree of the appellant have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P.12. Bed sheet and blouse have been seized from the spot and were sent for obtaining query report regarding presence of blood and the doctor referred them for its FSL examination by his report Ex.P16. The bed Cra 250 of 2025 3 sheet, blood stained soil and plain soil seized from the spot, axe and clothes of the appellant have been sent for their FSL examination to the Regional FSL, Jagdalpur from where report Ex.P25 was received and according to the FSL report, except the plain soil, blood has been found on all other articles and in the bed sheet, saree and blouse of the appellant human blood was found. 4. Statement of the witnesses under section 161 of the CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filled against the appellant for commission of offence under section 302 IPC before the JMFC Bhanupratappur. Case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker, from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial court for its trial. 5. The learned trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed the trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the appellant under section 313 CRPC has also been recorded in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her, pleaded innocence and submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation oral as well as documentary evidence lead by the prosecution, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. Cra 250 of 2025 4 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the offence in question. There is no eye witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on substantial evidence. The chain of circumstances are incomplete and various components are missing. The appellant has been implicated in the offence solely on the ground that she is the wife of the deceased. However, other inmates were also residing in the same house. Therefore, the burden of explaining the circumstances within her special knowledge, particularly in relation to the incident in question, cannot be exclusively fastened upon her merely by virtue of her relationship with the deceased. Only to eliminate her from the property of PW2, she has been implicated in the alleged offence. In alternative, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if it is found that the appellant was with the deceased at the relevant point of time and has not explained the circumstance under which deceased received injuries on his body the offence of the appellant, if any, does not travel beyond section 304 IPC. 9. The incident occurred in a heat of passion and on sudden provocation, when the deceased came to the house in drunken condition and started quarreling with her. Since she was fed up with him and the quarrel she assaulted the deceased by an axe and thus, there was no intention, no premeditation to commit murder of the deceased and thus the conviction of the appellant, from Section 302 IPC may be converted to the offence Section 304 Part II of the IPC and her sentenced may be reduced for the period already undergone by her. Cra 250 of 2025 5 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / state opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but for minor omission or contradictions the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable. From the evidence, it has been proved that the appellant was with the deceased at the relevant point of time inside their room and then the incident occurred and appellant caused the injuries to the deceased. The number of injuries have been found on the body of the deceased for which there is no explanation from the appellant and therefore, learned trial court has rightly brought the presumption of 106 of the Evidence Act. He would further submit that the number and nature of injuries that inflicted by axe clearly show the intention of the appellant, therefore, there is no scope for conversion of the offence of the appellant into Section 304 of the IPC. The appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 12. The first and foremost consideration would be the nature of death of the deceased as to he died homicidal death or not. 13. The prosecution has proved homicidal death of the deceased by leading evidence of PW7 Doctor Hemant, who conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that on 27.06.2022 he conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on his body: • Lacerated wound on left zygomatic bone fracture, Cra 250 of 2025 6 • lacerated wound on left cheek, • lacerated wound on right arm, • fracture humerus bone right side in neck region, • lacerated wound present front side and behind the neck, (multiple lacerated wounds) • lacerated wound on left shoulder, • lacerated wound on head occipital region, • skull crushed and brain matter also crushed • lacerated wound in chin region. • On internal examination, skull bone was fractured on occipital region and he opined that cause of death is hemorrhagic shock due to cumulative effect of multiple injuries and the manner of death is homicidal. He proved postmortem report Ex.P15. In cross-examination, he stated that the injury on the neck and back side of the head could be caused due to fall on the hard surface. He denied that injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by an accident. 14. From the evidence of this witness, nature and number of injuries found on the body of the deceased, it can safely be held that deceased died due to cumulative effect of multiple injuries including fracture of skull bone and crush of brain. The evidence of Dr.Hemant Dhruv further supported by evidence of PW2, father-in-law of the appellant. PW4 Mangu Ram, who also saw the dead-body in injured condition and thus, it is established that deceased died due to homicidal death. Cra 250 of 2025 7 15. The next question for consideration would be, the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence in question. There is no eye witness to the incident. 16. PW2-Ramesh Mandavi has stated in his evidence that appellant informed him that she committed murder of the deceased in the night. On being information received from his daughter in-law, he had gone to the place of incident which is the house of the deceased and saw his body lying in the cot, having injuries on head, neck and other parts of the body. Due to night time, they lodged report in the next morning and informed the police about the incident. In cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of incident, he was in his house and has not seen the incident. He denied that on the date of incident he had not gone to the house of his son / deceased. He admitted that his son was in habit of consuming liquor and his daughter-in-law objected his such conduct. He admitted that since he is residing in a separate house, he could not tell as to whether there was any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased or not. He admitted that when the police personnel came for investigation, they interacted with the appellant and she admitted her guilt in presence of the villagers. 17. From evidence of this witness, it is quite vivid that on the date of incident, appellant and the deceased were in their house together in the night, quarrel took place between them and the appellant caused cumulative injuries to the deceased, and after committing the incident, she informed PW2 who is her father-in-law and father of the deceased and when this witness came to her Cra 250 of 2025 8 house, he saw the dead-body of the deceased in injured condition. His presence, presence of the appellant, and place of incident at the relevant point of time could not be rebutted by her. 18. PW3-Manoj Mandavi has stated in his evidence that he is brother of the deceased. He stated that he is residing along with his father PW2. Appellant and the deceased are residing together in a separate house. On the date of the incident, appellant committed murder of his brother with an axe. In the night at about 12.00 hours, his father woke him up and informed about the incident. Thereafter, they have gone to the house of the appellant and in the morning lodged the report. He too even firm in saying in his cross-examination that the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased when the deceased was drunken condition. 19. From the evidence of this witness also, appellant could not be able rebut any fact that she was not present on the spot and any third person committed murder of the deceased. 20. PW6 Itwarin Bai is mother of the deceased. She stated in her evidence that on the date of incident appellant came to her house and informed about the incident that she committed murder of the deceased when they had gone there, they saw the dead-body of her son. In her cross examination she admitted that her son is residing in a separate house. She too has admitted that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, who she denied that deceased was not in good relation with the appellant. 21. From these evidences, prosecution is able to prove that the incident was occurred in the deep night at about 11:00 to 12:00 hours and the appellant Cra 250 of 2025 9 immediately informed to PW2 Ramesh Mandavi and PW6 Itwarin Bai, who are her in-laws that she committed murder of the deceased. There is no defense taken by the appellant that any third person came to her house raised quarrel and committed murder of her husband, also there is no explanation from her as to how the deceased received injuries when both of them are together in the same house. 22. In the case of Nagendra Sah Vs. The State of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 23 has held as under: “23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances.” 23. In the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) Live Law (SC) 861 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 33 and 34 has held as under: “33. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, states as under: "106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket, The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him. 34. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the Cra 250 of 2025 10 accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible or at any rate disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience.” 24. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as non- explanation of injuries on the body of the deceased by the appellant, when she was also present in the house, comes against the appellant that she caused injuries to the deceased, by which he died and it has also been proved that the appellant is perpetrator of the crime. 25. The next question for consideration is, whether the case of the appellant is covered within Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant ? 26. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 2002 (3) SCC 327 observed as under:- Cra 250 of 2025 11 “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.” 27. 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; Cra 250 of 2025 12 (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; (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 Cra 250 of 2025 13 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.” 28. 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. 29. 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 Cra 250 of 2025 14 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 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”. 30. 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. Cra 250 of 2025 15 31. 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) 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.” 32. Reverting to facts and circumstances of the present case, it transpires from the evidence that deceased was in habit of consuming liquor and whenever he consumed liquor there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, as the appellant had objection for his consuming the liquor. The incident was informed by the appellant to the father in law of the deceased PW2 Ramesh Mandavi and PW6 Itwarin Bai. It is not the case that after commission of murder of the deceased she could have fled away from the place or try to conceal of the evidence but she has informed the incident to his father-in-law though the number of injuries have been found on dead body of the deceased. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case when the incident occurred in night time between husband wife, when the husband consumed liquor which was objected by the wife, quarrel took place and the appellant, in that anger inflicted gave blows upon the deceased and by that the offence comes under exception 4 of Section 304 of the IPC. 33. Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, also considering the evidence of witnesses and taking into consideration the cumulative affect of the evidence, it would deem appropriate Cra 250 of 2025 16 to convict the appellant for the offence 304 Part-I of the IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. 34. Accordingly the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC is set aside, instead thereof, she is convicted for the offence under section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine further RI for two months. 35. With the aforesaid modification / alteration appeal is partly allowed. Appellant is reported to be in jail since 27.06.2022. She shall serve remaining part of her sentence as modified by this court. 36. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing her jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him/her that she is 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. 37. The record of the case 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 padma