1 2026:CGHC:6392-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 316 of 2023 Prakash Sahu @ Baba @ Omprakash S/o Shri Vivekanand Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Near State Bank Nevra P/s Tilda - Nevra District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tilda - Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 590 of 2024 1 - Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Bahiya S/o Santosh Sonwani Aged About 19 Years R/o Behind Surya Bar, Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Karan Santwani S/o Devanand Aged About 18 Years R/o Behind Rice Mill, Police Station Tilda- Newra, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Tilda - Newra, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 322 of 2024 Narayan Dewangan @ Narad S/o Shri Kamal Dewangan Aged About 19 Years R/o Kewatpara Tilda, P/S Tilda-Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tilda- Nevra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 CRA No. 2218 of 2023 1 - Dhaneshwar Bandhe S/o Deenanath, aged about 22 years Residents of in front of Uttam Hospital, PS Tilda Neora, District - Raipur, Chhattsigarh. 2 - Kailash Kumar Bandhe, S/o Deenanath Bandhe, aged about 18 years Residents of in front of Uttam Hospital, PS Tilda Neora, District - Raipur, Chhattsigarh. --- Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO PS Tilda Neora District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellants in CRA 316/2023 : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate and CRA 322/2024 For Appellants in CRA 590/2024 : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate For Appellants in CRA 2218/2023 : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05 .0 2 .202 6 1. Since all the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common incident and common factual matrix, this Court is disposing of these appeals by a common judgment. 2. All these criminal appeals have been filed by the accused/appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (C.G.) in 3 Sessions Case No. 25/2022, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :- CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 147 of IPC RI for two years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months U/s 148 of IPC RI for three years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months U/s 302 r/w 149 of IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 year with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.04.2022, at approximately 9:50 p.m., the complainant in the case, Mukesh Gendre, was walking home from the Tilda Rec Point with his friend, Durgesh Gaikwad. A DJ was playing at a local wedding ceremony. Some people were fighting there. When the complainant, Mukesh Gendre, approached the Rec Point he saw that Dhaneshwar @ Dedha was assaulting Omprakash, a local resident, while Dadu alias Thaneshwar, his cousin, was trying to intervene. When the complainant, Mukesh Gendre, and Durgesh went to intervene, Baiha alias Konda struck Dadu alias Thaneshwar in the face and chest with a knife kept with him and Narayan Dewangan @ Narad, Dhaneshwar @ Dedha, Karan Santwani, Prakash Sahu, and Kailash Bandhe were also assaulting with hand and fists and abusing Dadu alias 4 Thaneshwar. Karan Santwani was holding an iron rod with which he was assaulting him. When Dadu alias Thaneshwar fell, Durgesh, Narendra, and Bhupendra, all from the neighborhood, took him to Mission Hospital, Tilda, where the doctor declared him dead. The complainant, Omprakash Gaikwad, Narendra Gendre, and Durgesh Gaikwad were also injured while trying to intervene. 4. On the basis oral complainant lodged by complainant Mukesh Gendre, first Information Report (P-17) was registered against the accused in Police Station, Tilda Nevra under Crime No. 166/2022, Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, the injuries sustained by the injured were examined by a doctor. Witnesses were summoned and a Panchnama of the dead body of the deceased Dadu alias Thaneshwar was prepared in their presence and the body was sent for post-mortem. Blood stained and plain soil were seized from the spot and a seizure memo was prepared. The police and the Patwari prepared a map of the spot. The memorandum statements of the accused were recorded in front of the witnesses and the weapons used in the incident were seized on their pointing. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The blood-stained and plain soil seized from the spot and the blood-stained clothes of the deceased were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and after other necessary investigation proceedings, a 5 charge sheet was filed against the accused under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. When charges were framed against the accused under sections 147, 148, 302/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and read out to them, they denied the charges and claimed trial. In the trial recorded under section 313 CrPC, the accused pleaded innocence and stated that they had been falsely implicated. 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 18.11.2022 though acquitted the accused/appellants from the charges punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned, against which, these criminal appeals have been filed. 7. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Counsel for the convicts/appellants Prakash Sahu @ Baba @ Omprakash in CRA No. 316 of 2023 and Narayan Dewangan @ Narad in CRA No. 322 of 2024 submitted that present appellants have been falsely implicated in the instant case, they have neither committed any offence nor participated in the incident. He further submitted that the incident had took place on 08.04.2022 at about 9:50 pm and as per 6 prosecution, the injuries were caused by hard object and sharp weapon, but no recovery has made from the possession of these appellants. He also submitted as per the prosecution, the complainant Mukesh Gendre (PW-6) is the eyewitness of the incident, who has specifically stated in his statement that who attack by knife and who attack by iron rod and stone, but not said anything about the present appellants, hence, they are entitled to be acquitted. 8. Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the convicts/appellants Dhaneshwar Bandhe and Kailash Kumar Bandhe in CRA No. 2218 of 2023 submitted that there is an allegations upon the appellants that appellants had a fight with one Om Prakash, who is also an injured person, but he did not states anything about the appellants in his statement. He further submitted that only on the basis of statement made by complainant Mukesh Gendare (PW-6), the present appellants have been implicated in this present case, therefore, their appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel for the convicts/appellants Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Bahiya and Karan Santwani in CRA No. 590 of 2024 submitted that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. She further submitted that if the case of the prosecution is accepted on the face of it, then also the appellants are said to have caused 7 injuries to deceased on the spur of the moment and heat of passion, while DJ was playing at a local wedding ceremony, the deceased, who had consumed the liquor, started quarreling with the appellants, due to which, some hot talk took place between the appellants and the deceased, on account of which, on the spur of moment and heat of passion, the appellant Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Bahiya stabbed the deceased with knife and appellant Karan Santwani assaulted the deceased with iron rod due to which the deceased died. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellants to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden hot talk and quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellants caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellants falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the act of the appellants is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part- II) of the IPC. 10. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there are two injured eye- witnesses i.e. PW-6 – Mukesh Gendare and PW-8-Narendra Gondare, who narrated the incident in their statement recorded 8 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and stated that appellants, who are the members of an unlawful assembly caused grievous injuries to the deceased by using knife, stone, rod and punching him by their hands. He further submitted that appellant Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Bahiya has stabbed the deceased with knife and appellant Karan Santwani assaulted the deceased and other injured persons with iron rod and rest of the convicts/appellants had assaulted the deceased and other injured persons with stone, hands and fists He also submitted that recovery of knife has been made from the appellant Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Bahiya, recovery of iron rod has been made from appellant Karan Santwani and recovery of stone has been made from the possession of the appellant Dhaneshwar Bandhe. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the crime, the appellants are not at all entitled for any sympathy by this Hon’ble Court. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and after examining the cross-examination of the witnesses, came to the conclusion regarding guilty of the accused/appellants and has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302/149 of IPC and it is not a case where the appellants’ conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC and as such, the instant criminal appeals deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, 9 considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of the deceased Dadu alias Thaneshwar was homicidal in nature or not ? 13. Dr. Pranshul Kotwani (PW-4), who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Dadu alias Thaneshwar and had given his report vide Ex.P-5, has stated that while conducting the postmortem, he noticed an old surgical scar on the upper part of the deceased's abdomen. A fresh, washed- out wound measuring 3 x 1.5 x 10 inches was found on the deceased's lower back. The inside edge of the wound was blunt on the right side and sharp on the left side. A fresh, stabbed wound on the right side of the deceased's face, measuring 30 cm, extending into the muscle. The sternum and second and third ribs were fractured. Upon conducting the autopsy, he concluded that the deceased died due to "massive internal hemorrhage resulting in hematochezia and vital organ damage, such as heart and lung injuries." The deceased's death was homicidal in nature and occurred within twenty-four hours of the autopsy. 14. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly, relying upon the statement of Dr.Pranshul Kotwani (PW-4), who conducted postmortem, has come to the conclusion that cause of death was massive internal hemorrhage resulting in hematochezia and vital organ damage, 10 such as heart and lung injuries and death was homicidal in nature. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Dadu alias Thaneshwar was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 16. Now, next question comes for consideration is that whether the accused/appellants are the perpetrator of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative. 17. In the present case, the prosecution has examined Mukesh Gendre (PW-6) and Narendra Gendre (PW-8), both of whom are injured eyewitnesses and whose presence at the place of occurrence is undisputed. Their testimonies clearly establish that on 08.04.2022 at about 9:50 p.m., when a DJ was playing at a marriage ceremony near Tilda Rec Point, the accused persons, namely Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Baiha, Karan Santwani, Narayan Dewangan @ Narad, Dhaneshwar @ Dedha, Prakash Sahu and Kailash Bandhe, were present at the spot and were acting in concert. The incident originated when Omprakash was being assaulted by Dhaneshwar @ Dedha and when the deceased Dadu @ Thaneshwar attempted to intervene, all the accused collectively turned upon him and assaulted him. 11 18. The evidence on record shows that appellant Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Baiha inflicted knife blows on the face and chest of the deceased; appellant Karan Santwani assaulted him with an iron rod; while the remaining accused assaulted the deceased with stones, hands and fists and restrained him, thereby facilitating the fatal assault. The deceased fell down due to the injuries and was immediately taken to Mission Hospital, Tilda, where he was declared dead. 19. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since specific overt acts have not been attributed to each of the appellants and recoveries have not been effected from all of them, they are entitled to acquittal. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal position governing Section 149 IPC. Once the presence of the accused as members of an unlawful assembly is established and the prosecution proves that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common object of such assembly, individual acts or absence of recovery from a particular accused become irrelevant. 20. In Lalji Vs. State of U.P. (1989) 1 SCC 437, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed: “Section 149 makes every member of an unlawful assembly at the time of committing of the offence guilty of that offence. Thus this section created a specific and distinct offence. In other words, it created a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed 12 pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly. However, the vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly extends only to the acts done in pursuance of the common objects of the unlawful assembly, or to such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. Once the case of a person falls within the ingredients of the section the question that he did nothing with his own hands would be immaterial. He cannot put forward the defence that he did not with his own hand commit the offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly or such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. Everyone must be taken to have intended the probable and natural results of the combination of the acts in which he joined. [pic]It is not necessary that all the persons forming an unlawful assembly must do some overt act. When the accused persons assembled together, armed with lathis, and were parties to the assault on the complainant party, the prosecution is not obliged to prove which specific overt act was done by which of the accused. This section makes a member of the unlawful assembly responsible as a principal for the acts of each, and all, merely because he is a member of an unlawful assembly. While overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149. It must be noted that the basis of the constructive guilt under Section 149 is mere membership of the unlawful assembly, with the requisite common object or knowledge. 13 21. Further, in State of Rajasthan Vs Shiv Charan, (2013) 12 SCC 76 it was opined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 22. “The pivotal question of applicability of Section 149 IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its application. It contains essentially only two ingredients, namely, (I) offence committed by any member of any unlawful assembly consisting five or more members and; (II) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object (Section 141 IPC) of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. It is not necessary that for common object there should be a prior concert as the common object may be formed on the spur of the moment. Common object would mean the purpose or design shared by all members of such assembly and it may be formed at any stage. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it may yet fall under the second part of Section 149 IPC if it is established that the offence was such, as the members knew, was likely to be committed”. 23. In the instant case, the prosecution case rests primarily upon the testimonies of Mukesh Gendre (PW-6) and Narendra Gendre (PW-8), who are injured eyewitnesses to the occurrence and whose presence at the spot has been duly proved. Their evidence, though they are related to the deceased Dadu @ Thaneshwar, is natural, consistent and inspires confidence. Both the witnesses have categorically stated that all the accused/appellants were present at the place of occurrence on 14 08.04.2022 and participated in the assault in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly. The collective conduct of the accused being armed with deadly weapons such as knife, iron rod and stone, assaulting the deceased simultaneously, restraining and beating him when he intervened to save Omprakash, and continuing the assault till he collapsed clearly establishes the existence of a common object. 24. In such circumstances, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove a specific or distinct overt act attributed to each individual accused. The essential ingredients for the application of Section 149 IPC, namely the presence of an unlawful assembly and commission of the offence in furtherance of its common object or with the knowledge that such offence was likely to be committed, stand fully proved. 25. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, whether the case of the accused/appellants is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the 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 contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 26. The 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 1 (2002) 3 SCC 327 15 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 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; 2 (2009) 15 SCC 635 16 (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 17 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.” 28. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda3, their Lordships of the 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. 29. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh4 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) 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450 4 (2017) 3 SCC 247 18 “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 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 19 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. 31. Further, the 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; (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 the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is evident that although the 5 (2019) 6 SCC 122 20 appellants have attempted to claim the benefit of the said exception on the ground that the incident occurred suddenly during a DJ programme and without premeditation, the evidence on record establishes that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the deceased Dadu @ Thaneshwar on vital parts of his body. The assault, though arising out of a sudden quarrel, was committed in the heat of passion and without prior planning. The appellants did not act in a cruel or unusual manner beyond what occurred during the spur of the moment, and there is no material to show that they intended to cause the death of the deceased. 33. The evidence of injured eyewitnesses Mukesh Gendre (PW-6) and Narendra Gendre (PW-8) reveals that the incident occurred suddenly when the deceased intervened in the quarrel, following which the appellants assaulted him. Appellant Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Baiha inflicted knife blows, appellant Karan Santwani assaulted with an iron rod, while the remaining appellants assaulted with stones, hands and fists. The occurrence, viewed in its entirety, reflects a sudden fight arising out of immediate provocation and not a premeditated or calculated attack. 34. The medical evidence of Dr. Pranshul Kotwani (PW-4) establishes that the death occurred due to massive internal hemorrhage caused by injuries sustained on vital parts. While the appellants may not have intended to cause death, they certainly had the 21 knowledge that the injuries inflicted were likely to cause death. Thus, the act of the appellants satisfies the essential ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, namely, that the incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without the appellants having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 35. Accordingly, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be altered to one under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 36. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the appellants is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the conviction of the accused / appellants Prakash Sahu @ Baba @ Omprakash, Dhaneshwar @ Dedha Bandhe, Kailash Kumar Bandhe @ Tolu, Narayan Dewangan @ Narad, Harishankar Sonwani @ Konda @ Bahiya and Karan Santwani for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-I read with Section 149 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. However, the fine sentence and default sentence imposed upon them by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 37. It is stated that the appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the remaining sentence as modified by this Court. 22 38. The criminal appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 39. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 40. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra