1 CGHC010209702022 2026:CGHC:37311-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1066 of 2022 1 - Suritram S/o Krishnaram Rohidas, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Goberghora, Rohidas Mohalla, Police Station Dipka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Muritram, S/o Krishnaram Rohidas Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Goberghora, Rohidas Mohalla, Police Station Dipka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dipka, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant (s) : Mr. S.R. J. Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board Per, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J 20.08.2026 1. The appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 17.06.2022 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, Dist- Korba, (CG) in Sessions Trial No. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.25 10:16:36 +0530 2 05/2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- S.No. Conviction Sentence 1. Under Section 302/34 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of amount Rs. 5000/- each in default of payment of fine further RI for three months each. 2. Under Section 323 of IPC RI for six months and fine of amount Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine further RI for one months each. Both sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.10.2019, at about 03:30 p.m., the deceased Ronharam Rohidas had gone towards the field for cutting grass. He was carrying an iron tangi, sickle and rope with him. When he reached near the field of Raghunath Rohidas, the appellants, namely, Suritram and Muritram Rohidas, who were armed with a rod and lathi, came from behind and assaulted Ronharam on his head with lathi, iron rod and tangi, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and died. The incident was witnessed by Lakshminarayan (PW-1), Shyam Bai (PW-2), Akti Bai (PW-4), Basanti Bai (PW-5) and Karmaitin Bai (PW-16). It is further alleged that when Gorelal Rohidas (PW-3) came to intervene, the appellants also assaulted him on his head with an iron rod, causing injuries to him. The prosecution case is that there was an earlier dispute between the deceased and the appellants regarding partition of ancestral land, though the partition had already taken place pursuant to the decision of the Tehsil Court. 3 3. Upon receipt of information regarding the incident, Dehati Merg Intimation Ex.P-2 and Dehati Nalsi Ex.P-1 were recorded. The police prepared the inquest report Ex.P-14, spot map Ex.P-5 and spot panchnama Ex.P-6. The dead body of Ronharam Rohidas was sent for postmortem examination. PW-12, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Singh Porte, conducted the postmortem and found, inter alia, a cut injury on the left posterior side of the head measuring about 5.5 cm x 0.4 cm x 0.5 cm, bleeding from the left ear and fracture of the skull at the place of injury. Internal examination revealed bleeding and collection of blood in and around the skull and brain. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was cardio-pulmonary arrest due to intra and extradural haemorrhage and shock caused by injury to the head and brain; the mode of death was coma and the manner of death was homicidal. The time of death was opined to be within 24 hours of the postmortem examination. 4. During investigation, the police seized the clothes and other articles from the spot and also seized an iron tangi from Suritram and an iron rod and wooden stick from Muritram pursuant to the seizure proceedings. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination and the FSL report was brought on record. The prosecution also relied upon the medical examination of injured Gorelal (PW-3), whose examination revealed cut wounds and abrasions on his head, forehead and chest, which were opined to be caused by hard and blunt objects and to be simple in nature. 5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 323 of the IPC. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session for where it was transferred to the 4 learned trial Court. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 323 of the IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined the complainant, eyewitnesses, injured witness, seizure witnesses, medical witnesses and police officials. The statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were also recorded, wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. The appellants also examined two defence witnesses in support of their defence. 7. After considering and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would contend that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies. It is further submitted that the eyewitnesses are closely related to the deceased and are interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimony requires careful scrutiny. Learned counsel would further submit that there was an admitted dispute between the deceased and the appellants regarding ancestral land, and the possibility of the appellants having been falsely implicated on account of the said dispute cannot be ruled out. He would also contend that the evidence relating to seizure of the alleged weapons is not reliable, as the seizure 5 witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution case. The recovery of the weapons, therefore, cannot be treated as a circumstance conclusively connecting the appellants with the commission of the offence. It is further argued that the medical and FSL evidence, at the highest, provides corroborative evidence and cannot by itself establish the guilt of the appellants in the absence of reliable ocular evidence. Learned counsel would submit that the defence evidence has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. He would, therefore, pray that the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants under Sections 302/34 and 323 of the IPC be set aside and the appellants be acquitted by extending to them the benefit of doubt. In the alternative, learned counsel would submit that even assuming the occurrence and participation of the appellants to be proved, the evidence does not establish the requisite intention to commit murder and, considering the circumstances of the occurrence, the case would not travel beyond the ambit of Section 304 of the IPC. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The involvement of the appellants in the crime in question and the assault committed upon the deceased have been clearly established by the evidence of the eyewitnesses, namely, Lakshminarayan (PW-1), Shyam Bai (PW-2), Akti Bai (PW-4), Basanti Bai (PW-5) and Karmaitin Bai (PW-16), who have consistently deposed that the appellants, armed with lathi, iron rod and tangi, assaulted Ronharam on his head, resulting in his death. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-12, 6 Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Singh Porte, who found a cut injury on the head of the deceased, fracture of the skull and internal and external haemorrhage and opined that the death was homicidal in nature. The prosecution has also proved the seizure of the iron tangi from appellant Suritram and the iron rod and wooden stick from appellant Muritram, and the medical evidence further establishes that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the said weapons. The evidence regarding the seizure of the weapons has been substantially supported by the seizure witnesses and the defence has failed to dislodge the said evidence in any material particular. The ocular evidence is further corroborated by the prompt Dehati Merg Intimation, in which the names of the appellants and the manner of assault were disclosed, and the said version is consistent with the subsequent testimony of the eyewitnesses. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that the medical examination of injured Gorelal (PW-3) also corroborates the prosecution version, as he sustained injuries on his head and chest during the course of the incident and his medical examination was conducted on the following day. The fact that the appellants also assaulted Gorelal when he attempted to intervene demonstrates their conduct and participation in the occurrence. The defence plea regarding the land dispute does not create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, particularly when the said motive stands established and the eyewitnesses have consistently narrated the incident. The defence evidence does not materially rebut the prosecution case. It is therefore submitted that the nature of weapons used, the repeated assault on the vital part of the body, i.e. the head, and the severity of 7 the injuries caused clearly demonstrate the intention and knowledge of the appellants and establish their common intention to cause the death of the deceased. Hence, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Sections 302/34 and 323 of the IPC is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and does not warrant any interference in the present appeal. 10.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 11. With respect to the homicidal death of the deceased Ronharam Rohidas, the eyewitnesses, namely PW-1 Lakshminarayan, PW-2 Shyam Bai, PW-4 Akti Bai, PW-5 Basanti Bai and PW-16 Karmaitin Bai, have consistently deposed that on 07.10.2019 at about 03:30 p.m., the appellants Suritram and Muritram, armed with lathi, iron rod and tangi, assaulted the deceased on his head, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and died. The said ocular version is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW-12, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Singh Porte, who conducted the postmortem examination and found, inter alia, a cut injury on the left posterior side of the head, fracture of the skull and bleeding inside and outside the skull and brain. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was cardio-pulmonary arrest due to intra and extradural haemorrhage and shock caused by injury to the head and brain, and that the manner of death was homicidal. The evidence of the eyewitnesses regarding the injuries caused to the deceased and his consequent death is, therefore, duly corroborated by the medical evidence. 8 12.Thus, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-16 consistently establishes that the deceased was assaulted by the appellants on his head with lathi, iron rod and tangi and that, as a result of the injuries so caused, he died at the spot. Their ocular testimony is further corroborated by the contemporaneous Dehati Merg Intimation, in which the assault by the appellants with the rod, stick and the deceased's tangi, as well as the presence of the aforesaid eyewitnesses, was mentioned. 13.PW-12, Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Singh Porte, has stated in his deposition that on 08.10.2019, he conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased Ronharam Rohidas and found, inter alia, a cut injury on the left posterior side of the head measuring about 5.5 cm x 0.4 cm x 0.5 cm, bleeding from the left ear and fracture of the skull at the place of injury. On internal examination, bleeding and collection of blood in and around the skull and brain were found. He opined that the cause of death was cardio-pulmonary arrest due to intra and extradural haemorrhage and shock caused by injury to the head and brain, the mode of death was coma and the manner of death was homicidal in nature. He further opined that the time since death was within 24 hours of the postmortem examination. In his cross-examination, no material could be elicited by the defence to discredit his opinion regarding the nature and cause of death. Thus, from the medical evidence of PW-12, it is clearly established that the death of deceased Ronharam Rohidas was homicidal in nature. 14.So far as the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Lakshminarayan, PW- 9 2 Shyam Bai, PW-4 Akti Bai, PW-5 Basanti Bai and PW-16 Karmaitin Bai as material witnesses to the occurrence. Their evidence, when considered in its entirety, establishes the presence of both the appellants at the place of occurrence and their participation in the assault upon the deceased. 15.PW-1 Lakshminarayan, who is the son of the deceased, has stated that on 07.10.2019 at about 03:30 p.m., his father Ronharam had gone towards the field for cutting grass and was carrying a tangi, sickle and rope. According to him, when Ronharam reached near the field of Raghunath Rohidas, both the appellants Suritram and Muritram came from behind and assaulted him. He further stated that the appellants were armed with an iron rod and lathi and that his father sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He also stated that after reaching the place of occurrence, he saw his father in an injured condition with blood coming out from his injuries. The witness has further named Basanti Bai, Karmaitin Bai, Akti Bai and Shyam Bai as persons who had witnessed the occurrence. The defence could not bring out any material contradiction in his evidence so as to discredit his testimony regarding the presence and participation of the appellants. 16.PW-2 Shyam Bai has also given an account of the occurrence and has specifically implicated both the appellants. She stated that on the date of incident, the deceased was proceeding towards the field carrying a tangi, sickle and rope. Both the appellants followed him and, after reaching near the field of Raghunath Rohidas, assaulted him. She stated that the appellants were armed with a rod and lathi and 10 assaulted the deceased together. She further stated that the tangi which was being carried by the deceased was taken and used during the assault upon him. According to her, because of fear of the appellants, she did not immediately approach the deceased and went there after the appellants had left the place, where she saw that the deceased had suffered injuries on his head. Her evidence is material not only with respect to the presence of the appellants but also with regard to the manner in which the assault was committed. 17.PW-3 Gorelal Rohidas, an injured witness, has deposed that on 07.10.2019 at about 3:00 p.m., while he was having his meal at his house, on hearing the village children shouting that Suritram and Muritram were assaulting Ronharam, he came out of his house and saw both the appellants returning after assaulting Ronharam. He specifically stated that Muritram was carrying a tangiya and Suritram was carrying an iron rod and that, when he attempted to intervene, Muritram assaulted him with the tangiya, which he caught hold of with his hand, whereafter Suritram struck him on his head with the iron rod, causing bleeding injury. He further stated that the appellants had assaulted Ronharam with a tangiya, iron rod and stick and had thereafter threatened that they would kill others also. He stated that Shyam Bai, Akti Bai and Basanti Bai intervened and rescued him. He further deposed that Ronharam had been assaulted by the appellants in the field of Raghunath Rohidas and, when he subsequently went there, found Ronharam dead with injuries on his head, temple and face. He also stated that the appellants had a dispute with Ronharam concerning land and used to quarrel and abuse him on that account. His evidence regarding the assault upon him by the appellants is 11 materially corroborated by the medical evidence, as the doctor found a bleeding incised wound on his head and other injuries and he had received eight stitches. Though certain suggestions were put to him in cross-examination regarding his presence at the place of occurrence and the land dispute, he categorically denied the defence suggestion that the appellants had not assaulted him or that he was giving false evidence. Thus, being an injured witness whose presence at the place of occurrence is established by the contemporaneous medical evidence, his testimony lends assurance to the prosecution case regarding the involvement of both the appellants in the occurrence. 18.PW-4 Akti Bai Rohidas has likewise supported the prosecution case. She stated that while she was returning from her field, she saw both the appellants assaulting Ronharam in the field of Raghunath Rohidas. She has also stated that there was an earlier dispute between the deceased and the appellants regarding the land. She further deposed that she did not immediately go near the deceased due to fear of the appellants and subsequently went to the spot, where she found Ronharam having sustained injuries on his head and blood coming out from the injuries. Thus, her evidence lends corroboration to the testimony of the other eyewitnesses regarding the presence of the appellants and the assault committed by them upon the deceased. Though certain suggestions were put to her in cross-examination regarding the source of her knowledge, she specifically maintained that she had herself seen the incident while returning from the field. 19.PW-5 Basanti Bai is another important eyewitness who has given a detailed account of the occurrence. She stated that the deceased was 12 her elder brother-in-law and the appellants were her younger brothers- in-law. She further stated that there was an earlier dispute between the appellants and the deceased regarding ancestral land. On the date of occurrence, when the deceased was proceeding towards the field carrying a tangi, sickle and rope, both the appellants followed him while abusing and threatening him. On hearing their abuses, she came out of her house and saw the appellants at the field. She specifically stated that Suritram was carrying a lathi and Muritram was carrying an iron rod. She thereafter witnessed the assault, stating that Suritram assaulted the deceased on his head with the lathi and Muritram assaulted him with the iron rod. When the deceased fell down, Suritram took the tangi from him and assaulted him on the head with the same. She further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by herself, Karmaitin Bai, Akti Bai, Shyam Bai and Lakshminarayan. Her evidence thus gives a direct and specific account of the overt acts attributed to both the appellants. 20.PW-16 Karmaitin Bai, wife of the deceased, has also supported the prosecution case and specifically attributed the assault to both the appellants. She stated that there was a dispute between her husband and the appellants regarding partition of land, though the said dispute had already been decided. She deposed that on the date of incident, her husband had gone towards the field carrying a tangi, sickle and rope. When he reached near the field of Raghunath Rohidas, both the appellants came from behind and assaulted him. She stated that Suritram was armed with a lathi and Muritram with a tangi and that her husband sustained injuries on his head, temple and face, from which blood was coming out. She further stated that on hearing the cries of 13 her husband, she came out of the house and saw both the appellants assaulting him, after which he fell down. She also named PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 as persons who had witnessed the incident. 21.Thus, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is consistent on the material aspect of the prosecution case, namely, that both the appellants were present at the place of occurrence and participated in the assault upon Ronharam. Minor variations regarding the particular weapon or the precise overt act attributed to each appellant do not affect the core of their testimony, particularly when the factum of assault by both appellants stands consistently stated. Their evidence also finds corroboration from the contemporaneous prosecution evidence and the medical evidence, which establishes that the deceased sustained a serious head injury resulting in his homicidal death. Therefore, the involvement of the appellants in crime in question has been proved by the prosecution. 22.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 ? 23.The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in 2002 (3) SCC 327 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 14 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.” 24.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; (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; 15 (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 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.” 25.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. 16 26.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 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 17 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”. 27.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. 28.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; 18 (iii) he 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.” 29.Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that there was an existing dispute between the parties in relation to the partition of ancestral land; however, the evidence on record does not disclose any long-standing enmity of such nature as would, by itself, establish a premeditated design to commit the murder of deceased Ronharam. The prosecution witnesses have consistently stated that the incident occurred near the field and that, during the course of the occurrence, the appellants assaulted the deceased with lathi, iron rod and tangiya. Though the appellants had caused injuries on the head of the deceased, the evidence does not establish that they had repeatedly assaulted him after he had fallen down or that they had acted in a cruel or unusual manner so as to take undue advantage of the situation. The incident appears to have occurred in the backdrop of the land dispute and in the heat of the moment. The medical evidence establishes that the death was caused on account of head injury resulting in intracranial haemorrhage; however, the nature of the occurrence, the surrounding circumstances and the manner in which the assault took place indicate that the case deserves consideration under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The essential requirements of Exception 4, namely, (i) that the act was committed without premeditation, (ii) that there was a sudden fight or altercation, (iii) that the act was committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and (iv) that the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner, are substantially attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 19 Consequently, though the appellants are liable for the homicidal death of Ronharam, their conviction under Section 302/34 of the IPC, in the peculiar facts of the case, deserves to be altered to one under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the IPC. 30.So far as the conviction under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, the same is duly supported by the testimony of injured witness Gorelal (PW-3), who has categorically deposed that when he attempted to intervene in the assault upon deceased Ronharam, appellant Suritram struck him on his head with an iron rod, resulting in a bleeding injury, and that he was thereafter taken to Dipka Hospital where he received eight stitches. His version is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-12 Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Porte, who, on examination of Gorelal, found incised wounds on his head and forehead along with abrasions and opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and were simple in nature. The said medical evidence remained substantially unchallenged in cross-examination. Thus, the ocular testimony of the injured witness, coupled with the contemporaneous medical evidence, clearly establishes that the appellants caused simple hurt to Gorelal during the course of the occurrence. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 of the IPC does not call for any interference. 31.Considering the principles of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, and upon taking into consideration the evidence of the injured eyewitness (PW/3) Gorelal, other eyewitnesses, particularly PW-2 Shyam Bai, PW-4 Akti Bai, PW-5 Basanti Bai and PW-16 Karmeitin Bai, as well as the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the occurrence arose 20 out of a dispute relating to partition of ancestral land and there was no clear evidence of premeditation, it would serve the ends of justice if the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC is altered/converted to one under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the IPC. So far as the conviction under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, the same being supported by the ocular as well as medical evidence, does not warrant any interference. 32.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC is set aside; however, they are convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. The conviction of the appellants under Section 323 of the IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder are maintained. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the appellants in custody shall be set off against the sentence in accordance with law. 33.As the appellants are stated to be in jail since 08.10.2019, they shall serve the remaining sentence as modified by this Court. 34. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are 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. 21 35.Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice sagrika