1 CGHC010183272026 2026:CGHC:38061-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1216 of 2026 1 - Ratthu Ram Rathiya S/o Bulau Rathiya Aged About 60 Years R/o Sakarliya, Chowki Rairumakhurd, Thana Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Sita Ram Rathiya S/o Hetram Rathiya Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhupdevpur, Thana Bhupdevpur, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Sakarliya, Chowki Rairumakhurd, Thana Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mention As Bilaspur In Appellant No. 02 Address) ... Appellant(s) versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. P. S. Gandhi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 25/08/2026 1. Though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants, considering the fact that the appellants are in jail since SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.08.29 14:06:40 +0530 2 01.05.2019, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2026 is disposed of. 2. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 39/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for one month. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.04.2019, at about 07.00 p.m., the deceased Shyamlal Rathia was at his house situated at village Sakarlia, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, when the accused Ratthuram Rathia and Sitaram Rathia came there in connection with a dispute regarding pork and started altercation with him. Thereafter, the accused persons dragged Shyamlal from his house towards their courtyard and assaulted him with bamboo stick and fists and kicks. Accused Ratthuram Rathia repeatedly assaulted Shyamlal on his head with a bamboo stick, while accused Sitaram Rathia also assaulted him. Suraj Rathia, PW-1, Smt. Vanaspati Rathia, PW-6, and Smt. Khirmati Rathia, PW-7, witnessed the incident and tried to intervene. Shyamlal sustained serious injuries on his head and was initially taken to Community Health Centre, Lailunga, where he was admitted on 18.04.2019 and thereafter referred to Government Medical College, Raigarh on 19.04.2019. He was subsequently referred to D.K.S. Super Speciality Hospital, Raipur, where he was 3 admitted on 21.04.2019 and during treatment died on 26.04.2019. The Dehati Merg intimation was initially recorded at Police Station Gole Bazar, Raipur, and thereafter Merg No.35/2019 was registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh. The inquest Ex.P-12 was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by PW- 18, Dr. S.N. Manjhi, who found multiple injuries on the head, including fracture of the right frontal bone, extensive blood clots beneath the fracture and in the meninges, brain contusion, as well as injuries on the left elbow, legs and chest with fracture of the sixth and seventh ribs and contusion of the left lung. The doctor opined that all the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. During investigation, on the memorandum of accused Ratthuram Rathia, a bamboo stick having six knots was seized from his house vide Ex.P-18. PW-8, Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel, on examination of the seized stick, opined vide query report Ex.P-27 that the injuries sustained by Shyamlal could have been caused by such weapon and that such injuries could also result in death. On the basis of the aforesaid ocular, medical and documentary evidence, the prosecution alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Shyamlal with a bamboo stick on his head, causing injuries which ultimately resulted in his death, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4. After completion of investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the same was transferred to the learned Trial Court for its trial. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and exhibited the relevant documents. Statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were also recorded, in which they denied the material circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence. The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. 6. After considering and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 02 of this judgement. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence. No offence is made out against the appellant as alleged. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, who are said to have been the eyewitnesses of the incident, are the close relatives of the deceased and, therefore, their testimony is not reliable. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the manner of occurrence and the role attributed to the appellant. The medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by the appellant and the possibility of the deceased having sustained the injuries due to fall has also not been completely ruled out. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution 5 and the recovery of bamboo stick has also not been proved in accordance with law. The FSL report is not the conclusive evidence against the appellant, as no blood was found on the seized bamboo stick, and it is only an opinion and corroborative in nature. There is material omission and contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In alternative, he would submit that the offence is committed in a heat of passion and sudden quarrel on account of the dispute relating to Barha meat. The appellant has not taken undue advantage and not acted in a cruel or unusual manner and therefore, the offence, if any, does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 of I.P.C. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The involvement of the appellants in the crime in question and the assault made on the head of the deceased has been clearly proved by P.W. 1, Suraj Rathia, P.W. 6, Vanaspati Rathia and P.W. 7, Khirmati Rathia, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and merely because they are relatives of the deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded. The memorandum and recovery of bamboo stick from appellant Ratthuram have been proved by the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence also corroborates the manner of assault. The Doctor has opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the bamboo stick seized from the appellant and that such injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The postmortem report further establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and was caused due to the complications 6 arising from the injuries sustained by him. There is no material contradiction or omission in the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the defence has failed to establish any previous enmity or motive on the part of the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants. The fact that no blood was found on the seized bamboo stick in the FSL examination would not demolish the otherwise reliable ocular and medical evidence available on record. The appellants, in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., have also failed to furnish any plausible explanation with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. Looking to the manner of assault, the weapon used, the repeated blows given on the head, which is a vital part of the body, and the circumstances in which the deceased was dragged from his house and assaulted, the intention and knowledge of the appellants to cause death of the deceased are clearly established. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs no interference. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 10.With respect to the homicidal death of the deceased, P.W.1 Suraj Rathia, P.W.6 Smt. Vanaspati Rathia and P.W.7 Smt. Khirmati Rathia, who are the eyewitnesses, have deposed that on the date of incident, due to a dispute regarding Barha meat, the appellants assaulted deceased Shyamlal Rathia with bamboo sticks and repeatedly caused blows on his head. P.W.18 Dr. S.N. Manjhi, who conducted the post- mortem examination, found multiple injuries over the head of the deceased, including fracture of the frontal bone and extensive blood clots in the brain, and opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to 7 cause death. P.W.23 Dr. Amit Kumar Jain also found large blood clots and fracture in the head of the deceased during treatment. The post- mortem report further records that the death was due to complications arising from the head injuries, resulting in cessation of cardiac and respiratory functions. Thus, the medical evidence duly corroborates the ocular evidence regarding the homicidal death of the deceased. 11. P.W.18, Dr. S.N. Manjhi, has stated in his deposition that on 26-04- 2019, he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Shyamlal Rathia and found four wounds over the right frontal and parietal region of the head, fracture of the right frontal bone measuring 8 x 3 cm with depressed bone, fracture extending to the bilateral parietal and frontal bones, and extensive blood clots beneath the fracture and over the brain membranes. He also found contusion in the right frontal, parietal and temporal lobes, injuries over the left elbow and legs, fracture of the sixth and seventh ribs and contusion of the left lung. He opined that all the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that the death was due to the head injuries and the complications arising therefrom, resulting in cessation of cardiac and respiratory functions. P.W.23, Dr. Amit Kumar Jain, who treated the deceased, also stated that the CT Scan of the brain revealed large blood clots and fracture in the head. In his cross-examination, though he admitted that similar injuries could be caused if a person fell headlong, P.W.18 Dr. S.N. Manjhi denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by falling on a stony surface. Thus, the medical evidence establishes that the death of deceased Shyamlal Rathia was caused by the serious head 8 injuries sustained by him and the prosecution has proved the homicidal nature of his death. 12.So far as involvement of the appellants in the crime is concerned, P.W.1 Suraj Rathia, P.W.6 Smt. Vanaspati Rathia and P.W.7 Smt. Khirmati Rathia are the eyewitnesses to the incident. They have consistently stated that due to a dispute regarding Barha meat, the appellants dragged deceased Shyamlal Rathia outside his house and assaulted him with bamboo sticks and stones, causing injuries on his head. P.W.1 specifically stated that appellant Ratt huram assaulted the deceased several times with a bamboo stick on his head, while appellant Sitaram also assaulted him. In cross-examination, these witnesses denied the defence suggestion that the deceased had sustained the injuries by falling on a stone or that they had not witnessed the incident. Thus, their consistent ocular testimony establishes the involvement of both the appellants in the assault upon the deceased. 13.P.W.1, Suraj Rathia, who is the son of the deceased, has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident, the appellants came to their house and, due to a dispute regarding Barha meat, assaulted his father Shyamlal Rathia. He stated that the appellants dragged his father towards their house, where appellant Ratt huram Rathia assaulted him several times with a bamboo stick on his head, while appellant Sitaram Rathia caught hold of him and also assaulted him by kicks and fists. He further stated that due to the injuries caused by the appellants, his father was taken to hospital, where he subsequently died. In cross- examination, he denied the defence suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident or that his father sustained the head injury by 9 falling on the ground. He also specifically stated that appellant Ratt huram had caused the head injury with the bamboo stick. 14.P.W.3, Narmada Prasad Rathia, who is a villager, has stated in his deposition that after being informed by the wife of deceased Shyamlal that the appellants had assaulted him with a stick, he went to the house of the deceased and found injuries on his head and left eye, and that he was unable to speak. He advised that the deceased be taken to the hospital for treatment. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had good relations with the family of the deceased, but denied having any enmity with the appellants. He also denied the suggestion that the wife of the deceased had not informed him about the appellants or that he had not gone to the house of the deceased. 15.P.W.4, Ramprasad, is also a witness who reached the spot after being informed by the son of the deceased, Suraj Rathia, that the appellants had assaulted his father with a stick. He stated that Suraj informed him that the appellants had assaulted Shyamlal, who was not eating or drinking, and he advised that the deceased be taken to the hospital and a report be lodged. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Suraj had not informed him about the incident or that he had any enmity with the appellants. 16.Another witness, P.W.5, Pustam Das, is a witness to the memorandum and seizure proceedings. He has stated that the memorandum of the appellants was recorded in his presence and has identified his signatures thereon. He has also supported the seizure of the bamboo stick used in the incident from appellant Ratthuram. In cross- examination, he denied having any knowledge regarding the 10 memorandum proceedings, but his testimony regarding the seizure of the bamboo stick remained intact. 17.P.W.5, Pustam Das, is a witness to the memorandum and seizure proceedings. Although, in his examination-in-chief, he did not support the prosecution regarding recording of the memorandum of the appellants, he has admitted his signatures on the memorandum documents. He also supported the seizure of the bamboo stick from appellant Ratthuram in his presence. Thus, his evidence corroborates the prosecution case to the extent of seizure of the weapon from the appellant. 18.P.W.7, Smt. Khirmati Rathia, wife of the deceased, has stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, the appellants came to their house and, on account of a dispute regarding Barha meat, dragged her husband Shyamlal Rathia outside and assaulted him with stones and bamboo sticks, causing injuries on his head. She further stated that due to the injuries caused by the appellants, her husband was taken for treatment and subsequently died in the hospital. Her examination-in- chief has not been materially shaken in cross-examination, as she denied the defence suggestion that she had not witnessed the assault or that the deceased had sustained injuries by falling on a stone. 19.P.W.8, Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel, has stated in his deposition that on 18- 04-2019 he examined deceased Shyamlal Rathia and prepared his medical examination report. He further stated that on 15-05-2019, the bamboo stick seized in the case was produced before him for query, and as per his opinion, the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by such weapon and could also result in death. In cross- 11 examination, the defence could not elicit any material contradiction to discredit his medical opinion. P.W.9, Dr. S. Mane, has stated that on 21-04-2019 he examined the injured Shyamlal Rathia and, finding his condition serious, advised his relatives to obtain consultation from a neurosurgeon. 20.P.W.18, Dr. S.N. Manjhi, conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased Shyamlal Rathia and prepared the postmortem report Ex. P-46. He found multiple injuries over the head, including fracture of the frontal bone and extensive blood clots in the brain, and opined that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further opined that the death was due to the head injuries and complications arising therefrom. The defence could not bring any material in his cross-examination so as to disbelieve his medical evidence. 21.P.W.16, Dhani Ram Rathore, is the Investigating Officer, who has stated in his deposition regarding the various steps taken by him during the investigation and has remained firm on the material aspects of the investigation. He has proved the memorandums Ex. P-16 and P-17 of the appellants and the seizure of the bamboo stick from appellant Ratthuram vide Ex. P-18. Although P.W.4 Ramprasad and P.W.5 Pustam Das did not fully support the memorandum proceedings, both supported the seizure of the bamboo stick from appellant Ratthuram in their presence. Thus, the evidence regarding seizure of the weapon remains duly corroborated. 12 22.P.W.1 Suraj Rathia, P.W.6 Smt. Vanaspati Rathia and P.W.7 Smt. Khirmati Rathia are the eyewitnesses to the incident and have duly supported the prosecution case that the appellants, on account of a dispute regarding Barha meat, dragged deceased Shyamlal Rathia outside his house and assaulted him with bamboo sticks and stones, causing serious injuries on his head. P.W.1 specifically stated that appellant Ratthuram assaulted the deceased several times with a bamboo stick on his head, while appellant Sitaram also assaulted him. Nothing material could be elicited from their cross-examination so as to disbelieve their testimony. The involvement of the appellants is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.16 Dhani Ram Rathore, Investigating Officer, regarding the memorandum and seizure proceedings, and P.W.4 Ramprasad and P.W.5 Pustam Das, who supported the seizure of the bamboo stick from appellant Ratthuram. P.W.8 Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the seized bamboo stick and could result in death. The medical evidence of P.W.18 Dr. S.N. Manjhi also establishes that the deceased sustained multiple serious injuries on his head caused by a hard and blunt object, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the ocular evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the seizure of the weapon, and the prosecution has proved the involvement of both the appellants in the crime in question. 23.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 13 converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant ? 24.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 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.” 25.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; 14 (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 the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.” 26.Likewise, in the matter of State 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 15 an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death. 27.Further, the 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 : 16 “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”. 28.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. 29.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 17 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) 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.” 30.Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the occurrence arose out of a sudden altercation between the appellants and the deceased over the issue of pork. The evidence of P.W.1 Suraj Rathia, P.W.6 Vanaspati Rathia and P.W.7 Khirmati Rathia shows that the appellants came to the house of the deceased, an altercation took place and thereafter the deceased was taken towards the house of the appellants, where he was assaulted with a bamboo stick. Though the deceased sustained serious injuries on his head, there is no evidence of any prior enmity or premeditation on the part of the appellants to cause his death. The prosecution evidence also does not disclose that the appellants had come armed with any deadly weapon with a predetermined intention to kill the deceased. The incident appears to have occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion arising out of the dispute regarding the meat. The medical evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death; however, the evidence does not conclusively establish that the appellants had the requisite intention to cause death. It is also relevant that the deceased remained alive for several days after the incident 18 and died during treatment on 26.04.2019. Thus, though the appellants can be attributed with the knowledge that repeated blows with a bamboo stick on the head, a vital part of the body, were likely to cause death, the circumstances do not establish a premeditated intention to cause death. The act of the appellants, therefore, appears to have been committed in the course of a sudden fight and in the heat of passion, without premeditation, and there is no material to demonstrate that they acted in a cruel or unusual manner or took undue advantage. Consequently, the case of the appellants deserves consideration within the ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (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 appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 31.Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, and having regard to the evidence of eyewitnesses Suraj Rathia (P.W.1), Vanaspati Rathia (P.W.6) and Khirmati Rathia (P.W.7), the sudden quarrel, absence of premeditation and the manner of occurrence, the ends of justice would be met if the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC. 32.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC is set aside, however, they are convicted under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of 19 Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for two months each. 33.As the appellant is stated to be in jail, he 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. 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/Alok