1 2026:CGHC:16831-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 83 of 2024 Vedprakash @ Golu Dhruw S/o Krishna Dhruw Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.01, Bhanpur, Bagbahra, Thana Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagbahra, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgement on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 13/04/2026 1. Present is a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.04.17 14:28:36 +0530 2 Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 30/2023, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the following manner: Conviction Sentence U/s. 302 of IPC R.I. for Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further three months R.I. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 12.02.2023 and 13.02.2023 at about 11:30 PM, when the appellant went to the house of the deceased Lalita Thakur and asked for water, the deceased refused to give water and rebuked him, on which the appellant, in a fit of anger, assaulted her by means of a tangiya, causing injuries on her head. Hearing the cries, nearby persons gathered and the deceased was found in an injured and unconscious condition. She was immediately taken to Community Health Centre, Bagbahara and thereafter referred to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for further treatment. During the course of treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 17.02.2023. Intimation regarding the incident was given to the police by eyewitness Narendra Diwan, upon which merg intimation was recorded and thereafter the matter was registered and investigated. 3. ******* The inquest (Exhibit P-3) was prepared by the police in the presence of witnesses, and the dead body of the deceased Lalita Thakur was sent for postmortem to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, where PW-12/Dr. Nagendra Singh Sonwani conducted the 3 postmortem and issued report (Exhibit P-11). During postmortem, the doctor noticed multiple stitched wounds over the head, including a “C”- shaped sutured wound of 28 cm on the left side of the scalp, another sutured wound of 9 cm on the right temporal region, along with surgical intervention marks. On internal examination, fractures of skull bones, extradural haemorrhage, subdural haemorrhage, and subarachnoid haemorrhage were found in different regions of the brain, and the brain was swollen and congested. The doctor opined that the cause of death was head injury caused by hard and blunt object, resulting in haemorrhage, and the death was homicidal in nature. *******The merg intimation (Exhibit P-2) was recorded on the basis of information given by eyewitness Narendra Diwan, and thereafter FIR was registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC, which was later converted into Section 302 IPC after the death of the deceased. The spot map (Exhibit P-3) and Patwari map (Exhibit P-5) were prepared. During the investigation, memorandum statement of the accused (Exhibit P-7) was recorded, pursuant to which one iron tangiya, blood- stained jacket and jeans were seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit P-8). Blood-stained articles, including stone pieces from the spot and a blood-stained cloth, were also seized (Exhibits P-4 and P-10). The seized articles were sent for FSL examination, and as per the FSL report (Exhibit P-34), human blood was detected on the tangiya, clothes of the accused and other seized articles. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the 4 offence under Section 302 IPC before the competent Court, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured his guilt, denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant did not examine any defence witness in support of his case. 6. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove, which has been assailed by way of the present appeal 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, rendering their evidence unreliable. It is further contended that the case rests primarily on the testimony of an alleged eyewitness whose conduct is unnatural and whose version is not corroborated in material particulars. Learned counsel would also submit that even if the prosecution story is taken at its face value, the 5 incident occurred on account of a sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion without any premeditation. It is argued that there was no intention to commit murder and the act attributed to the appellant does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 302 of IPC. At the most, the offence would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-I of IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that the conviction be altered accordingly and the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone or to such term as this Court deems fit. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the case is based on the testimony of an eyewitness, which is cogent, consistent and inspires confidence. Merely because there are minor omissions or discrepancies, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded. It is further submitted that the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular version and establishes that the deceased sustained grievous head injuries resulting in her death. The nature, number and location of injuries clearly demonstrate that the appellant had the requisite intention and knowledge to cause death. Therefore, it is argued that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions advanced, and perused the record of the trial Court with due circumspection. 6 10. The homicidal death of the deceased Lalita Thakur has been duly proved by the prosecution on the basis of medical evidence of PW- 12/Dr. Nagendra Singh Sonwani, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that on 18.02.2023, the dead body was brought for postmortem examination. During the course of postmortem, he noticed multiple stitched wounds over the head, including extensive sutured injuries on the left and right temporal regions. On internal examination, fractures of skull bones, extradural hemorrhage, subdural hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage were found in different regions of the brain, and the brain was found to be swollen. He opined that the cause of death was head injury caused by hard and blunt object, resulting in hemorrhage, and the death was homicidal in nature. Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. ******* The aforesaid medical evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, who have seen the deceased in an injured condition immediately after the incident. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature is well supported by the evidence available on record and does not call for any interference. 11. ******* So far as the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is concerned, the case of the prosecution rests primarily on the testimony of an eyewitness. PW-2/Narendra Diwan, who is the eyewitness of the incident, has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, while he was returning to his house at night and reached 7 near the house of the deceased Lalita Thakur, he heard the noise of a woman shouting. On hearing the same, when he went near the house, he saw that the appellant was pressing the mouth of the deceased and assaulting her with a tangiya. Out of fear, the witness did not intervene and moved away from the spot. He has further stated that shortly thereafter, the appellant came out of the house and enquired from him whether he had seen two persons running away, to which he replied in the negative. ******* In his cross-examination, this witness has remained consistent on the material aspects of the incident and nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit his testimony. Merely because he did not immediately disclose the name of the appellant to other persons does not render his evidence unreliable, particularly when his conduct of being frightened appears to be natural in the circumstances. His evidence finds corroboration from the prompt merg intimation as well as from the subsequent statements made before the police. Thus, the testimony of this eyewitness inspires confidence and establishes the presence and active involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence. 12. PW-1/Suresh Thakur has stated in his evidence that on the night of incident, upon hearing cries of “bachao-bachao”, he came out of his house and saw the appellant and Narendra Diwan passing through the lane. The appellant informed that someone had assaulted Lalita Thakur with a tangiya. Though this witness has not supported the prosecution case in entirety and has not stated that Narendra informed 8 him about the assault by the appellant, however, his presence at the relevant time and place and the fact that the appellant was found near the spot immediately after the incident lends support to the prosecution case regarding the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence. 13. PW-3/Ajay Rajput has stated that on receiving information from Suresh Thakur, he reached the spot and found the deceased lying in an injured condition and the appellant was present there. On being asked, the appellant stated that he was giving water to the deceased. This witness has further stated that later he came to know from Narendra Diwan that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a tangiya. In his cross-examination, though certain omissions have been brought however, his testimony regarding the presence of the appellant at the spot and the condition of the deceased remains intact and supports the prosecution case. 14. PW-9/Ramkumar Thakur has also deposed that upon receiving information, he reached the spot and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood, and the appellant was present there. He has further stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment. He has also stated that during the police inquiry, the appellant admitted to having assaulted the deceased. Though this part is in the nature of an extra- judicial confession, it still lends corroboration to the prosecution’s story regarding the involvement of the appellant. 15. PW-15/Lokesh Sahu has stated that on receiving information, he reached the spot and saw the deceased lying injured inside the house 9 and the appellant was present there. He has further stated that during investigation it came to light that the appellant had assaulted the deceased. His evidence also corroborates the presence of the appellant at the spot immediately after the incident and supports the chain of circumstances put forth by the prosecution. 16. Apart from the ocular evidence, the prosecution case is further supported by the memorandum statement of the appellant (Exhibit P- 7) and seizure of tangiya, blood-stained jacket and jeans (Exhibit P-8). As per the FSL report (Exhibit P-34), human blood has been found on the seized articles including the weapon and clothes of the appellant. The appellant has not offered any explanation in this regard. Thus, the cumulative effect of the evidence of the eyewitness, supporting witnesses and the scientific evidence clearly establishes that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime. 17. 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? 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 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 10 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.” 19. The Hon’ble 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; 11 (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 ? 12 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.” 20. 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. 21. Further, the Hon’ble 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, 13 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 14 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”. 22. 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 15 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. 23. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 (6) SCC 122, has laid down four ingredients to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under: “16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) 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.” 24. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent from the evidence on record that the incident occurred during night hours when the appellant went to the house of the deceased and asked for water, and upon refusal and exchange of words, the appellant became enraged and assaulted the deceased with a tangiya. The material on record indicates that the incident was preceded by a sudden altercation and there was no prior meeting of minds or premeditation to commit the murder of the deceased. The act appears to have been committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Though the 16 appellant inflicted injuries on the vital part of the body i.e. head, however, the circumstances do not indicate that he acted in a cruel or unusual manner so as to attract the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It can safely be inferred that the appellant had the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death, and also the intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Thus, the case of the appellant would fall within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. 25. In view of the aforesaid analysis and taking into consideration the evidence of the eyewitness PW-2/Narendra Diwan and other supporting witnesses, as well as the surrounding circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is liable to be altered to one under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The fine amount and default stipulation imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 27. As the appellant is reported to be in jail, he shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as modified by this Court. 28. 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 17 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. 29. 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 ved