Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.08.06 10:47:45 +0530 2025:CGHC:38285-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 761 of 2025 Sahdu Ram Dhruw S/o Muluram Dhruw Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jimidareen Sarandi, P.S. Tadoki, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tadoki District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 04.08.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District- 2 North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 15/2019, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and under Section 352 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.03.2019, while being posted at Police Station Narayanpur, Sub-Inspector Kamal Kishore Patel (PW-11) brought a hospital memo from District Hospital Narayanpur to Police Station Narayanpur through a ward boy in respect of Tetobai, aged about 40 years, and on the orders of the Police Station Incharge, he reached the hospital and registered a case under Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC under Rural Complaint (Ex.P.-18) as per the information given by the reporter Sahdev Dhruv and on the same date, he gave a report (Ex.P.-25) to the Medical Officer, District Hospital- Narayanpur regarding taking the dying statement of the inmate Tetobai, but as the inmate was unconscious in the hospital, her statement could not be recorded and the statement of the complainant Sahdev Dhruv was recorded as per his statement (Ex.P.-26). Thereafter, on returning to the police station, as the incident spot was in other police station area, Crime No. 0/2019 under section-294, 506, 323 3 IPC was registered under Ex.P.-27 against the accused Sahdu Ram Dhruw and the diary of the case was sent to police station- Tadoki after informing the police station in-charge Narayanpur and handed over to him. 3. Further, during his posting in Thana-Tadoki, Sub-Inspector
Facts
Shobhit Ram Sahu (PW-10) received a rural FIR registered in zero against the accused in Thana-Narayanpur, which occurred in the area of Thana-Tadoki. On the basis of the said rural FIR, FIR (Ex.P.-21) was registered against the accused in Thana-Tadoki on 10.03.2019 under Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC. On the same date, as per the information given by the complainant, he prepared the spot map of the place of incident (Ex.P.-22) and the blood-soaked soil and plain soil from the place of incident were sealed and seized in front of witnesses as per seizure memo (Ex.P.-02). Further, on 15.03.2019, on the information of the complainant, case intimation (Ex.P.-23) was prepared by him under case No. 03/2019, section 174 of CrPC at Police Station Tadoki and on 16.03.2019, report (Ex.P-24) was sent to the Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Narayanpur for providing bedhead ticket to in-charge Tetobai. The prosecution case is further that Assistant Sub-Inspector Narayan Sen (PW-15) during his posting in DKS Hospital Police Assistance Centre, on 16.03.2019, after obtaining the inquest diary, went to DKS Hospital mortuary and gave notice (Ex.P-09) under Section 175 Cr.P.C. to the family members and identifiers of the deceased Tato Bai for identification of the 4 deceased and prepared the map of the dead body, Panchayatnama (Ex.P-10) and on the same date, he filled PM Form (Ex.P-42) to Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for conducting the post-mortem of the deceased and sent the duty certificate (Ex.P-43) through constable Trilok Shankar Pradhan for conducting the post-mortem and the statement of the husband of the deceased i.e. Sahdev Dhruv, was recorded as stated by him. 4. Thereafter on 20.03.2019, during his posting in police station Tadoki, the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Pawan Devangan (PW-12), on receipt of the diary of the case for further investigation in the case, prepared memorandum statement (Ex.P-15) of the accused in front of witnesses in village Jimidarinpara Sarandi, in which the accused stated that he had hit the deceased Tato Bai with the head part (back part) of the tangia near the outer ear and had kept the tangia hidden in his tractor trailer and the said iron tangia used in the incident was produced by the accused near the Kusum tree near the tractor trailer and was seized in front of witnesses as per seizure memo (Ex.P.-16). On the same date, he arrested the accused Sahdu Ram Dhruv as per Ex.P.-08 in front of witnesses and informed about him. As per Ex.P.-13, it was given to his family members and he issued notice under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code to the witnesses to be present at the scene of incident as per Ex.P.-04 and on the same date, spot map of the incident was prepared as per the information given by the complainant (Ex.P-19). He issued notice 5 under Section 160 of the IPC to appear at Tadoki Police Station on 31.03.2019 for recording the statement of witnesses as per Ex.P.-01. 5. Thereafter on 01.04.2019, the investigating sub-inspector (PW-12) sent a request letter to the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pakhanjoor for recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 164 of the Indian Penal Code as per Ex.P.-28 and on 02.04.2019, a report was given to the Tehsildar Antagarh for providing the Patwari Nazri map of the incident site as per Ex.P.- 39. On 03.04.2019, a notice under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code was given as per Ex.P.-41 for interrogating the witnesses and recording their statements and on the same date, a report was sent to the Medical Officer, District Hospital Narayanpur as per Ex.P.-29 for querying the tangia (axe) seized in the case and providing a report. On the same date, a report was sent to the Medical Officer, District Hospital Narayanpur regarding providing information regarding the treatment of deceased Tato Bai Dhruv as per Ex.P.-30. He sent a report on 04.04.2019 to the Hospital Superintendent DKS Raipur regarding providing information regarding the injuries sustained by deceased Tato Bai. It was prepared as per Ex.P.-31 and a report was given as per Ex.P.-32 regarding providing the bed head ticket, X-ray report, MRI report and treatment related documents of the deceased. On the same date, a report was sent to the hospital superintendent, Mekahara Raipur as per Ex.P.-37 and Ex.P.-38 regarding providing the query 6 report of the PM report of the deceased Tato Bai. Thereafter on 11.04.2019, the investigating sub-inspector (PW-12) sent a report to the Joint Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Jagdalpur through the Superintendent of Police, Kanker regarding providing a report after examining the seized items in the case as per Ex.P-33, the receipt of which is Ex.P-34 and the examination report is Ex.P-35. On 04.05.2019, a report was again sent to the Tehsildar Antagarh as per Ex.P-40 regarding providing the Patwari Nazri map of the incident site in the case and on 28.05.2019, a report was sent to the Hospital Superintendent, Mekahara Hospital Raipur as per Ex.P-36 regarding providing the query report of the PM report of the deceased Tato Bai. During investigation, the statements of informant and other witnesses were recorded as per their statements. 6. After complete investigation, a case was registered against the
Legal Reasoning
accused under section 302, On finding prima facie offence under sections 294, 323, 506, 352 of Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet was presented before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanu Pratappur. 7. When the charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 294, 506 (Part II), 352 of the Indian Penal Code and read out to him, the accused denied the offence and claimed trial. 8. After the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under 7 Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when he was admitted on defence, he stated that he was innocent and that he had been falsely implicated. 9. During the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witness in support of its case and exhibited 48 documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-48). 10. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 07.03.2025, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 and 352 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 11. Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to the deceased in spur of moment. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case 8 where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 12. On the other hand, learned State counsels for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant has caused murder of deceased by deadly attacking her with tangia due to which, she succumbed to her injuries, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 and 352 of the IPC and it is not a case where the appellant’s 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 appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 14. The first question for consideration would be whether the deceased died under unnatural circumstances ? 15. With regard to this question, statements of S.N. Gole (PW-10), Assistant Professor, Government Medical College Ambikapur and Dr. Animesh (PW-14), Medical Officer, District Hospital, Balrampur (C.G.), is taken on record. 16. Dr. M. Nirala (PW-6), who conducted the postmortem of the dead 9 body of the deceased has stated in his judicial statement that he is posted as demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur (C.G.). On 16.03.2019 at 03.30 pm, constable Shankar of Gol Bazar Police Station, Raipur presented the body of deceased Smt. Tetobai Dhruv, wife of Sahdev Dhruv, along with the postmortem application form before him, which was identified by Sahdev Dhruv and Amaluram Dhruv. On external examination of the body, it was found that the body was of a normal height woman, who was wrapped in a grey colored shawl and was wearing a diaper. The body was cold, there was stiffness in the body after death, both eyes and mouth were closed, tracheostomy hole was present in the throat. Injury description revealed that stitched wound measuring 01 cm on zygomatic part (temple) on left side of the deceased, 30 cm length from middle of frontal lobe to left temporal part and 11 cm length in middle quadrant of right side of abdomen was present. Skull bone placing surgery was done. Ecchymosis (redness) was present in frontoparietol temporal under scalp on left side of brain of the deceased. Craniotomy operation was done at the same place measuring 15x10 cm and membrane was torn at the same place and temporal lobe was torn on left side of brain of the deceased measuring 10x8 cm. Left hemisphere of brain of the deceased was found to be torn. There was a subarachnoid hemorrhage and soft changes in the brain 10 and a fracture of the middle cranial fossa (bone at the base of the brain). 25-26 The same specialist doctor PW-06 further states that on internal examination of the dead body the membrane, ribs, throat and trachea were intact, both lungs were stuck together from inside, there was fluid present in the chest and abdominal cavity. On cutting both the lungs white foam like fluid was oozing out and pericardium, heart and large vessels were intact, right ventricle (chamber) was filled with blood, membrane, intestinal membrane, mouth and pharynx were intact and healthy. 100 ml of yellow coloured fluid was present in the stomach, half digested food was present in the small intestine, large intestine was filled with gas and faecal matter and liver, spleen and both kidneys were intact and swollen, urinary bladder was intact and empty. Internal and external genitals were intact, uterus was empty and normal. According to his opinion, the deceased died due to cardiac arrest and respiratory failure caused by head injury and complications arising thereof. 17. Besides, in the case, the deceased's husband/informant eyewitness Sahdev Ram Dhruv (PW-8) and other eyewitnesses Bhishma Singh Komra (PW-1), Mohan Singh Dhruv (PW-2), Yashwant Komra (PW-3), Amaluram Dhruv (PW-5), Gangaram Dhruv (PW-7), Sukhiya Bai (PW-9) and Fagnuram Daro (PW-13) have also stated that the deceased was hit on the head and forehead with the back part of the axe (tangia). In the above 11 circumstances, even though the PM doctor has not made a clear statement in the PM report (Ex.P-14) regarding the nature of death of deceased Tatobai, it is clearly proved from the statements of other treating doctors and eyewitnesses that fatal and serious injuries were inflicted on the delicate parts of the deceased, i.e., on the head and forehead and that is why the deceased died, which is clearly proved from the statements of witnesses to be of murderous nature. 18. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question. 19. In this regard, eyewitness Sahdev Ram Dhruv (PW-8), husband of the deceased and other eyewitnesses Bhishma Singh Komra (PW-1), Mohan Singh Dhruv (PW-2), Yashwant Komra (PW-3), Amaluram Dhruv (PW-5), Gangaram Dhruv (PW-7), Sukhiya Bai (PW-9) and Fagnuram Daro (PW-13) are important, hence their statements are taken into consideration. 20. Investigating Officer/Sub-Inspector Pawan Devangan (PW-12) has stated in his judicial statement that on receipt of Crime No. 02/2019, diary of police station Tadoki for further investigation, memorandum statement (Ex.P-15) of the accused was prepared by him in front of witnesses in village-Jimidarin Para Sarandi, in which the accused told about committing the crime regarding the deceased and hiding the tangia used in the incident in the tractor 12 trailer. As per the memorandum statement, he produced an iron tangia from near the Kusum tree near the tractor trailer mentioned by the accused, and it was seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P-16) in front of witnesses and on the same date, the accused was arrested as per arrest memo (Ex.P-08) in front of witnesses and information of arrest was given to his family members (Ex.P-13). On the same date, he prepared a report of the incident as told by the informant. The spot map of the site (Ex.P-19) was prepared and on 01.04.2019, a request letter (Ex.P-28) was sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pakhanjore for recording the statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that on 11.04.2019, through the Superintendent of Police, Kanker, report (Ex.P.-33) was sent to the Joint Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur, regarding providing the report after testing the seized items of the case, the acknowledgment receipt of which is Ex.P.- 24 and the test report received from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur is Ex.P.-35. On 02.04.2019, he sent a report (Ex.P.-39) to the Tehsildar Antagarh regarding providing the Patwari sight map of the place of incident and on 03.04.2019, notice (Ex.P.-41) was given to the witnesses after questioning them and during the investigation, he recorded the statements of the informant Sahdev Ram Dhruv and witnesses- Ganguram Dhruv, Rajlal Dhruv, Yashwant Komra, Mohan Singh Dhruv, Fagnu Ram Daron, Bhishma Singh Komra, Bali Ram Dhruv, Santu Ram 13 Dhruv, Nandlal Dhruv, Sukhiya Bai, Amaluram Dhruv, Johit Rana, Gyani Ram Daron, Rajkumar Dhruv, Mukesh Dhruv, Isuraam Dhruv, Chandradev Komra, Jageshwar Dhruv and Rasila Dhruv as per their statement. 21. Regarding the above memorandum, one of the witnesses presented on behalf of the prosecution, Gangaram Dhruv (PW-7) who is also an eyewitness, in his judicial statement said that he has told that on the date of the incident he was in his house, when Sahdev came to call him and said that accused Sahduram has killed his Kokda bird, and he should make a compromise in this regard and took him to the field with him. Jageshwar, Rajlal, Bhishma, Santu, Nandlal and Sukhiyabai etc. people of the village were present there and accused Sahdu Ram Dhruw was also sitting there, who was carrying a tangia with him, then he asked Sahdu Ram Dhruw nearby, why are you keeping the iron tangia, keep it aside, then he did not say anything and kept sitting quietly. While they were sitting there, accused Sahdu Ram Dhruw’s son and Sahdev started arguing with each other. Then they said that you have called us for the meeting, why are you arguing. Thereafter, Sahdev got up and started to leave. At that time his wife Tatobai came and stood in front of Sahdu Ram and started saying that he does this again and again. At that time Sahdu Ram attacked her head with the tangia (axe) that he was carrying and Tato Bai fell down right there. Blood started oozing from her head, ears and mouth. 22. The same witness Gangaram Dhruv (PW-7) further states that 14 after that they informed the police and the police came to the scene of the incident and took Tetobai to Narayanpur Hospital and from there to Raipur Hospital, where she died about 15 days after the incident. The police interrogated him about the incident and recorded his statement. The accused had fled after the incident, later the police caught him and questioned him, then the accused Sahdu Ram Dhruw told that he had hidden the Tangia in a tractor trailer made in his field and he himself took it out from his field and gave it to the police. 23. Thus, the eyewitness/seizure and memorandum witness PW-07 has fully confirmed the prosecution story in his judicial statement in the main examination. However, this witness has accepted that the accused did not go to Tetobai, rather Tetobai herself came and stood near the accused and due to the false accusation made by the deceased Tetobai, he hit the deceased in anger with the rear part of the tangia kept in front. In the case, the applicant/eyewitness Sahdev Ram Dhruv (PW-8), husband of the deceased presented on behalf of the prosecution has stated in his judicial statement that his son had reared a cockade bird, which the accused killed near the field, then he went to the accused and asked why he killed his bird intentionally, then the accused started chasing him with a tangia, due to which he went to the laadi (hut) built in his field. The accused always 15 does this, so he had gathered the villagers to make the accused understand, in which the villagers Gangaram, Rajlal, Jageshwar, Chandradev, Aswan, Mohan and Sukhiyabai etc. were present in his laadi, where the accused also came and was sitting with a tangia, at the same time his wife Tato Bai came from the field and said that the accused does this again and again, he had killed his cock earlier and now he has killed his bird also. Meanwhile, the accused picked up a tangia and attacked his wife's temple, due to which Tato Bai started bleeding from her nose and mouth. 24. The same witness/eyewitness PW-08 further stated that after that they immediately took Tetobai to Narayanpur hospital, from where she was referred to Raipur, where after being admitted for 7-8 days, his wife Tetobai died. He went with Sarpanch, Patel to write a report of the incident. He had gone to Tadoki police station and the police had taken his statement after questioning him. When the rural report (Ex.P.-18) was read out to him, he has stated that he had given such a statement to the police and his thumb impression was taken. 25. Besides this, other eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution in the case namely Bhishma Singh Komra (PW-1) and Mohan Singh Dhruv (PW-2), Yashwant Komra (PW-3), Amaluram Dhruv (PW-5) and Sukhiya Bai (PW-9) also testified against the prosecution story in their respective judicial statements in the examination-in- chief. While giving an unbroken statement in this regard, the 16 accused has stated that he hit Tetobai on the temple with an iron tangia that he had with him at the time of the incident, due to which blood started oozing out from Tetobai's head, nose and ears and she fainted on the spot. However, among the aforesaid witnesses, Bhishma Singh Komra (PW-1) has accepted in his cross-examination that deceased Tetobai was coming towards the accused with a stone to hit him, if they had not stopped her, she would have hit him with the stone and the deceased quarreled, therefore the accused in anger hit her with the back part of the tangia, but he cannot say that the accused did not attack deceased Tetobai with the intention of killing her. 26. While another witness Mohanlal Singh Dhruv (PW-2) has admitted in his cross-examination that Tetobai came with a stone in her hand and was quarrelling with the accused, but in his own statement he has stated that the accused suddenly attacked the deceased with a tangia. Further another witness Yashwant Komra (PW-3) has admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased Tetobai was coming holding a stone and shouting at the accused, but further clarified that he got the stone released and he cannot say that the accused did not attack Tetobai with the intention of killing her. Similar suggestion has also been accepted by Amaluram Dhruv (PW-5). 27. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, whether the case of the appellant is covered within 17 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 ? 28. 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 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.” 29. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of 1 (2002) 3 SCC 327 18 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; (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; 2 (2009) 15 SCC 635 19 (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.” 30. 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 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450 20 likely to cause death. 31. 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) “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 4 (2017) 3 SCC 247 21 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”. 32. 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. 33. 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) (ii) There must be a sudden fight; There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and 5 (2019) 6 SCC 122 22 (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 34. Reverting to the facts of the present case and in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra) and the statements of eyewitness Sahdev Ram Dhruv (PW-8), husband of the deceased and other eyewitnesses Bhishma Singh Komra (PW-1), Mohan Singh Dhruv (PW-2), Yashwant Komra (PW-3), Amaluram Dhruv (PW-5), Gangaram Dhruv (PW-7), Sukhiya Bai (PW-9) and Fagnuram Daro (PW-13) regarding the incident, it is quite vivid that on the date of the incident i.e. on 01.03.2019 at about 05:00 pm, a meeting was held to resolve some dispute over killing the bird of the deceased by appellant, when deceased Tetobai came towards the accused quarreling with a stone in hand to hit him, therefore the accused out of anger and in heat of passion, hit the deceased with the back part of his Tangia, due to which the deceased suffered injury on her head. The appellant did not have any intention to cause death of deceased, but by causing such injuries, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely to cause death of deceased, as such, his case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfied 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 23 (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 35. Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the statements of eyewitness Sahdev Ram Dhruv (PW-8), husband of the deceased and other eyewitnesses Bhishma Singh Komra (PW-1), Mohan Singh Dhruv (PW-2), Yashwant Komra (PW-3), Amaluram Dhruv (PW-5), Gangaram Dhruv (PW-7), Sukhiya Bai (PW-9) and Fagnuram Daro (PW-13), nature of injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased, postmortem report (Ex.P-12 and 14) and the fact that the appellant is languishing in jail since 20.03.2019, it would meet the end of justice that if the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 36. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 20.03.2019 and has completed more than 6 years of jail sentence. As such, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment already undergone by him. 37. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 38. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 24 1973 (Now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 39. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Manpreet