High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.03.25 18:28:36 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1759 of 2023 2025:CGHC:13031-DB NAFR 1 - Manish Soni @ Gudda S/o Late Somanlal Soni Aged About 29 Years R/o Amapara Ward No. 13, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. versus ...Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant For State : : Shri Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. Shri Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board 19.03.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (in short, Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Balod, in Special Sessions Case No.26/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 24.02.2019 PW-1, Yogesh Kumar Yadav gave a merg intimation to the police Ex.P/1 that at about 5:45 2 PM when he went to Liquor Shop at Balod and purchasing snacks from snacks cart, quarrel took place between the appellant and deceased on the issue that the deceased had informed about consuming liquor by the appellant to his family members and at that time, the appellant took a knife which was kept by the said snacks vendor and gave a knife blow on the chest of deceased. Despite his intervention, he could not save him and by the assault made by the appellant, the deceased fell down and due to fear he fled away from the place. After sometime he came to know that deceased died in the hospital. Based on the
Facts
memorandum statement, FIR Ex.P/2 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the SC & ST Act). Inquest Ex.P/17 was prepared in presence of witnesses and dead body was sent for its postmortem to District Hospital, Balod where PW-10 Dr. Prabha Barman conducted postmortem of dead body of deceased and gave report vide Ex.P/24. While conducting postmortem, the Doctor noticed one stab wound approx 1x1/2x1/2x4.5 cm present on anterior Neck base left side causing injury to great vessel on Neck and left temporal hematoma on skull with cranium fracture and bleeding from left Ear present. She opined that cause of death was severe hemorrhage from stab wound over the Neck and from the left temporal cranium fracture and hematoma causing shock and death and injuries were antemortem and homicidal in nature. 3. Spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared by the police whereas Ex.P/8 was prepared by the Patwari. Spot map Panchnama was prepared vide 3 Ex.P/4. The full shirt of complainant Yogesh Kumar was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. Social status certificate of deceased was seized vide Ex.P/6 and his social status certificate is Ex.P/7. Bloodstained and plain soil were seized from spot vide Ex.P/20. The clothes of deceased was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/33. The appellant was arrested on 25.02.2019 and his memorandum statement Ex.P/9 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, one knife and Gamchha (Scarf) was seized vide Ex.P/11, clothes of appellant was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/10. The seized knife was sent for its query report to the doctor who conducted the postmortem. After examining knife, the doctor gave her query report Ex.P/25 and opined that it is possible the injuries found on the deceased could be due to the above mentioned knife and for confirmation of presence of blood it was referred to FSL. The clothes seized in the case were also sent for its query report and were referred for its chemical examination to FSL. In the FSL report Ex.P/40, except plain soil, blood was found on all the articles sent. Bloodstained soil, Article-A, half shirt of appellant, Article- D, Jeans pant of appellant, Article-E, Gamchha seized from appellant, Article-G, T-shirt of deceased, Article-H and underwear & Baniyan of deceased, Article-J&K all were found stained with human blood. Half shirt of the appellant, Article-D and underwear of the deceased Article-J were found to be stained with same blood group i.e. “O”. 4. The statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the trial court for the offence under Sections 302 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act. 5. The trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence 4 under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial. Vide order dated 14.02.2023 the charge was amended only to the effect of name of the deceased as earlier it was mentioned as Gandhi Kumar Bhuary whereas after amendment it is mentioned as Gandhi Lal Bhuary. The defence had no objection in the said amendment and not claimed further cross examination or re examination of the witnesses. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant have also been recorded in which he denied the circumstance appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. He also states that on the date of incident, the deceased and the complainant Yogesh Kumar consumed liquor near snacks cart and quarreled with each other. All of sudden Yogesh Kumar assaulted deceased by knife due to which he died. Immediately after the incident the complainant Yogesh Kumar fled away and he called 108 vehicle and he took him to the hospital and went to police station to inform the incident, but he was detained by police and police officers have implicated him in a false case. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8.
Legal Reasoning
“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 14 would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.” 24. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 (6) SCC 122 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under: “16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv)The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 25. Reverting to the facts of present case, it is quite vivid that on the date of incident, there was scuffling between the appellant and deceased on the issue of informing family members of deceased by the appellant that deceased used to consume liquor. It also comes on record that the deceased was in drunken condition. There was only one stab injury on the body of deceased. The weapon of offence Knife was seized from the appellant in which “O” group of blood was found which was of same blood group found on the underwear of the deceased also. After incident, the appellant made extra judicial confession before the mother of the deceased Neer Bai Bhuary, PW-3 that he assaulted his son i.e. the deceased. Human blood was found on the clothes of appellant for which he has not offered any explanation in his 313 CrPC statement. The doctor gave query report with respect to knife from which injuries were inflicted to deceased and she opined that said injuries could have been caused by the said knife. Her query report is Ex.P/25. The said evidence of doctor was further supported by the 15 evidence of PW-1, Yogesh Kumar Yadav and other witnesses of inquest. 26. From the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it can be inferred that the appellant did not have any intention to cause death of the deceased, but by causing such injury he must have had the knowledge that such injury inflicted by him would likely to cause death of the deceased and 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 satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. 27. Considering the above mentioned law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and also considering the evidence available in the present case, ends of justice would meet if the conviction of appellant is altered/converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I of IPC. 28.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution 5 has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict him. The complainant himself is an accused in the case and to save himself he made allegation against the appellant. Blood was found in the clothes of complainant Yogesh Kumar Yadav. It is the appellant who has taken the deceased to the hospital. Had the appellant been assaulted the deceased, he would have fled away from the place of occuracne immediately after the assault, but he did not do so. The evidence of extra judicial confession is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for alleged offence. Memorandum and seizure witnesses have not dully supported the prosecution’s case and seizure of knife and clothes from the appellant is also doubtful. Thus, in absence of concrete evidence, the appellant cannot be held guilty for the alleged offence and he is entitled for acquittal. He would further submit that even if involvement of appellant in the offence in question is proved, the act of appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-I of IPC and by altering his conviction, his undergone period may be considered to be the sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW-1, Yogesh Kumar Yadav, is eye-witness who duly supported the prosecution case. Though, he fled away from the place but he himself has stated that due to fear he went away from the place. The 6 weapon of offence Knife was seized from the appellant in which “O” group of blood was found which is the same blood group found on the underwear of deceased also. Immediately after the incident the appellant made extra judicial confession before the mother of deceased Neer Bai Bhuary, PW-3. Human blood has also been found on the clothes of the appellant for which he offered no explanation in his 313 CrPC statement. From the evidence of eye-witness as well as circumstantial evidence, the guilt of the appellant has duly been proved by the prosecution that he committed murder of deceased. Therefore, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be rejected. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 11. So far as death of deceased being homicidal is concerned, the trial court has considered the evidence of Dr. Prabha Barman, PW-10, who conducted postmortem of the deceased. The doctor has stated in her evidence that on 25.02.2019 the dead body of deceased was brought before her for its postmortem. On its postmortem she noticed multiple abrasions on face and stab wound on the base of Neck and Hematoma on the left side of Head. Corresponding bone of Hematoma was found fractured and blood was coming out from left Ear of deceased. There was cut on Great vessels of Neck. After postmortem, she opinion that injuries were antermortem in nature and cause of death was sever hemorrhage from the stab wound over the Neck and from the left temporal cranial fracture and hematoma causing shock and death and death was homicidal in nature. 7 In cross examination, she remain firm in saying that cause of death is excessive hemorrhage due to fracture of head bone as well as great vessel. She was also cross examined on the issue of nature and number of injuries in the quarrel took place with a person and the circumstances under which the injuries could have been received by a person, but the fact remains that the doctor proved the injuries found on the body of deceased causing his death. The doctor has also given the query report with respect to knife by which the injuries have been caused to the deceased and she also opined that said injuries could have been caused by the said knife. Her query report is Ex.P/25. The said evidence of doctor was further supported by the evidence of PW- 1, Yogesh Kumar Yadav and other witnesses of inquest. 12. PW-1, Yogesh Kumar, is eye-witness to the incident who proved the assault made upon deceased by knife and further witnesses to the inquest PW-7, Ramcharan and PW-8, Pritam Singh who proved the inquest Ex.P/17. 13. The homicidal death of deceased was found proved by the trial court after considering the evidence available on record. This court also is of the opinion that findings recorded by the trial court is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence of the case. 14. So far as involvement of appellant in the offence in question is concerned, the case of the prosecution is based on evidence of eye- witness PW-1, Yogesh Kumar. He has stated in his evidence that on 24.02.2019 at about 5:30 PM he went to liquor shop. When he went to snack cart of appellant, he saw that deceased Gandhi Bhuary and appellant were quarreling. The deceased Gandhi Bhuary made 8 allegation against the appellant that he (appellant) informed his consuming liquor to his family members. At that moment, the appellant took the knife kept in snack cart and gave a blow on his chest. When he tried to intervene, the appellant threatened him to go away from there. Since the appellant became aggressive, he went away from the place and informed about the incident to his friend Karan Soni and Rohit. After sometime, he came to know that deceased Gandhi Bhuary was being taken to hospital where he died. He also stated that at the time of incident, blood came in contact with his clothes and he gave his shirt to police through document Ex.P/5. He further states that he was being threatened by 2-3 persons that if he gives evidence against the appellant, then he and his whole family would be killed, for which he made a written complaint on 07.08.2019 to police station Balod. In cross examination, he denied that immediately after the incident he was washing his clothes, but he voluntarily stated that he was cleaning his hand in which blood was there. He admits that after the incident when he was returning, on the way, he met with Karan Soni and Rohit. He further admits that there was a CCTV Camera installed in the liquor shop. He further admits that he himself has not lodged any report to the police about the incident. He also admits that when police persons took him to police station, the appellant was already present there. He did not know as to whether there was any previous dispute between the appellant and deceased or not. On the date of incident, the deceased had not gone to liquor shop along with him and he met him in the liquor shop campus itself. He did not know as to whether the appellant asked the deceased not to indulge the 9 minor children in consuming liquor. He did not know about the fact that the appellant gave information about the deceased regarding his consuming liquor. He admits that he too purchased snacks and consumed liquor nearby snack cart of appellant. While consuming liquor, he saw quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and he intervened in their quarrel. The deceased was also drunken. He explained about blood found on his clothes that when he intervened in the quarrel, blood came in contact of his clothes. He denied that knife blow was given by him and not by the appellant. Since he was scared, he did not inform to any other persons about the incident. From his lengthy cross examination, the defence could not extract any material that appellant has not given any knife blow on the body of the deceased. This witnesses was detailed cross examined on the point that it is the witness Yogesh Kumar who made knife blow on the body of the deceased and not the appellant, but he properly replied all the questions that it is the appellant alone who caused injuries to the deceased. 15. PW-2, Rohit Kumar Soni, have stated in his evidence that on 24.02.2019 when he was sitting near canal culvert, the deceased Gandhi came there, asked him to left him up to liquor shop. Thereafter, he took his motorcycle in which Gandhi Bhuary was also sitting and they left him to liquor shop at about 4:30-5:00 PM. On his instance, they took him to snack cart of the appellant. They consumed liquor and on his request they stayed for sometime there and thereafter returned back to their house. After 5-10 minutes when they went to canal, they found Yogesh who informed that Gudda (appellant) raised quarrel with 10 deceased Gandhi and Gudda has committed his murder. He clarified that Gudda is the same person and his second name is Manish (appellant herein). He also informed that when he intervened in the quarrel, blood came in contact of his hand which he washed in canal. Nothing could be extracted in his cross examination also to disbelieve his evidence that he left the deceased to liquor shop as also snack cart of the appellant and after consuming liquor they returned back to their house; after sometime they saw Yogesh near canal who was cleaning his hand and also the fact that PW-1 Yogesh had informed about the incident that appellant has committed murder of the deceased. 16. PW-3, Smt. Neer Bai Bhuary, the mother of deceased, have stated that on 24.02.2019 her son left the house assuring that he will come after sometime. After half an hour, his wife came to her and informed about the incident that the appellant Manish has given knife blow on his son Gandhi Bhuary near liquor shop. Thereafter she along with wife of deceased went to the spot where she could not found her son, but appellant was present and on being asked he made a statement before her that he made assault to her son. He was having knife in his hand and blood was also present in his clothes. In her cross examination also, the defence could not extract any material so that her evidence could be disbelieved. 17. PW-4, Karan Soni, is also the person to whom PW-1 Yogesh Kumar informed the incident and he too have supported the prosecution’s case to that effect. 18. As per FSL report Ex.P/40, “O” group of blood was found on the knife seized from the appellant. Human blood was found on the underwear, 11 jeans pant and Gamchha seized from appellant for which he offered no explanation in his 313 CrPC statement. “O” group of blood found on the knife seized from him as well as underwear of the deceased directly connect the appellant with the offence of question which corroborates the evidence of PW-1, 2,3 & 4. Thus, it has been also found proved that the appellant caused injuries to the deceased by which he died. 19. The next question for consideration is, whether the case of the appellants are covered within Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and their conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002 (3) SCC 327, 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.” 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, 2009(15) SCC 635 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate 12 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; (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 13 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.” 22. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012 (8) SCC 450, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death. 23. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2017 (3) SCC 247 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraph 20, which reads as under :-
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent that conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. Fine amount and default stipulation imposed upon the appellant by the trial court is maintained. 29. As the appellant is reported to be in jail, he shall serve the remaining sentence as modified by this Court. 30. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this court by preferring 16 an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 31. 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 inder