Saraibhaddar, Chowki Jutmil, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46172-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1792 of 2019 Smt. Savitri Singh W/o Late Chhatrapal Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Banjari, P.S. Sarangarh, At Present R/o Saraibhaddar, Chowki Jutmil, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgah. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Ku. Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ Judgment on Board (10th September, 2025) Per Rajani Dubey, J Challenge in this appeal is the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2019 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in ST No.65/2018, whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of IPC and 2 sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 2.6.2018 Chhatrapal came home after consuming liquor and started abusing and quarreling with the appellant. Being enraged, the appellant assaulted with an axe on his head, neck and back as a result of which he died. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant followed by framing of charge accordingly by
Legal Reasoning
learned trial court which was abjured by her and she prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein she denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by her in her defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. In this case, the prosecution witnesses namely PW-3 Motilal, PW-10 3
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Jamuna Sarthi and PW-13 Poonam Devi have turned hostile. Therefore, learned trial court was not justified in recording her conviction u/s 302 of IPC. Alternatively, she submits that in fact, on the date of incident the deceased in a drunken condition was abusing and quarreling with the appellant and as such he was the aggressor. The incident took place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation on the part of the appellant. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the incident took place, at the most the appellant can be held guilty under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and considering her detention period since 3.6.2018, she may be sentenced to the period already undergone. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava Vs. State of Gujarat, (2018) 4 SCC 329 and Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2021) 10 SCC 744. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which need no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 4 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the appellant was charged under Section 302 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 09. It is an admitted position before learned trial Court that the appellant is wife of the deceased Chhatrapal and PW-1 Chandrabhan Singh Thakur and PW-16 Surabhan Singh Thakur are their children. 10. The first question to be considered by this Court is whether death of Chhatrapal was homicidal in nature. 11. PW-2 Jagat Singh, father of the deceased, states that on 2.6.2018 his grandson Chandrabhan informed him telephonically that his parents are quarreling; his mother Savitri has confined his father Chhatrapal in a room and assaulted him with axe on his head and neck and that Chhatrapal is taken to hospital. Thereupon, he (PW-2) went to the hospital and saw that his son Chhatrapal had died and there were injuries over his neck, head and forehead. He admits his signature on the notice Ex.P/2 from A to A part. 12. PW-5 Khemlal Khunte, Sarpanch, states that he was informed by Jagat Singh over telephone that his son Chhatrapal has been 5 murdered whereupon he along with Jitendra, Hemlal, Jagat Singh and Indrapal went to the hospital at Raigarh and saw dead body of Chhatrapal with injuries over his neck. He admits his signature on inquest memo Ex.P/7 from A to A part and on notice Ex.P/2 from B to B part. 13. PW-15 DL Mishra, Inspector, lodged merg intimation on 2.6.2018 on the information given by Sumitra vide Ex.P/17. On the same day he lodged an unnumbered FIR u/s 302 of IPC vide Ex.P/19 and thereafter, sent the said zero numbered merg and FIR to PS-Kotwali where Crime No.646/2018 was registered. He issued notice u/s 175 of CrPC (Ex.P/2) to the witnesses present on the spot and in their presence prepared inquest memo Ex.P/7. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem vide Ex.P/29. He admitted his signature on all these documents. 14. PW-4 Dr. Vinod Naik conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 3.6.2018 and noticed multiple incised wound over right side of neck and right infraclavicular region measuring as under: i. 8 cm x 4 cm x bony deep over right side of neck ii. right scapular region, 10 cam x 3 cm x bony deep iii. back of neck 5.3 cm x 2 cm x bony deep iv. right side of neck 6 cm x 2 cm x bony deep v. right side of neck 4 cm x 1 cm x bony deep vi. right side of neck 4 cm x 1.3 cm x bony deep vii. right clavicular region 4 cm x 3 cm x bony deep 6 viii. right supraorbital region 6 cm x 3 cm x bony deep ix. lacerated wound over head 4.3 cm x 1.8 cm x bony deep. In his opinion the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to excessive bleeding as a result of multiple injuries over neck and the death was homicidal in nature. He admitted his signature from A to A part on the postmortem report of Ex.P/2. He also examined the weapon of offence axe and opined that the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused with the said weapon. He admitted his signature on the query report Ex.P/3 from A to A part. He also examined the clothes of the deceased and the appellant worn at the time of incident and sent them for chemical examination vide Ex.P/5 & P/6. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm and defence could not elicit anything from him to make his evidence doubtful or untrustworthy. 15. Considering the aforesaid oral evidence of the witnesses, in particular the medical evidence of autopsy surgeon PW-4 Dr. Vinod Naik and the postmortem report, it is stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of Chhatrapal was homicidal in nature and he died due to cardio-respiratory arrest on account of excessive bleeding as a result of multiple injuries over neck. 16. The next question arises for consideration is whether it is the accused/appellant who is author of the crime. 7 17. PW-1 Chandrabhan Singh Thakur, son of the appellant and the deceased, states that they are two brothers. In para 2 he states that Sumitra is his elder mother who resides in their house with her son Suraj as her husband had deserted her and she works in a hotel. He further states that there used to be verbal abuse between his mother and father. On the date of incident i.e. 2.6.2018 at around 5-6 pm his father came back home in drunken condition and thereafter the boss of his father came to his home and told that he (Chhatrapal) has consumed too much liquor today also, so he would not keep him for work. Thereupon his father agreed to it and returned key of the pickup vehicle to his boss. In para 3 he states that his father asked him to fetch him Sharbat, however, as there was no water at home, he went out for fetching water and when returned his father asked him to make a call to his maternal grandfather. After making such call and handing over the phone to his father, he went out. However, 2-3 minutes thereafter his mother switched off the said mobile and they began to quarrel, so out of fear he along with Suraj went out of the home. After some time when he returned home, he saw that his mother had tied hands and legs of his father with the help of scarf and towel. His mother ousted both of them from the home and took his father inside a room and latched it from inside. He states that his mother assaulted on the back and neck of his father with axe which was witnessed by him from the 8 window and he forbade her. She opened the door after 1-2 minutes and then he entered the room and saw that his father was lying dead under the bed with injuries over his neck, head and forehead. He stated that when his mother opened the door, she was holding axe. He further states that when he was going to call ambulance, his mother threatened to kill him if he called ambulance. However, when his mother asked him to make a call to her parents, he called the ambulance. After some time, the ambulance arrived and his father was taken to a government hospital where the doctor after examination declared him dead. Thereafter he called his elder mother Sumitra who lodged report. He states that his statement was recorded before the Magistrate vide Ex.P/1 which bears his signature from A to A part. In cross-examination it was suggested by the defence that presently he is living with his grand-parents and and therefore, at their behest he is making statement against the appellant but he denied all the suggestions of the defence including the suggestion that his father himself fell down under the influence of liquor and sustained injuries which led to his death. He remained firm in his statement made in examination-in-chief that it is his mother/appellant who assaulted his father with axe as a result of which he died. 18. PW-16 Suryabhan Singh Thakur, another son of the appellant and the deceased, was aged about 10 years at the time of recording his evidence. So the learned trial Court in order to ascertain his mental 9 capability of understanding the questions, put certain general questions to him and after being satisfied that he is fully capable of understanding the questions proceeded to record his evidence. He also states that he had gone to play cricket at around 3-4 pm and when he returned home, the door of the house was bolted from inside, he kicked the door but when it was not opened, he sat near the door. However, after some time his mother/appellant opened the door and at that time she was holding an axe. Having entered the home he saw his father lying on the floor in pool of blood. At that time, his brother Chandrabhan and cousin Bable were also present there. Thereafter his brother called the ambulance and his father was taken to hospital and later on he was informed that his father died. He reiterates that his father was killed by his mother, though he did not see her killing him but she was carrying an axe. He states that his statement u/s 164 of CrPC was recorded before JMFC, Raigarh vide Ex.P/34 which bears his signature from A to A part. In cross-examination this witness also remained firm and nothing could be elicited by the defence from him to make his statement doubtful or unreliable. Initially when the Court in order to ascertain his mental capability asked him as to why he has come here, he replied that as his father is murdered, therefore, he has come here. When the Court asked about the murderer and the motive for murder, he replied that it is his mother/appellant who committed his murder with axe as his father used to consume liquor. 10 19. PW-2 Jagat Singh, father-in-law of the appellant and father of the deceased, states that his grandson Chandrabhan informed him over phone that his parents are quarreling and his mother Savitri after confining his father in a room assaulted him with axe on his head and neck and his father is taken to hospital. When he (PW-2) went to the hospital, Chhatrapal had died. 20. PW-5 Khemlal Khunte is a witness to inquest and memorandum but he denied memorandum (Ex.P/11) of the appellant as also the consequent seizure (Ex.P/12 & P/13). The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined but he denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. However, he admitted his signature on these documents from A to A part. 21. PW-6 Jitendra Singh states that the police recorded memorandum of the appellant as per Ex.P/11 wherein she disclosed that she concealed the axe at her home but he does not remember as to whether police seized anything else from her before him. He admitted his signature on the documents Ex.P/11, P/12 & P/13. 22. PW-10 Jamuna Sarthi has not supported the prosecution case. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution where she denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. 23. PW-12 Suraj states that the accused/appellant is his aunt (Mausi) and the deceased Chhatrapal was his uncle (Mausa). A few 11 days prior to the date of incident he along with his brother, sister and mother were residing in the house of the accused/appellant. The deceased used to come home after consuming liquor daily and filthily abuse the accused and beat her even with rod. On the date of incident he was at home with Suryabhan and Chandrabhan; his uncle Chhatrapal came home at around 4 pm in drunken condition and started abusing and beating her aunt Savitri Bai. Thereafter, he along with Suryabhan and Chandrabhan went out to play cricket. However, at around 5 pm when they returned home, his uncle Chhatrapal was lying dead. He expressed ignorance about any statement given earlier in the court but admitted his signature on his statement u/s 164 of CrPC recorded before JMFC, Raigarh. At this stage, the prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined where he denied all suggestion including his police statement Ex.P/27. 24. PW-13 Poonam Devi states that she gave her house on rent to the accused @ Rs.1000/- pm. She states that about 8-10 days prior to the date of incident, the accused and the deceased were quarreling at around 4 pm and accused Savitri came to her crying and informed that her husband (deceased) is beating her, on which she made both of them understand and warned them of getting the house vacated if they keep on such quarreling. She expressed ignorance about the incident and states that after returning from market at 7-8 pm she came to know from the neighbourers that Chhatrapal has died. 12 25. PW-15 DL Mishra, investigating officer, recorded merg intimation Ex.P/17 and FIR (Ex.P/19) on the same day i.e. 2.6.2018 and stated about the manner in which the investigation was carried out. He duly supported the prosecution case. 26. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the deceased was a habitual drinker and he used to quarrel with the appellant after consuming liquor and even beat her. PW-1 Chandrabhan and PW-16 Suryabhan, sons of the appellant and the deceased, have categorically stated that on the date of incident their father came back home in drunken condition, quarreled with their mother and their mother after confining his father in a room assaulted him with axe as a result of which he died. PW-16 also states that when her mother opened the door she was holding axe and he saw his father lying dead inside the home in pool of blood. Their evidence finds due corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-4 Dr. Vinod Nayak who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and noticed corresponding injuries over his head and neck and opined that cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to excessive bleeding as a result of multiple injuries over neck and the death was homicidal in nature. The defence utterly failed to bring anything on record in their cross-
Decision
examination to discredit their evidence. In view of the above unrebutted ocular evidence coupled with corresponding medical evidence, it stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who 13 caused death of her husband Chhatrapal by inflicting axe injuries on him. 27. Now this Court has to see whether the act of the appellant makes her liable for conviction under Section 302 of IPC or any lesser offence. 28. In the matter of Lavghanbhai Devjibhai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decision in the matter of Dhirendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2015 SC OnLine SC 163, to delineate the parameters which are to be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to whether a case falls under Section 302 or under Section 304 of IPC. The said parameters are reproduced hereunder :- “(a) The circumstances in which the incident took place; (b) The nature of weapon used; (c) Whether the weapon was carried or was taken from the spot; (d) Whether the assault was aimed on vital part of body; (e) The amount of the force used; (f) Whether the deceased participated in the sudden fight; (g) Whether there was any previous enmity; (h) Whether there was any sudden provocation; (i) Whether the attack was in the heat of passion; and (j) Whether the person inflicting the injury took any undue advantage or acted in the cruel or unusual manner.” 14 29. In the matter of Kala Singh (supra), there was a sudden fight between the appellant Kala Singh and the deceased as the deceased had stolen a pigeon of the appellant and the co-accused (Kehar Singh) hit the deceased with a rod on the head resulting in his death. Co- accused was convicted under Section 302 and 201 of IPC whereas appellant was convicted under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and RI for three years respectively. In appeal, High Court having found that the scuffle had taken place on the spur of moment in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and as such, not a premeditated act, modified the conviction from 302 to 304 Part-I of IPC and imposed of 12 years’ RI and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of six months. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was not a premeditated one and as there was no intention on the part of the appellant and co- accused either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, as such the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and modifying the same into Section 304 Part-II of IPC, reduced the sentence from 12 years to 07 years’ RI while maintaining the fine sentence imposed by the High Court. 30. This Court in the matter of Raijuram Kaudo Vs. State of CG, CRA No.1328/2015, judgment dated 24th August, 2023, where the appellant who was unhappy with the conduct of his wife as she used to 15 steal Mahuwa from the houses of villagers for which he was feeling underestimated and humiliated, caused her death by strangulation in a sudden fight without premeditation, altered his conviction u/s 302 of IPC to 304 Part-II of IPC and looking to his period of detention i.e. more than 09 years, sentenced him to the said period. 31. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a habitual drinker, he used to filthily abuse and beat the appellant after consuming liquor and that the appellant was totally fed up with this cruel treatment. The evidence goes to show that on the date of incident also the deceased came back home in drunken condition and started abusing and quarreling with her. During this process, the appellant picked up an axe lying in the home and inflicted injuries on him which ultimately led to his death. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident, the manner in which the incident took place, weapon of offence coupled with the conduct of the appellant, it can safely be concluded that though while making such assault on the deceased the appellant was not having any intention of killing him but she must have had the knowledge that such bodily injuries with a deadly weapon on his vital part i.e. neck and head would result in his death. Being so, the act of the appellant falls in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and makes her liable for conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not 302 of IPC as has been held by learned trial Court. 16 32. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the appellant is a woman of around 40 years and she has been in jail since 3.6.2018, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if she is sentenced under Section 304 Part-II of IPC to undergo RI for eight years and is directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of one month. 33. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While setting aside conviction of the appellant u/s 302 of IPC, she is held guilty under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and is sentenced to undergo RI for eight years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to suffer additional RI for one month. The fine amount already deposited shall be adjusted accordingly. The appellant shall be entitled for set off of the period already undergone under Section 468 of BNSS, 2023 (428 of CrPC). The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. A copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellant is undergoing the sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.09.12 15:49:42 +0530 Khan Sd/ (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge