1

2026:CGHC:6495-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1002 of 2024

Hameshwar Sahu @ Badshah S/o Late Ramcharan Sahu Aged About

38 Years R/o Sonesilli, P.S. Gobranavapara, Raipur, District Raipur

(C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gobranavapara Raipur,

District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant :Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate

For Respondent-State :Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government

Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

05.02.2026

1.Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant as well

as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate,

appearing for the State/respondent.

2

2.Today, though the criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on

I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of

bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel

for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

3.Accordingly, I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence

and grant of bail to the appellant, stands disposed of.

4.This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section

374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,

‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned 9

th

Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in

Sessions Trial No.57/2020, by which the appellant has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of

payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for one

year.

5.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant/complainant

Hemlal Khare (PW-1), resident of village Gobra Nawapara, lodged

a report stating that on 31.10.2019, while he was present at

Gobra Nawapara, he received information that his son Roshan

Khare @ Nanku had sustained serious injuries and had been

admitted to the Government Hospital, Nawapara. Immediately

thereafter, the informant rushed to the said hospital, where he

3

found his son lying on a hospital bed in an unconscious condition.

It was noticed that the deceased had sustained injuries on his

head and face and blood was oozing from the injuries. Upon

making inquiry from the doctor on duty regarding the condition of

his son, the informant was informed that Roshan Khare @ Nanku

had already expired.

6.On the basis of the said information, Merg Intimation No. 64/2019

was registered on 31.10.2019 at Police Station Gobra Nawapara

(Ex.P/01). During merg inquiry, on the basis of the information

received and the material collected, a cognizable offence was

found to have been committed. Consequently, a First Information

Report was registered vide Crime No. 463/2019 against an

unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code, and the FIR was registered as Ex.P/25.

7.On the same day, notices were issued to witnesses for conducting

inquest proceedings (Ex.P/02) and the inquest (Panchanama)

over the dead body of deceased Roshan Khare @ Nanku was

conducted in the presence of Panch witnesses. During the said

proceedings, the condition of the dead body and visible injuries

were duly noted. After completion of inquest proceedings, the

inquest report was prepared and the spot map of the place where

the dead body was examined was prepared vide Ex.P/03.

8.During the course of investigation, on the basis of the statement of

informant Hemlal Khare, a spot map of Rajim–Chirghar area was

4

prepared in the presence of witnesses, which has been exhibited

as Ex.P/15. Further, on the basis of the statement of witness

Mahesh Kumar Khare, another spot map of the place of

occurrence at village Kumar Sona Silli was prepared in the

presence of witnesses and the same was exhibited as Ex.P/26.

9.From the place of occurrence, blood-stained soil and plain soil

were seized in the presence of witnesses, and seizure memo was

prepared vide Ex.P/11. The dead body of deceased Roshan

Khare @ Nanku was thereafter sent for postmortem examination

through requisition (Ex.P/05). The postmortem examination was

conducted and the postmortem report was received and exhibited

as Ex.P/20. The short P.M. Report issued by the Community

Health Centre, Gobra Nawapara, was also collected and exhibited

as Ex.P/21.

10.After completion of postmortem examination, the dead body of the

deceased was handed over to the relatives, namely the informant

Hemlal Khare, and a handing-over memo was prepared and

exhibited as Ex.P/04. During investigation, at the instance of

witness Horilal Sonkar, the viscera of the deceased was seized in

the presence of witnesses, and the seizure memo was prepared

vide Ex.P/13.

11.During further investigation, memorandum statement of the

accused Hameshwar Sahu @ Badshah was recorded in the

presence of witnesses after issuing notice (Ex.P/19), and the

5

memorandum statement was duly recorded and exhibited as

Ex.P/06. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused,

the following articles were recovered in the presence of

witnesses: (i) One blood-stained bamboo stick measuring

approximately 50 inches in length, having blood stains between its

knots; (ii) One black coloured jacket; and (iii) One broken chain.

All the aforesaid articles were seized and seizure memo was

prepared vide Ex.P/07.

12.Further, from the vicinity of the spot, one green coloured ladies

bicycle, having blood stains on the tyre and mudguard, was

seized in the presence of witnesses and seizure memo was

prepared vide Ex.P/09. On finding prima facie evidence against

the accused, he was arrested and an arrest memo was prepared

vide Ex.P/08. Intimation regarding his arrest was duly given vide

Ex.P/27.

13.During the course of investigation, the Tahsildar, Gobra Nawapara

was requested to get the detailed spot map prepared. Accordingly,

requisition was issued vide Ex.P/14, pursuant to which the

Patwari prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence and the

same was exhibited as Ex.P/06-B.

14.The seized articles, including the clothes of the deceased, blood-

stained bamboo stick, blood-stained soil and plain soil, were sent

for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory

through requisition (Ex.P/17). Acknowledgment of receipt was

6

received and exhibited as Ex.P/18, and thereafter the FSL report

was received and exhibited as Ex.P/28. Requisition for obtaining

Query Report was also sent to the Community Health Centre,

Gobra Nawapara and the query report was received and exhibited

as Ex.P/23.

15.Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per law. Opinion

regarding injuries was obtained from Dr. S.K. Tiwari, Medical

Officer, Community Health Centre, Gobra Nawapara, and the said

medical opinion was exhibited as Ex.P/24. Documents relating to

the criminal antecedents of the accused were also collected and

exhibited as Ex.P/29.

16.After completion of the entire investigation, finding sufficient

evidence against the accused Hameshwar Sahu @ Badshah ,

charge-sheet was filed on 30.12.2019 before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Raipur for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered as

Criminal Case No. 14045/2019. After committal, the case was

registered as Sessions Trial No. 57/2020 and was thereafter

transferred to the Court of Sessions, Raipur on 18.07.2023 for

hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

17.The charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the

accused, which was read over and explained to him. The accused

denied the charge and pleaded innocence. In support of its case,

the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 29

7

documents, whereas the appellant has not examined any witness

but exhibited only two documents.

18.The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and

alleged false implication. The accused did not adduce any

defence evidence.

19.The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 23.04.2024

convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as as mentioned in the

fourth paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this criminal appeal has

been filed.

20.Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant, most

respectfully submits that the learned trial Court has failed to

appreciate the facts and circumstances of the present case in

their entirety and in the correct legal perspective. It is submitted

that the impugned judgment of conviction is illegal, erroneous,

perverse, and contrary to law. The learned trial Court has not

properly appreciated the evidence available on record, resulting in

erroneous findings and grave miscarriage of justice. The

conviction has been recorded on mere conjectures and surmises,

despite the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that there are material

inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the

8

prosecution witnesses, which strike at the root of the prosecution

case. The learned trial Court has also erred in convicting the

Appellant without any specific and incriminating question being

put to him under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., thereby causing

serious prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, the case of the

present appellants falls within the purview of Exception 4 to

Section 300 of the IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable

homicide not amounting to murder, and therefore, it is a fit case

where the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC can be converted/altered to an offence

under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) IPC. Further, as appellant is

in jail since 02.11.2019 and therefore, considering the period he

had already undergone, he be awarded the sentence of the period

already undergone by him. Hence, the present appeal deserves to

be allowed in full or in part.

21.Per contra, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government

Advocate, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved

the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of

clinching nature. He further submits that in view of statements of

the prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available

on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the

appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. It has been

contended that appellant has committed heinous crime of murder

and in such circumstances, it is not the case where conviction of

9

the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC requires to be

altered to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC. Thus, the present

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

22.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the

records with utmost circumspection.

Points for Determination

•Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt

that the death of deceased Nanku Khare @ Roshan Khare

was homicidal in nature?

•Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused Hemeshwar

Sahu @ Badshah caused the homicidal death of the

deceased, and if so, whether the conviction recorded under

Section 302 of the IPC warrants interference?

Answer to Point No.1

23.This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration upon the entire

oral as well as documentary evidence on record, particularly the

medical evidence, inquest proceedings and the surrounding

circumstances, in order to determine the nature of death of

deceased Nanku Khare @ Roshan Khare.

24.At the very outset, it may be noticed that immediately after

receiving information regarding the injured condition of the

10

deceased, the informant Hemlal Khare (PW-01) rushed to the

Government Hospital, Nawapara, where he found his son lying

unconscious with bleeding injuries on the head and face. Upon

enquiry, he was informed by the attending doctor that the

deceased had expired. His statement led to registration of Merg

No.64/2019 (Ex.P/01).

25.The inquest proceedings (Ex.P/03) were conducted in the

presence of Panch witnesses. A bare perusal of the inquest report

clearly reflects that multiple external injuries were noticed on the

person of the deceased, particularly on the head, face and

temporal region. The body was thereafter sent for post-mortem

examination.

26.The post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased

Nanku Khare @ Roshan Khare was conducted by Dr. Suryakant

Tiwari (PW-17), Medical Officer, who has duly proved the

postmortem report exhibited as Ex.P/20. In his deposition, PW-17

has stated that upon external examination, the dead body bore

multiple visible injuries, particularly on the vital region of the head

and face. The postmortem report reveals the presence of

lacerated wounds over the frontal and temporal regions of the

scalp, accompanied by swelling and contusions over the facial

area. The said injuries were not superficial in nature but were

grievous and extensive, indicating application of considerable

force.

11

27.On internal examination, PW-17 noticed serious damage to the

cranial bones, including fractures, along with corresponding injury

to the underlying brain tissue. The internal findings clearly

demonstrated intracranial hemorrhage and trauma to vital portions

of the brain. The doctor has specifically opined that all the injuries

were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by a hard and blunt

object. He has further stated that the cumulative effect of the

injuries to the head resulted in coma, leading to death of the

deceased.

28.The medical witness has categorically deposed that the injuries

found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death. The nature, location and

multiplicity of injuries, as recorded in Ex.P/20, unequivocally rule

out any possibility of accidental fall or self-inflicted harm. The

pattern of injuries clearly suggests a violent assault, particularly

aimed at the head, a vital part of the body.

29.Further, in response to a specific query raised during

investigation, PW-17 furnished his opinion vide Query Report

Ex.P/23, wherein he has affirmed that the injuries sustained by

the deceased were possible by assault with a bamboo stick, such

as the one recovered at the instance of the accused during

investigation. The said opinion provides strong medical

corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the manner of

assault and the weapon used.

12

30.The medical evidence finds complete corroboration from other

prosecution witnesses. PW-08 Tiwari Prasad has stated that he

saw the deceased lying injured and unconscious near Sonesilli

Road with visible head injuries. There is no suggestion in cross-

examination that the injuries were accidental or self-inflicted.

31.Significantly, there is no evidence whatsoever on record

suggesting any possibility of accidental fall or suicidal act. The

nature, number and situs of injuries completely rule out such

possibilities.

32.The law is well settled that where medical evidence coupled with

circumstantial evidence clearly establishes that death occurred

due to intentional bodily injuries inflicted by another person, the

death must be held to be homicidal.

33.In view of: (i) the inquest report (Ex.P/03), (ii) the postmortem

report (Ex.P/20), (iii) the query report (Ex.P/23), and (iv) the

unimpeached testimony of PW-17 (Doctor), this Court has no

hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the death of deceased Nanku Khare @

Roshan Khare was homicidal in nature.

34.As such, Point No.1 is accordingly answered in the affirmative.

Answer to Point No.2

35.The prosecution case against the appellant rests essentially upon

circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct eyewitness to the act

13

of assault. It is therefore incumbent upon the prosecution to prove

a complete chain of circumstances, which must be consistent only

with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and inconsistent with

his innocence.

36.This Court shall therefore examine each circumstance relied upon

by the prosecution.

(A) Motive

37.The prosecution has successfully brought on record evidence to

demonstrate existence of motive. From the testimonies of PW-04,

PW-09 and PW-16, it emerges that there was a dispute and

altercation between the accused and the deceased prior to the

incident. The deceased was seen quarrelling with the accused

shortly before the occurrence.

38.Though motive by itself is not decisive, when proved, it lends

assurance to the prosecution case, particularly in cases based on

circumstantial evidence.

(B) Last Seen Circumstance

39.The most crucial circumstance is the evidence of PW-16 Sanjay

Kumar Gandrike, who has categorically stated that on 31.10.2019

at about 2:00 PM, he saw the accused and the deceased together

near Sagar Rice Mill on Sonesilli Road. He has further stated that

both were engaged in a quarrel and were proceeding towards the

house of the accused.

14

40.The testimony of this witness inspires confidence and has

remained intact despite searching cross-examination. There is

nothing on record to discredit his presence or version.

41.Soon thereafter, the deceased was found lying grievously injured

at the same place and succumbed to the injuries. The proximity of

time between the “last seen together” circumstance and the death

of the deceased is so small that the possibility of intervention of a

third person is completely ruled out.

42.The accused has not offered any explanation whatsoever under

Section 313 CrPC as to how the deceased, who was last seen

with him, suffered fatal injuries. This failure attracts the

presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

(C) Recovery of Weapon and Articles

43.Another incriminating circumstance is the recovery of weapon at

the instance of the accused.

44.The memorandum statement of the accused was recorded vide

Ex.P/06, pursuant to which a blood-stained bamboo stick was

recovered under seizure memo Ex.P/07. The recovery has been

duly proved by independent witnesses and the Investigating

Officer.

45.Additionally, blood-stained clothes of the accused and other

articles were seized vide Ex.P/09 and Ex.P/10. All seized articles

were sent for forensic examination, and the FSL Report (Ex.P/28)

15

confirms the presence of human blood on the bamboo stick

recovered at the instance of the accused. The accused has not

offered any explanation regarding the said recovery.

46.The recovery of the weapon, duly corroborated by FSL report and

medical opinion, is a strong incriminating circumstance.

(D) Conduct of the Accused

47.The conduct of the accused is also relevant. After the incident, the

accused neither informed anyone nor offered assistance to the

injured deceased. His silence and evasive answers during

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. further strengthen the

prosecution case.

(E) Completion of Chain of Circumstances

48.From the above discussion, the following circumstances stand

conclusively proved:

•Homicidal death of the deceased,

•Motive for commission of the offence,

•Deceased last seen alive in the company of the accused,

•Recovery of blood-stained bamboo stick at the instance of the

accused,

•Medical corroboration connecting the weapon with injuries,

•Failure of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances.

49.The chain of circumstances is complete and excludes every

16

hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Thus, this Court holds

that the accused Hemeshwar Sahu @ Badshah is the author of

the crime.

50.The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for

consideration, whether the case of the appellant is covered within

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 ?

51.While dealing with The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent

judgment in the case of Anbazhagan v. The State represented

by the Inspector of Police in Criminal Appeal No.2043 of 2023

disposed of on 20.07.2023 has defined the context of the true test

to be adopted to find out the intention or knowledge of the

accused in doing the act as under:-

“60. Few important principles of law discernible

from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up

thus:

(1) When the court is confronted with the

question, what offence the accused could be said

to have committed, the true test is to find out the

intention or knowledge of the accused in doing

the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as

is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300

of the IPC, the act will be murder even though

only a single injury was caused. To illustrate: ‘A’ is

bound hand and foot. ‘B’ comes and placing his

17

revolver against the head of ‘A’, shoots ‘A’ in his

head killing him instantaneously. Here, there will

be no difficulty in holding that the intention of ‘B’ in

shooting ‘A’ was to kill him, though only single

injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be

of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300

of the IPC. Taking another instance, ‘B’ sneaks

into the bed room of his enemy ‘A’ while the latter

is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest

of ‘A’, ‘B’ forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest

of ‘A’ and runs away. ‘A’ dies shortly thereafter.

The injury to ‘A’ was found to be sufficient in

ordinary course of nature to cause death. There

may be no difficulty in holding that ‘B’ intentionally

inflicted the particular injury found to be caused

and that the said injury was objectively sufficient

in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

This would bring the act of ‘B’ within Clause (3) of

Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of

the offence of murder although only single injury

was caused.

(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the

accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of

Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused

which would otherwise be murder, will be taken

out of the purview of murder, if the accused's

case attracts any one of the five exceptions

enumerated in that section. In the event of the

case falling within any of those exceptions, the

offence would be culpable homicide not

amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of

Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused

is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of

18

Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under

Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall

within Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC.

Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused

may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section

299 of the IPC, may be attracted but not any of

the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that

situation also, the offence would be culpable

homicide not amounting to murder under Section

304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part

I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of

Section 299, while it would be an offence under

Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd

part of Section 299 of the IPC.

(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an

accused person falls within the first two clauses of

cases of culpable homicide as described in

Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the

first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within

the third clause, it is punishable under the second

part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first

part of this section would apply when there is

‘guilty intention,’ whereas the second part would

apply when there is no such intention, but there is

‘guilty knowledge’.

(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that

particular injury was intended, and objectively that

injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death, the requirements of

Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are

fulfilled and the offence would be murder.

(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the

19

following classes of cases : (i) when the case falls

under one or the other of the clauses of Section

300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to

that Section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of

the higher degree of likelihood which is covered

by the expression ‘sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death’ but is of a lower

degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of

as an injury ‘likely to cause death’ and the case

does not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of

the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the

knowledge that death is likely to ensue but

without intention to cause death or an injury likely

to cause death.

To put it more succinctly, the difference between

the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that

under the first part, the crime of murder is first

established and the accused is then given the

benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of

the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of

murder is never established at all. Therefore, for

the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the

offence punishable under the second part of

Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not

bring his case within one of the exceptions to

Section 300 of the IPC.

(6) The word ‘likely’ means probably and it is

distinguished from more ‘possibly’. When

chances of happening are even or greater than its

not happening, we may say that the thing will

‘probably happen’. In reaching the conclusion, the

court has to place itself in the situation of the

20

accused and then judge whether the accused had

the knowledge that by the act he was likely to

cause death.

(7) The distinction between culpable homicide

(Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300

of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in

mind while dealing with a charge under Section

302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful

homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide

amounting to murder and those not amounting to

murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not

murder when the case is brought within the five

exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even

though none of the said five exceptions are

pleaded or prima facie established on the

evidence on record, the prosecution must still be

required under the law to bring the case under

any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC

to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution

fails to discharge this onus in establishing any

one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC,

namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would

not be made out and the case may be one of

culpable homicide not amounting to murder as

described under Section 299 of the IPC.

(8) The court must address itself to the question

of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to

be applied, the assailant must intend the

particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This

ingredient could rarely be proved by direct

evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to

be drawn from the proved circumstances of the

21

case. The court must necessarily have regard to

the nature of the weapon used, part of the body

injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used

in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the

circumstances preceding and attendant on the

attack.

(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that

makes a culpable homicide a murder. The

intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the

ordinary cause of nature to cause death also

makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has

actually been caused and intention to cause such

injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or

acts resulting in the injury or injuries.

(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused

results in the death of the victim, no inference, as

a general principle, can be drawn that the

accused did not have the intention to cause the

death or that particular injury which resulted in the

death of the victim. Whether an accused had the

required guilty intention or not, is a question of

fact which has to be determined on the facts of

each case.

(11) Where the prosecution proves that the

accused had the intention to cause death of any

person or to cause bodily injury to him and the

intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course

of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a

single injury which results in the death of the

victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause

thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the

exceptions applies.

22

(12) In determining the question, whether an

accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge

in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by

him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death, the fact that the

act is done without premeditation in a sudden

fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify

that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or

that he only intended a simple injury, would lead

to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the

offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of

the IPC.”

52.The prosecution case substantially rests upon circumstantial

evidence supported by the testimony of the informant Hemlal

Khare (PW-1), the memorandum and recovery at the instance of

the accused Hameshwar Sahu @ Badshah , the medical

evidence, and scientific corroboration. Though there is no direct

eyewitness to the actual assault, the chain of circumstances

proved by the prosecution is complete and unbroken, leading to

only one conclusion, namely, that it was the accused who caused

the fatal injuries to the deceased Roshan Khare @ Nanku.

53.Hemlal Khare (PW-1), father of the deceased, has stated that on

31.10.2019, he received information that his son had been found

seriously injured and was admitted to the Government Hospital,

Gobra Nawapara. On reaching the hospital, he noticed injuries on

the head and face of his son, with profuse bleeding. Upon inquiry,

the doctor informed him that his son had succumbed to the

23

injuries. His testimony establishes the immediacy of the incident,

the condition of the deceased soon after the occurrence, and the

fact that the death was unnatural. His evidence remained

consistent and unshaken in cross-examination and there is no

reason to doubt his credibility.

54.During investigation, the accused Hameshwar Sahu @ Badshah

made a voluntary memorandum statement, duly recorded under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which has been proved through

Ex.P/6. Pursuant to the said memorandum, the accused led the

police and witnesses to the place of occurrence and got

recovered a blood-stained bamboo stick measuring approximately

50 inches, a black coloured jacket, and a broken chain, vide

seizure memo Ex.P/07. These recoveries are significant and

directly connect the accused with the commission of the offence.

The recovery witnesses have supported the prosecution case and

no material infirmity has been elicited in their cross-examination.

55.Further, from the place of occurrence, a green coloured ladies

bicycle bearing blood stains on the tyres and mudguard was

seized vide Ex.P/09. Blood-stained soil and plain soil were also

seized from the spot vide Ex.P/11, thereby conclusively

establishing the place of occurrence. The defence has failed to

suggest any plausible explanation as to how the blood of the

deceased came to be present on the seized articles, particularly

when the chemical examination report (Ex.P/28) confirmed the

24

presence of human blood.

56.The place of incident has been duly proved through spot maps

Ex.P/15, Ex.P/26, and the Patwari map Ex.P/14-B, all of which

consistently point towards the same location. No contradiction of

material nature has been brought out during cross-examination to

discredit the prosecution version regarding the place of

occurrence. Thus, the situs of the crime stands firmly established.

57.The medical evidence lends strong corroboration to the

prosecution case. As discussed earlier, Dr. Suryakant Tiwari (PW-

17), who conducted the postmortem examination, has

categorically opined vide Ex.P/20 that the deceased sustained

multiple grievous injuries on the head and face, resulting in

fracture of cranial bones and damage to brain tissue. The cause

of death was opined to be coma due to head injuries, and the

nature of death was homicidal. In his query report Ex.P/23, the

doctor has further opined that the injuries were possible by the

bamboo stick recovered at the instance of the accused, thereby

furnishing direct medical corroboration to the recovery evidence.

58.The cumulative effect of the ocular version of PW-1 regarding the

immediate aftermath of the incident, the memorandum and

recoveries made at the instance of the accused, the forensic

corroboration, and the unimpeached medical opinion forms a

complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the

guilt of the accused. The defence has failed to offer any

25

alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence.

59.Reverting to the factual matrix of the present case, the evidence

on record indicates that the incident was not the outcome of any

premeditated design. There is no material to suggest that the

accused was armed in advance with the intention to kill the

deceased. The incident appears to have arisen out of a sudden

quarrel, during which, in the heat of passion, the accused

assaulted the deceased with a bamboo stick.

60.There is nothing on record to show that the accused had taken

undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner beyond

the scope of the sudden altercation. Though the injuries inflicted

proved fatal, the circumstances clearly suggest absence of pre-

planning or prior intention to commit murder.

61.At the same time, considering the nature of the weapon used and

the fact that the blows were inflicted on a vital part of the body,

namely the head, it can reasonably be inferred that the accused

had the knowledge that such acts were likely to cause death.

Therefore, while the element of intention to cause death is not

fully established, the knowledge contemplated under Section 299

IPC stands proved.

62.The conditions required for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300

IPC, namely: (i) sudden quarrel, (ii) absence of premeditation, (iii)

commission of the act in the heat of passion, and (iv) not taking

undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, are

26

clearly satisfied in the present case. Consequently, the offence

committed by the accused would amount to culpable homicide not

amounting to murder.

63.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that though the accused Hameshwar Sahu @ Badshah is

the author of the injuries which resulted in the death of Roshan

Khare @ Nanku, the offence would fall under Section 304 Part-I

IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of

the accused under Section 302 IPC deserves to be altered.

64.Resultantly, the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC

is set aside and he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner of its

commission, and all attending circumstances, the accused is

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10

years. The fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. The

appellant is stated to be in jail since 02.11.2019 being the date of

arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified

above.

65.The criminal appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated

hereinabove.

66.Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along

with the original record of the case to the trial Court concerned

forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send

a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail

27

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 an

appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the

assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the

Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Anu