1

CGHC010086182022 2026:CGHC:34455-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 459 of 2022

Sitaram Sidar S/o Bhawar Singh Sidar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village

Garhumriya, Police Chowki Jutmil, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,

District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

... Appellant(s)

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raigarh, District

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

...Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate

General.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

06 .08.2026

1.Heard Mr. S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr.

Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the

State/respondent.

2

2.This criminal appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CrPC"), is directed against

the impugned judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed by the learned 2

nd

Upper Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) (for short, "the trial Court"), in

Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been

convicted and sentenced as follows:

Conviction under Section Sentence

Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’)

Rigorous imprisonment (for short,

‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in

default of payment of fine, 02

months R.I. more.

Section 201 of the IPC R.I. for 03 years and fine of

Rs.100/-, in default of payment of

fine, 01 month R.I. more.

3.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Pramod

Kumar Sao (PW-1), appeared at Jut Mill Police Outpost on 20.07.2019

and lodged an oral report, which was initially registered as Crime

No.0/2019. He stated that he is a resident of Village Gadh Umaria and

is employed at Jindal Steel Plant, Patrapali, Raigarh. On the date of the

incident, after returning home from work at about 2:30 p.m., he had his

meal and was resting. At that time, his nephew, Prince Sao (PW-3), and

his son, Hansraj (PW-11), were playing outside the house, while his

mother, Tirith Kunwar Sao (since deceased), was sweeping the

courtyard. At about 3:40 p.m., the appellant, Sitaram Sidar, allegedly

arrived carrying a sharp-edged iron tangi (axe) and accused the

3

deceased of regularly sweeping garbage towards his house. The

deceased denied the allegation, stating that the garbage was being

swept towards her own side. Enraged by the response, the appellant

allegedly assaulted the deceased with the tangi and dealt a blow on the

right side of her neck, causing a deep incised injury, as a result of which

she collapsed on the spot in a pool of blood.

4.On witnessing the occurrence, Prince Sao (PW-3) and Hansraj

(PW-11) immediately informed the complainant. Thereafter, the

complainant, along with his wife Nutan Sao (PW-2) and other villagers,

shifted the injured to KGH Hospital, Raigarh, in a Bolero vehicle

belonging to Santosh Bhardwaj. Upon examination, the attending doctor

declared her dead. The complainant, therefore, reported that the

appellant had assaulted his mother with a tangi, resulting in her death.

5.The aforesaid report was initially registered as a Zero FIR and

was thereafter transmitted to Police Station Kotwali, District Raigarh,

where FIR No. 558/2019 came to be registered against the appellant for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Investigation

thereafter commenced in accordance with law.

6.Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer

found sufficient material to prosecute the appellant for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. A charge-sheet was

accordingly filed before the competent Magistrate, who, after taking

cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

7.The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant

4

under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The charges were read over

and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

8.The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC,

wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against

him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication.

9.In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined 22

witnesses and exhibited 38 documents. In defence, the appellant relied

upon Exhibits D/1, D/2 and D/3.

10.Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated

09.12.2021, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly.

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

11.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the

findings recorded by the learned trial Court are contrary to the evidence

available on record and are, therefore, unsustainable in law. It is

contended that even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety,

the material on record unmistakably demonstrates that the occurrence

arose out of a sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased

on a trivial issue relating to the sweeping of garbage. According to

learned counsel, there was neither any premeditation nor any previous

enmity which would indicate a pre-conceived intention to commit

murder. It is urged that the incident occurred in the heat of passion upon

5

a sudden exchange of words, and the appellant neither took undue

advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner so as to exclude the

application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

12.Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, having

regard to the attending circumstances, the offence, if any, would amount

only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under

Section 304 Part I or, in the alternative, Section 304 Part II of the IPC,

and not murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It is,

therefore, prayed that the conviction and sentence awarded by the

learned trial Court be suitably modified.

13.Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned

judgment and submits that the prosecution has succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by

leading cogent, reliable and trustworthy oral as well as documentary

evidence. It is submitted that the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses

is wholly consistent with the medical evidence and stands duly

corroborated by the recovery of the weapon of offence and the scientific

evidence brought on record. He further submits that the appellant

intentionally inflicted a forceful blow with a sharp-edged tangi on the

neck of the deceased, which is a vital part of the human body. The

nature of the weapon employed, the seat of the injury, the force with

which the assault was made, and the severity of the injuries leave no

manner of doubt that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury

as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is,

6

therefore, contended that the case does not fall within any of the

Exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, much less Exception 4, and that

the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section

302 of the IPC. No interference with the impugned judgment is,

therefore, warranted.

14.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable

length and have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence available on

record.

15.The first question that falls for our consideration is whether the

death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

16.In order to establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal

in nature, the prosecution examined Dr. Devraj Behra (PW-15), who

conducted the postmortem examination. He deposed that on

20.07.2019, the dead body of the deceased, Tirith Kunwar, was brought

before him by Constable Dhaneshwar Prasad Oraon (No. 636) of Jut

Mill Police Outpost for postmortem examination. Upon conducting the

autopsy, he prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P/7).

17.PW-15 found multiple ante-mortem incised injuries on the neck,

chest and back of the deceased, all caused by a hard, heavy and sharp-

edged weapon. The injuries had severed the skin, muscles, blood

vessels and nerves at places and were accompanied by profuse

bleeding. The clothes worn by the deceased were found stained with

blood, and her blood sample was preserved and handed over to the

police for chemical examination.

7

18.According to PW-15, the deceased died due to haemorrhagic

shock resulting from excessive bleeding caused by the injuries inflicted

by a hard, heavy and sharp-edged weapon. He categorically opined that

the death was homicidal in nature and that the injuries were sufficient, in

the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. PW-15 further deposed

that a sealed tangi (axe) was subsequently produced before him for

examination, in respect whereof he prepared the Query Report

(Ex.P/19). He opined that the injuries noticed on the body of the

deceased could have been caused by the said weapon and that such

injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

19.The testimony of PW-15 has remained substantially unshaken in

cross-examination. Nothing material has been elicited to discredit his

medical opinion or to cast any doubt on the findings recorded in the

postmortem report (Ex.P/7) and the Query Report (Ex.P/19). In the

absence of any material contradiction or infirmity, this Court finds no

reason to discard the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.

20.Thus, the medical evidence on record unequivocally establishes

that the deceased sustained multiple ante-mortem incised injuries

caused by a hard, heavy and sharp-edged weapon, resulting in

haemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding. The medical evidence

fully corroborates the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses and

leaves no manner of doubt that the death of the deceased was

homicidal in nature.

21.Having held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that

8

the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, the next question

that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances

of the present case, the offence committed by the appellant would

amount to murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC or whether

the case is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, thereby

attracting Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC, as contended on

behalf of the appellant.

22.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v.

State of Haryana

1

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

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

9

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.”

23.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v.

State of Haryana

2

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;

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

10

(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 ?

11

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.”

24.Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda

3

, 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.

25.Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v.

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

12

State of Chhattisgarh

4

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

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

13

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 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

14

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”.

26.In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Hon’ble 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.

27.Further, the Hon’ble 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

5(2019) 6 SCC 122

15

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.”

28.The complainant, Pramod Kumar Sao (PW-1), deposed that the

deceased, Tirith Kunwar, was his mother. On the date of the incident, he

had returned home from his duty at Jindal Steel Plant at about 2:30

p.m., had his meal and was resting inside the house. His wife, Nutan

Sao (PW-2), also stated that she was engaged in household work while

PW-1 was resting. Both PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that at about 3:30

p.m., their nephew Prince Sao (PW-3) and son Hansraj (PW-11), who

were playing outside the house, rushed inside and informed them that

the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a tangi. On coming out,

they found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with injuries on her

neck, while the appellant was standing nearby holding a blood-stained

tangi. On seeing them, the appellant left the spot carrying the weapon.

Thereafter, the deceased was immediately shifted to KGH Hospital,

Raigarh, where she was declared dead. PW-1 also proved the lodging

16

of the FIR (Ex.P/1), the inquest proceedings (Ex.P/4), the spot map

(Ex.P/8), and the seizure memos relating to blood-stained and plain soil,

a blood-stained pillow and the DVR (Exs.P/9, P/10 and P/14). Though

PW-1 and PW-2 are not eyewitnesses to the actual assault, their

evidence consistently establishes that immediately after the occurrence

they saw the appellant at the spot holding a blood-stained tangi, and

nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit

this part of their testimony.

29.The testimony of Thandaram Mehar (PW-4) and Kajal Mehar

(PW-5) lends further assurance to the prosecution case. Both witnesses

reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident upon

hearing cries from the locality. They found the deceased lying in a pool

of blood in front of her house and saw the appellant carrying a tangi

while proceeding towards his house. Although they candidly admitted

that they had not witnessed the actual assault, their evidence regarding

the appellant's presence at the spot immediately after the occurrence

has remained unshaken during cross-examination and corroborates the

version of PW-1 and PW-2.

30.The prosecution has also examined Rameshwar Mehar (PW-9), a

witness to the memorandum and seizure proceedings. He deposed that,

pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/11), the

appellant led the police to his house and produced the tangi, which was

seized under Ex.P/12. Despite detailed cross-examination, no material

contradiction or infirmity has been brought on record so as to discredit

17

his testimony. The recovery of the weapon at the instance of the

appellant, therefore, stands duly established.

31.The prosecution case is further supported by the testimonies of

the child eyewitnesses, Prince Sao (PW-3) and Hansraj Sao (PW-11).

Both witnesses consistently deposed that while they were playing

outside the house, the appellant came armed with a tangi and

questioned the deceased for allegedly throwing garbage towards his

house. When the deceased denied the allegation, the appellant, in a fit

of anger, assaulted her with the tangi on her neck and back, causing her

to fall on the spot. They immediately informed their family members,

who shifted the deceased to the hospital, where she succumbed to the

injuries. Nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross-examination

to discredit their testimony, and their version finds complete

corroboration from the medical evidence as well as the surrounding

circumstances.

32.The prosecution has further proved the seizure of the blood-

stained clothes of the deceased, the blood-stained pillow, the tangi

recovered at the instance of the appellant, and the blood-stained soil

from the place of occurrence. The articles were forwarded for forensic

examination, and the FSL Report (Ex.P/35) reveals the presence of

human blood on the seized tangi as well as on the other incriminating

articles. The said report has not been challenged by the defence. The

forensic evidence, therefore, lends further corroboration to the

prosecution case and strengthens the conclusion that the offence was

18

committed by the appellant using the seized tangi.

33.Reverting to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the

prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that

it was the appellant who inflicted the fatal injuries upon the deceased.

The ocular testimony of the child eyewitnesses, duly corroborated by

the medical and forensic evidence, leaves no manner of doubt

regarding the complicity of the appellant. However, the material on

record does not indicate that the occurrence was the result of any

premeditated design or prior planning. On the contrary, the evidence

establishes that the incident arose all of a sudden on account of a trivial

quarrel relating to the sweeping of garbage, during which the appellant,

in the heat of passion, assaulted the deceased with a tangi.

34.The evidence on record further reveals that immediately prior to

the occurrence, an altercation had taken place between the appellant

and the deceased regarding the disposal of garbage. The prosecution

has not brought on record any material to indicate that the appellant had

any prior enmity with the deceased or that he had come to the spot with

a pre-conceived intention of committing her murder. The occurrence

appears to have taken place in the course of a sudden quarrel, without

sufficient time for reflection. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked

that the appellant used a sharp-edged tangi and dealt a forceful blow on

the neck of the deceased, which is a vital part of the human body.

35.In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts and

circumstances of the case satisfy the ingredients of Exception 4 to

19

Section 300 of the IPC. The incident was the outcome of a sudden

quarrel; there was no premeditation; the assault was made in the heat

of passion; and the prosecution has not established that the appellant

acted pursuant to any prior design. Nevertheless, having regard to the

nature of the weapon used, the seat of the injury and the manner in

which the blow was inflicted, it is evident that the appellant intended to

cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Consequently, the

offence would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part I of the IPC and

not Section 302 of the IPC.

36.Accordingly, while the conviction of the appellant under Section

302 of the IPC is liable to be altered to one under Section 304 Part I of

the IPC, his conviction under Section 201 of the IPC does not call for

any interference and is accordingly affirmed.

37.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of

the IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. The

appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for period of ten 10 years. The

fine imposed by the learned trial Court for the said offence, along with

the default stipulation, shall remain unaltered. However, the conviction

and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 201 of the IPC,

including the fine imposed thereunder, are affirmed.

38.In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds in part

and is, accordingly, partly allowed. The impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2021 stand modified only

to the extent that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of

20

the IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, with the

sentence indicated hereinabove. In all other respects, including the

conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the IPC, the impugned

judgment is affirmed.

39.The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the

Superintendent of the concerned Jail for compliance and to inform the

appellant that he is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services

Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

40.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record

be sent to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and

necessary compliance.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Brijmohan