[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Meshram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:16591-DB
ANURADHA
NAFR
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.13
10:22:43
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2190 of 2023
Prakash Meshram S/o Chanda Meshram Aged About 34 Years Resident
Of Gola Bahara, Pasan, Police Station Pasan, District Korba (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police of Police Station Pasan, District
Korba (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Soumya Rai, 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
10.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellant as well
as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondent.
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 as the appellant is in jail
since 23.05.2022.
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 31.10.2023 passed by the learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba
(C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.50/2022, by which the appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for one
month.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.05.2022, an
information was lodged at Police Station Gaurela by the informant
regarding the death of deceased Itwar Singh Gond, who had
sustained a head injury and succumbed to the same at District
Hospital, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi. On the basis of the said
information, merg intimation (Ex. P/20) was registered and the
police initiated inquest proceedings. During the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest
report/panchayatnama (Ex. P/22) in the presence of witnesses
after summoning panch witnesses under Section 175 Cr.P.C. (Ex.
P/21). The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem
examination vide application (Ex. P/23), and the postmortem
report (Ex. P/15 and short PM report Ex. P/27) revealed that the
death was homicidal in nature caused by head injury.
6. Since the incident fell within the jurisdiction of the concerned
police station, merg inquiry was converted into a regular criminal
case, and FIR (Ex. P/24) was registered against the accused for
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. During investigation,
the spot map (Ex. P/09) was prepared based on the statements of
witnesses, and a detailed map was also obtained through the
Patwari (Ex. P/30). From the place of occurrence, blood-stained
soil and plain soil were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/02 &
P/03) in presence of witnesses. The accused was taken into
custody and his memorandum statement (Ex. P/01) was recorded
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein he disclosed that
he had committed the murder of the deceased and had concealed
the weapon of offence and the clothes worn at the time of
incident. Pursuant to the said memorandum, a wooden stick
(weapon of offence) and a blue T-shirt were recovered at the
instance of the accused vide seizure memo (Ex. P/02 & P/03).
The seized articles were sent for medical examination and
chemical analysis. The medical examination of the seized stick
and clothes was conducted vide Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18. The
articles were further sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Bilaspur, vide Ex. P/31, and the FSL report (Ex. P/33) was
obtained. The prosecution also collected medical documents
relating to treatment of the deceased including indoor slip (Ex.
P/11), discharge/referral slip (Ex. P/12), OPD slip (Ex. P/13), and
intimation of death (Ex. P/14). The accused was arrested (Ex.
P/04 and Ex. P/25), and after recording statements of witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. P/06 to P/10, P/19), and
completing all formalities, a charge-sheet was filed before the
competent Court.
7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses
including eyewitnesses and seizure witnesses, namely PW-1
Sukhamat Bai, PW-2 Rameshwar and PW-9 Mangal Singh as well
as exhibited 33 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/33. In order to
defence, appellant/accused neither examined any witness nor
exhibited any document.
8. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the accused before the jurisdictional criminal Court for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Since the offence under
Section 302 IPC is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions,
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora committed
the case to the Court of Sessions, Korba, from where it was
received for trial to the Court of Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Katghora, District Korba for disposal.
9. The charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the
accused, which was read over and explained to him. The accused
denied the charge and pleaded innocence. 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.
10. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 31.10.2023
convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the
fourth paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this criminal appeal has
been filed.
11. Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that
the prosecution story, even if taken at its face value, is based
entirely on a chain of circumstances which is neither complete nor
consistent so as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the
appellant. It is contended that the case originates from a merg
intimation dated 22.05.2022, wherein information was given
regarding the death of deceased Itwar Singh Gond due to a head
injury at District Hospital, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi. The learned
counsel submits that the initial registration of merg (Ex. P/20) itself
indicates that the cause of death was not immediately known to
be homicidal, and only subsequently, after inquest proceedings
(Ex. P/22) and postmortem examination (Ex. P/15 and Ex. P/27),
the prosecution sought to convert the same into an offence under
Section 302 IPC. It is argued that such conversion, without any
direct ocular account or immediate incriminating material, casts a
serious doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case.
12. It is further submitted by Mr. Khare that the entire case of the
prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, however, the
essential links in the chain are conspicuously missing. The
preparation of the spot map (Ex. P/09) and the Patwari map (Ex.
P/30), along with seizure of blood-stained and plain soil (Ex. P/02
& P/03), do not, in any manner, connect the appellant with the
alleged crime. There is no credible evidence to establish that the
seized articles were linked to the appellant or that the alleged
place of occurrence was conclusively proved. The learned
counsel emphasizes that the prosecution has failed to establish
the exact manner in which the incident occurred or the presence
of the appellant at the relevant time.
13. Mr. Khare further submits that the alleged memorandum
statement of the appellant (Ex. P/01) and the consequent
recovery of a wooden stick and a blue T-shirt are wholly unreliable
and do not inspire confidence. It is contended that the recovery
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in material
particulars, and the recovery itself is doubtful. Moreover, the
prosecution has failed to establish a clear and cogent link
between the seized articles and the crime, inasmuch as the
medical examination reports (Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18) and the FSL
report (Ex. P/33) do not conclusively connect the alleged weapon
or clothes with the commission of the offence. Thus, the alleged
discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act loses its
evidentiary value.
14. It is also contended by Mr. Khare that although the prosecution
has placed reliance on medical documents, including indoor slip
(Ex. P/11), discharge/referral slip (Ex. P/12), OPD slip (Ex. P/13),
and intimation of death (Ex. P/14), the same merely establish that
the deceased had sustained injuries and subsequently died, but
they do not, by themselves, implicate the appellant. The
prosecution witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.
P/06 to P/10 and P/19) have not provided any direct or reliable
evidence against the appellant. In absence of any eyewitness
account or strong circumstantial evidence, the learned counsel
submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
15. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Khare that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The statement of the
appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. clearly reflects his
innocence, and no defence evidence was required in view of the
weak prosecution case. It is argued that the learned trial Court
has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and
has erroneously convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
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 23.05.2022 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.
16. Per contra, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel, has
supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, and submits that the prosecution has successfully
proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent,
reliable and clinching evidence. He submits that the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature, as duly established by the
medical evidence, particularly the postmortem report (Ex. P/15
and Ex. P/27), which clearly indicates that the death was caused
due to a fatal head injury. The medical testimony of PW-07 and
PW-08 fully corroborates the prosecution case and leaves no
room for doubt regarding the cause of death. It is further
contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete
and consistent, pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the
appellant. The learned State counsel submits that the
memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex. P/01), recorded
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, led to the recovery of the
weapon of offence, i.e., a wooden stick, and the clothes worn by
the appellant at the time of the incident, vide seizure memo (Ex.
P/02 & P/03). The said recovery, made at the instance of the
appellant, constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance against
him, which has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses.
17. Mr. Rai submits that the seized articles were subjected to medical
and forensic examination, and the reports (Ex. P/17, Ex. P/18,
and FSL report Ex. P/33) lend corroboration to the prosecution
case. The presence of blood stains and the nature of injuries are
consistent with the use of the seized weapon, thereby establishing
a direct nexus between the appellant and the crime. The spot map
(Ex. P/09) and other documentary evidence further support the
prosecution version regarding the place and manner of
occurrence. He also contends that the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, including PW-01 to PW-06 and PW-09 to PW-11, are
consistent and inspire confidence. Minor discrepancies, if any, are
natural and do not go to the root of the matter. The Investigating
Officer (PW-12) has duly proved the steps taken during
investigation, and no material contradiction has been elicited in
his cross-examination so as to discredit the prosecution case. It is
thus submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence on record and has correctly
arrived at the finding of guilt against the appellant. There is no
perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting
interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.
18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced hereinabove. We have also carefully and
minutely perused the entire record of the case, including the
pleadings, documentary evidence, and material brought on
record, with utmost circumspection.
Points for Determination
• Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the death of deceased Itwar Singh was homicidal in
nature?
• Whether the prosecution has further proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused 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
19. This Court has given its anxious and thoughtful consideration to
the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on
record, particularly the medical evidence, inquest proceedings,
and the testimonies of material prosecution witnesses, for the
purpose of determining the nature of death of deceased Itwar
Singh.
20. At the outset, it is borne out from the record that on the date of
incident, the deceased was found in an injured condition in the
courtyard of the accused. PW-03 Laluaa Markam, father of the
deceased, has categorically deposed that he saw the deceased
lying in an injured state with visible injuries on his head and back,
and there was profuse bleeding from his body. His testimony finds
full corroboration from PW-04 Premwati, who has also stated that
the deceased was in a grievously injured condition and was
immediately taken for medical treatment to Gaurela-Pendra
Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries during the course of
treatment. Both these witnesses have remained consistent in their
version, and nothing material has been elicited in their cross-
examination to discredit their testimony.
21. The medical evidence further strengthens the prosecution case.
PW-07 Dr. Simant Rai has deposed that on 20.05.2022, the
deceased was brought to the Primary Health Centre, Pasan, in a
critical condition with a history of physical assault and head injury.
Considering the seriousness of the injuries, he referred the
deceased to District Hospital, Gaurela-Pendra, where he was
provided necessary treatment, as reflected from indoor admission
slips (Ex. P/11 & Ex. P/12). The doctor has further stated that
although the deceased was advised to be referred to Bilaspur for
advanced treatment, the relatives could not take him there, and
eventually, on 22.05.2022, the deceased died during treatment.
The intimation of death was accordingly sent (Ex. P/14). The
testimony of this witness has remained unshaken in cross-
examination.
22. The inquest proceedings were conducted by PW-10 Kuldeep
Chaturvedi, who has proved the merg intimation (Ex. P/20), notice
to witnesses (Ex. P/21), and inquest report (Ex. P/22). The
inquest report clearly records that upon inspection of the dead
body, injuries were found on the head near the left ear, where
dressing was present, and also on the back portion of the body.
The inquest witnesses opined that the injuries appeared to have
been caused due to assault, and accordingly recommended
postmortem examination to ascertain the exact cause of death.
The inquest proceedings have been duly supported by PW-11
Samal Singh, who has affirmed that the inquest was conducted in
his presence.
23. The postmortem examination was conducted by PW-08 Dr. B.S.
Paikra, who has proved the postmortem report (Ex. P/15 and Ex.
P/27). As per his deposition, on external examination, multiple
injuries were found on the body of the deceased, including a
lacerated wound near the left ear, contusion on the parietal region
of the head measuring approximately 5 × 3 cm, abrasions on the
cheek, and multiple injuries marks on the back and chest. On
internal examination, fracture of the parietal bone and
accumulation of blood within the cranial cavity were found,
indicating severe head trauma. The doctor has categorically
opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and that the
death occurred due to coma resulting from head injuries. He has
further opined that the nature of death was homicidal and that the
death occurred approximately 20-21 hours prior to the
postmortem examination. Importantly, no contradiction or
inconsistency has been brought out in the cross-examination of
this witness so as to discredit his expert opinion.
24. From the cumulative appreciation of the testimonies of PW-03
Laluaa Markam, PW-04 Premwati, PW-07 Dr. Simant Rai, PW-08
Dr. B.S. Paikra, along with the documentary evidence including
inquest report (Ex. P/22), medical documents (Ex. P/11 to Ex.
P/14), and postmortem report (Ex. P/15 & Ex. P/27), it stands
clearly established that the deceased had sustained multiple
grievous injuries, particularly on the head, which were sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
25. The nature, number, and location of injuries, especially the
fracture of the skull and internal bleeding in the brain, clearly rule
out any possibility of accidental or natural death. The medical
evidence is consistent, cogent, and trustworthy, and fully
corroborates the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding
the deceased having been subjected to a violent assault.
26. In view of the aforesaid evidence, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has successfully established that the
death of Itwar Singh was homicidal in nature.
27. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative.
Answer to Point No.2
28. In the present case, upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the
entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution
case is founded primarily on circumstantial evidence, which is
sought to be established through a combination of oral testimony,
documentary evidence, medical opinion and scientific
examination. In such cases, it is trite that each circumstance must
be firmly proved and the chain of circumstances must be so
complete as to exclude every hypothesis consistent with the
innocence of the accused. It is, therefore, necessary to examine
each incriminating circumstance in detail.
29. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to evaluate the evidence and
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.
(A) Place of Occurrence and Discovery of Injured Body
30. The prosecution has proved the spot map (Ex.P/5) and the
Patwari map (Ex.P/9), both of which consistently depict the place
of occurrence as the courtyard (angan/badi) of the appellant.
These maps clearly show that the said place is an open space
attached to the residential premises of the appellant and situated
adjacent to a village pathway.
31. Significantly, both documents record that the injured and blood-
stained body of the deceased was found lying at the said spot.
The description in Ex.P/5 further clarifies that the place is under
the possession and control of the appellant. Despite detailed
cross-examination, no material contradiction or discrepancy has
been brought on record so as to create any doubt regarding the
place of occurrence.
32. The defence has not been able to probabilize that the said place
was accessible to the general public in such a manner as to dilute
the exclusive nexus of the appellant with the spot. Thus, it stands
firmly established that the deceased was found in a grievously
injured condition within the courtyard of the appellant, which is a
highly incriminating circumstance.
(B) Evidence of PW-03 Lalluram Markam
33. PW-03 Lalluram Markam, who is a material witness, has deposed
that on the night of the incident, at about 10:00-11:00 PM, the
appellant had called the deceased to his house. This part of the
testimony remains consistent and has not been shaken in cross-
examination.
34. Though the witness has admitted in cross-examination that he
reached the spot on the following morning, such admission does
not dilute the evidentiary value of his statement regarding the
appellant having called the deceased. This fact finds
corroboration from his earlier statement recorded during
investigation (Ex.P/8), thereby lending assurance to his testimony.
35. The presence of the deceased in the house/angan of the
appellant pursuant to such call constitutes a crucial link in the
chain of circumstances and establishes the "last seen"
circumstance.
(C) Evidence of PW-04 Premvati
36. PW-04 Premvati has also supported the prosecution case by
deposing that the deceased resided in proximity to the appellant
and had gone towards his house on the date of the incident. She
has further stated that the deceased was found lying in an injured
condition in the courtyard of the appellant.
37. It has been elicited in her cross-examination that certain details
were not stated before the police, including the fact relating to the
deceased being found on a cot. However, such omissions are not
material in nature and do not affect the substratum of the
prosecution case.
38. Her testimony that the police were informed and that the
deceased was taken to the hospital through ambulance remains
unchallenged. The defence has failed to impeach her credibility
on any substantial ground. Thus, her evidence corroborates the
presence of the deceased in the appellant's premises and the
immediate aftermath of the incident.
(D) Effect of Minor Contradictions and Omissions
39. The so-called omissions brought out in the cross-examination of
PW-03 and PW-04 pertain only to peripheral aspects and do not
go to the root of the matter. It is well settled that minor
discrepancies are bound to occur due to normal errors of
observation, memory and narration.
40. In the present case, the core facts, namely, that the appellant had
called the deceased and that the deceased was found grievously
injured in the appellant's courtyard, remain intact and unshaken.
Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on account of such
minor inconsistencies.
(E) Hostile Witnesses - PW-01, PW-02 and PW-09
41. The prosecution has examined PW-01, PW-02 and PW-09 as
witnesses to the memorandum and seizure proceedings. These
witnesses, however, have not supported the prosecution case and
have been declared hostile. It is a settled principle of law that the
testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto and can
be relied upon to the extent it is found to be credible. In the
present case, although these witnesses have denied the seizure
and memorandum proceedings, they have not been able to
furnish any plausible explanation for their departure from their
earlier statements.
42. More importantly, the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-
12) remains consistent and cogent. He has clearly deposed
regarding the recording of memorandum statement (Ex.P/1) and
the recovery of incriminating articles vide seizure memo (Ex.P/2).
Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination to
discredit his version.
43. There is no suggestion of any enmity or motive on the part of the
Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the appellant. In such
circumstances, the official testimony of the Investigating Officer
inspires confidence and can safely be relied upon.
(F) Recovery of Weapon and Clothes
44. The Investigating Officer (PW-12) has proved that on 23.05.2022,
the appellant made a disclosure statement (Ex.P/1) under Section
27 of the Evidence Act, pursuant to which a wooden stick used in
the commission of the offence and the blood-stained clothes of
the appellant were recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P/2).
45. The recovery has been effected at the instance of the appellant
and is, therefore, admissible and constitutes a strong incriminating
circumstance. The defence has failed to create any dent in this
recovery during cross-examination.
(G) Medical Opinion and Forensic Evidence
46. The seized articles were sent for medical opinion and chemical
examination. PW-08, the medical expert, has opined that the
injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the seized
wooden stick. This opinion directly connects the weapon with the
injuries. Further, the FSL report (Ex.P/33) confirms that human
blood was found on the seized wooden stick as well as on the
clothes of the appellant. This scientific evidence lends strong
corroboration to the prosecution case.
47. Significantly, the appellant has not offered any explanation as to
how human blood came to be present on the seized articles. In
absence of any explanation, this circumstance assumes great
probative value and forms a vital link in the chain of evidence.
(H) Last Seen Theory and Section 106 Evidence Act
48. The prosecution has successfully established that the deceased
was last seen alive in the company of the appellant, having been
called by him to his house, and thereafter his injured body was
found in the appellant's courtyard. Once such a circumstance is
proved, the burden shifts upon the appellant under Section 106 of
the Evidence Act to explain the facts which are especially within
his knowledge, namely, as to how the deceased sustained injuries
within his premises. The appellant has failed to discharge this
burden. No explanation whatsoever has been offered either
during cross-examination of witnesses or in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. This failure provides an additional link in the
chain of circumstances.
(I) Conduct of the Appellant
49. The conduct of the appellant also assumes significance. The
evidence on record indicates that after the incident, the appellant
did not take any steps to provide medical assistance to the
deceased nor did he inform the authorities. His silence and
inaction, coupled with his failure to explain the incriminating
circumstances, are indicative of a guilty mind and further
strengthen the prosecution case.
(J) Completion of Chain of Circumstances
50. From the cumulative analysis of the evidence on record, the
following circumstances stand firmly established:
• The deceased sustained homicidal injuries;
• The appellant had called the deceased to his house;
• The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the
appellant;
• The injured body of the deceased was found in the courtyard
of the appellant;
• Recovery of the blood-stained wooden stick and clothes at the
instance of the appellant;
• Medical evidence establishing that the injuries could be
caused by the seized weapon;
• FSL report confirming presence of human blood on the seized
articles;
• Failure of the appellant to explain the incriminating
circumstances.
51. The aforesaid circumstances are of a conclusive nature and form
a complete and unbroken chain, which is consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. They exclude every
possible hypothesis consistent with innocence.
52. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that in all
human probability, it was the appellant who caused fatal injuries to
the deceased, leading to his death.
53. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.
54. 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 ?
55. 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
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
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
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
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
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.
(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."
56. The prosecution case in the present matter rests predominantly
on circumstantial evidence, duly supported by medical and
scientific corroboration. The evidence on record establishes that
on 22.05.2022, the deceased Itwar Singh Gond sustained a fatal
head injury and succumbed to the same during treatment at
District Hospital, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi. The merg intimation
(Ex. P/20) was promptly recorded, followed by inquest
proceedings (Ex. P/22), which noted the injuries on the person of
the deceased. The postmortem report (Ex. P/15 and Ex. P/27)
unequivocally opines that the death was homicidal in nature and
caused due to a head injury, thereby establishing the foundational
fact of homicidal death.
57. During the course of investigation, the appellant was taken into
custody and his memorandum statement (Ex. P/01) was recorded
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein he disclosed his
involvement in the incident and the concealment of the weapon of
offence and the clothes worn at the time of the occurrence.
Pursuant thereto, a wooden stick and a blue T-shirt were
recovered at his instance vide seizure memos (Ex. P/02 and Ex.
P/03). The recovery has been duly proved by the prosecution
witnesses and the Investigating Officer, and constitutes a
significant incriminating circumstance against the appellant.
58. The seized articles were subjected to medical and forensic
examination. The medical reports (Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18) and the
FSL report (Ex. P/33) confirm the presence of blood on the seized
articles. The appellant has failed to offer any plausible explanation
regarding the presence of blood on the weapon of offence and his
clothes, thereby strengthening the chain of circumstances pointing
towards his guilt. Further, the seizure of blood-stained soil from
the place of occurrence and preparation of the spot map (Ex.
P/09) and Patwari map (Ex. P/30) lend corroboration to the
prosecution version regarding the situs of the incident.
59. The medical evidence assumes great significance in the present
case. The postmortem report clearly reveals that the deceased
sustained a serious head injury, which was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. The nature and extent
of injury are consistent with the use of a hard and blunt object like
a wooden stick, which was recovered at the instance of the
appellant. Thus, the medical evidence fully supports and
corroborates the prosecution case.
60. The cumulative effect of the circumstances established on record,
namely the homicidal death, recovery of the weapon and blood-
stained clothes at the instance of the appellant, corroborative
medical and forensic evidence, and absence of any explanation
from the appellant, forms a complete chain pointing unerringly
towards the guilt of the appellant. The defence has failed to create
any reasonable doubt or to probabilize any alternative hypothesis
consistent with innocence.
61. However, upon careful consideration of the entire factual matrix,
this Court finds that the incident appears to have occurred in the
course of a sudden altercation. There is no material on record to
indicate any prior enmity or premeditation on the part of the
appellant. The evidence suggests that the assault was not
repeated and was limited in nature. The use of a wooden stick
available at the spot and the infliction of a single fatal blow
indicate absence of any calculated or pre-planned intention to
commit murder.
62. In such circumstances, though the appellant can safely be
attributed with the knowledge that inflicting a blow on the head is
likely to cause death, the prosecution has not been able to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to
cause death or such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. The case, therefore, falls within
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, being an act committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
63. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not
sustainable in the facts of the present case. While the authorship
of the injury by the appellant stands proved, the nature of the
offence would fall within the ambit of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
64. Accordingly, while affirming the finding that the appellant caused
the fatal injury resulting in the death of deceased Itwar Singh
Gond, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and is
altered to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
65. 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 23.05.2022 being the date of
arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified
above.
66. The criminal appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
67. 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
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.
68. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record
be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
