[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Gorelal Kol vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16589-DB
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
KAUR
NAFR
Date: 2026.04.15
10:47:08 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1501 of 2023
1 - Gorelal Kol S/o Suruj Lal Kol Aged About 47 Years R/o- Village-
Bhandhakhar, P.S.- Pali, District- Korba, C.G.
2 - Murit Ram Kol S/o Suruj Lal Kol Aged About 32 Years R/o- Village-
Bhandhakhar, P.S.- Pali, District- Korba, C.G.
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Aarakshi Kendra, Pali,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
10.04.2026
1. Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the appellant, though on
adjustment today, appeared through video conferencing and
submitted that since the matter has been entrusted to him through
Legal Aid, no other advocate could appear on his behalf. Hence,
he appeared through VC to argue the matter.
2. The request made by the learned counsel for the appellant is
allowed, and the matter is heard finally.
3. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants-accused under Section
374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2023 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District- Korba
(C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 01/2021, whereby the appellants-
accused have been convicted for offence under Section 302/301
read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment for six months and under Section 307 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine
of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. (All the
sentences are directed to run concurrently).
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.09.2020, the
complainant Manohar Singh Maravi, son of the deceased,
appeared at Police Station- Pali and lodged a report stating that
his father, Chamra Singh Gond, was in the habit of frequently
visiting the house of Meena Bai Kol for consuming liquor. On
16.09.2020 at about 7:00-8:00 PM, the deceased had gone out of
the house but did not return during the night. On the next morning,
i.e., 17.09.2020 at about 8:00 AM, the village Sarpanch Tanu
Singh Maravi informed the complainant over mobile phone that his
father was lying dead in a blood-soaked condition inside the
house of Meena Bai.
5. Upon reaching the spot, the complainant found that his father was
lying dead in a room adjacent to the kitchen of Meena Bai's
house. There was profuse bleeding from the head of the
deceased, and blood had spread over the floor, with blood
splashes visible on the walls. At the same place, Shiv Singh Gond
was found in an injured condition sitting on a cot.
6. On being enquired, the injured Shiv Singh disclosed that during
the night, Gorelal Kol and Murit Ram Kol had assaulted the
deceased with a tangiya (axe-like weapon), resulting in his death,
and also caused injuries to him. Based on this information, the
offence was registered and investigation was set into motion.
7. During the course of investigation, on 20.09.2020, accused
Gorelal Kol made a memorandum statement under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act (Ex. P-5), wherein he disclosed that he had been
married to Meena Bai for about 14 years and they had a child. He
had objected to his wife selling liquor, but she did not agree and
allegedly assaulted him, due to which he left the house and
started living with his mother. He suspected that his wife Meena
Bai had developed illicit relations with Shiv Singh, who used to
visit her frequently for consuming liquor. About 10-12 days prior to
the incident, he had seen both of them in a compromising
position, after which he developed a grudge and decided to kill
them. He shared this intention with his younger brother, accused
Murit Ram Kol, who agreed to assist him.
8. On the evening of 16.09.2020, both the accused consumed liquor
and went to the house of Meena Bai. The accused Gorelal
entered the house by jumping over the wall, while Murit Ram
entered through the front door. Gorelal then took out a tangiya
kept inside the house and entered the room where, under the
mistaken belief that Meena Bai was lying there, he assaulted the
person sleeping on the ground (who was actually the deceased
Chamra Singh) by striking 3-4 blows on the head.
9. Thereafter, he assaulted Shiv Singh, who was sleeping on a cot
nearby, by inflicting 3-4 blows near his neck. Upon Shiv Singh
raising alarm, the accused threw the weapon in the courtyard and
fled from the spot. He later expressed his willingness to get the
weapon recovered.
10. During investigation, blood-stained soil, plain soil, clothes of the
deceased, bed-sheet, slippers and other articles were seized from
the spot (Ex. P-7). The weapon (tangiya) was recovered at the
instance of the accused (Ex. P-6). The seized articles were sent
for forensic examination, and reports (Ex. P-11, P-12, P-31) were
obtained confirming presence of human blood. Spot map and
inquest proceedings were duly prepared.
11. The postmortem of the deceased revealed multiple head injuries,
including one injury measuring 3 × 2 × 2 cm on the front of the
head and a deep wound measuring 6 × 3 × 3 cm on the posterior
side with fracture of skull bone. The cause of death was opined to
be homicidal in nature
12. The injured witness Shiv Singh was found to have swelling on the
front of the neck, multiple abrasions on the chest and a lacerated
wound on the back of the head measuring 10 × 4 × 1 cm, which
was grievous in nature. He was referred to District Hospital, Korba
for further treatment.
13. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on
03.12.2020 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pali, and
the case was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions.
14. Charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC were framed
against both accused persons. The accused denied the charges
and claimed trial. Their statements under Section 313 CrPC were
recorded, wherein they pleaded false implication and did not lead
any defence evidence.
15. The prosecution examined 20 witnesses, including the
complainant, injured eyewitness Shiv Singh, medical officers,
investigating officers, and other witnesses.
16. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 27.05.2023,
convicteds the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 and
307/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as aforementioned,
against which, this criminal appeal has been filed.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record and is
liable to be set aside. It is contended that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as there are
material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses, particularly the injured witness, which go
to the root of the case. It is further submitted that there was no
premeditation or intention on the part of the appellants to commit
the murder of the deceased, and as per the prosecution case
itself, the incident occurred in a sudden manner under the
influence of liquor and due to prior personal disputes. It is argued
that even as per the memorandum statement of appellant No. 1,
the assault on the deceased was not intentional but was under a
mistaken belief, as he intended to assault someone else, thereby
taking the case out of the ambit of Section 302 IPC. At the most,
the offence would fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. So far as
Appellant No. 2 is concerned, it is submitted that there is no
cogent and reliable evidence to establish his participation in the
alleged offence of murder, and his implication is based only on
weak and uncorroborated evidence. It is further submitted that the
alleged recovery and other circumstances do not conclusively
connect him with the crime. Therefore, it is prayed that the
conviction of appellant No. 1 be altered to a lesser offence and the
conviction of appellant No. 2 under Section 302 IPC be set aside,
and he be acquitted of the said charge or be extended the benefit
of doubt.
18. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned
judgment and submits that it is not a case where the appellants'
conviction under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC can be
altered/converted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC
and as such, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
19. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also
went through the records with utmost circumspection.
20. The first and foremost aspect which requires consideration is
whether the death of the deceased Chamra Singh Gond was
homicidal in nature.
21. In this regard, the prosecution has examined Dr. Hemant Kumar
Paikara (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem examination on
17.09.2020. He has deposed that the dead body of the deceased
was brought by Constable Rajesh Rathore of Police Station Pali
for examination. Upon examination, the doctor found the following
injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. An incised wound on the front side of the head
measuring 3 × 2 × 2 cm.
2. A deep lacerated wound on the back side of the head
measuring 6 × 3 × 3 cm.
3. Fracture of the skull bone on the posterior side of the
head.
22. The witness has further stated that other internal organs were
found to be normal, and partially digested food along with alcohol
was present in the stomach/intestine of the deceased. After
conducting the postmortem, he opined that the cause of death
was coma resulting from head injury caused by a hard and sharp
object, and that the nature of death was homicidal. The
postmortem report has been proved as Ex.P-13.
23. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that such injuries could
possibly occur due to a fall, particularly if the deceased was in an
intoxicated condition. However, this suggestion of the defence
does not inspire confidence. The nature, location and severity of
the injuries, particularly the deep wound on the posterior side of
the head accompanied by fracture of the skull clearly indicate the
application of significant external force.
24. Moreover, the defence has failed to suggest or establish any
specific circumstance as to how the deceased could have
sustained such injuries by accidental fall, nor has any evidence
been brought on record to show repeated falls or impact against
any sharp object. The presence of both frontal and posterior head
injuries further militates against the theory of a simple fall.
25. Additionally, in the query report (Ex.P-12), PW-13 has opined that
the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the
seized weapon (tangiya), which is a sharp and heavy object, and
that the death could have occurred due to such injuries.
26. In view of the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-
13 and the postmortem report (Ex.P-13), this Court finds no
reason to disbelieve the prosecution version. It is thus clearly
established that the deceased sustained fatal injuries by use of a
sharp and heavy weapon, and therefore, the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature
27. Having held that the death of the deceased Chamra Singh Gond
was homicidal in nature, the next question for consideration is
whether the accused-appellants, namely Gorelal Kol and Murit
Ram Kol, are the perpetrators of the crime in question, and
whether, on the date, time and place of the incident, they acted in
furtherance of a common intention in causing the fatal injuries to
the deceased and injuries to the injured witness Shiv Singh Gond.
28. It is also required to be examined whether the acts attributed to
the accused persons were committed with such intention or
knowledge as would attract the offence of murder, or whether the
nature and circumstances of the incident would bring the case
within a lesser offence.
29. In this regard, this Court has given its anxious and thoughtful
consideration to the entire oral and documentary evidence
brought on record by the prosecution. At the outset, it is to be
noted that the case of the prosecution rests substantially upon the
testimony of injured eyewitness Shiv Singh (PW-2), whose
presence at the scene of occurrence is not only natural but also
stands conclusively established from the record. It is a settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that the testimony of an injured
witness carries great evidentiary value and ordinarily commands a
higher degree of reliability, as such a witness is a victim of the
occurrence and his presence at the place of incident cannot be
doubted.
30. PW-2, in his examination-in-chief, has clearly deposed that on the
date of the incident, i.e., 16.09.2020, at about 7-8 PM, he along
with deceased Chamra Singh Gond had gone to the house of
accused Gorelal Kol where they consumed liquor. He has further
stated that at about 8-9 PM, while they were present in the house,
accused Gorelal along with co-accused Murit Ram Kol came there
and suddenly assaulted the deceased Chamra Singh with a
tangiya/axe, inflicting repeated blows on his head. He has also
categorically stated that he himself was assaulted and sustained
injuries on his neck. Despite being subjected to extensive cross-
examination, nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit his
testimony on material particulars. His version regarding the
assault, presence of the accused persons, and manner of
occurrence remains consistent and trustworthy.
31. The testimony of PW-2 finds substantial corroboration from the
medical evidence on record. Dr. Hariprakash Kanwar (PW-17),
who examined the injured Shiv Singh (PW-2) on 17.09.2020 at
about 9:00 a.m., has proved the injury report Ex.P-14. As per his
testimony, he found multiple injuries on the body of PW-2,
including (i) multiple injuries on the front of the neck, (ii) bruises on
the left side of the chest, and (iii) a lacerated wound on the back
of the head measuring 10 x 4 x 1 cm. He has opined that the
injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and that injury No.
3 was serious in nature. The said medical evidence clearly
corroborates the ocular testimony of PW-2 that he was assaulted
during the incident.
32. Further, the medical evidence relating to the deceased, including
the postmortem report (Ex.P-13) and query report (Ex.P-12),
establishes that the deceased sustained fatal injuries on the head
which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. The doctor has also opined that such injuries could have
been caused by the seized tangiya/axe. Thus, the medical
evidence lends full support to the prosecution version regarding
the manner of assault and the weapon used.
33. The prosecution has further strengthened its case by proving the
recovery of the weapon of offence. As per memorandum
statement (Ex.P-5) recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
at the instance of accused Gorelal, and the consequent seizure
memo (Ex.P-6), the tangiya/axe used in the commission of the
offence was recovered. This recovery has been duly proved by
independent witnesses Deepesh Thakur and Santosh Jaiswal,
who have supported the prosecution case in material particulars.
34. PW-10 has specifically deposed that the accused disclosed before
the police that he had assaulted the deceased with the tangiya
and had thrown it on the roof, and the same was recovered at his
instance. Though there is a minor discrepancy as to the exact
place of recovery (roof or garden), such discrepancy is not of such
a nature as to demolish the prosecution case, particularly when
the recovery itself stands proved and is corroborated by other
evidence on record.
35. The forensic evidence also lends assurance to the prosecution
case. As per the FSL report (Ex.P-31), the tangiya seized in the
case was found stained with human blood of "O" group. This
circumstance provides a strong incriminating link connecting the
accused with the commission of the offence. Though the exact
matching of blood group with the deceased has not been
elaborately discussed, the presence of human blood on the
weapon recovered at the instance of the accused is a significant
incriminating circumstance.
36. The promptness of the prosecution version is also reflected in the
contemporaneous documents prepared immediately after the
incident. The merg intimation, Panchayatnama (Ex.P-4), and
medical requisition (Ex.P-20) consistently record that the
deceased and injured were assaulted by accused Gorelal and his
associate. These documents were prepared without delay and
before there was any possibility of deliberation or fabrication,
thereby lending credibility to the prosecution case.
37. The testimony of other prosecution witnesses, including Manohar
Singh Maravi (PW-1), who is the son of the deceased, and Meena
Bai (PW-4), also lends support to the prosecution case. PW-1 has
stated that upon reaching the spot, he found his father lying dead
with head injuries and injured Shiv Singh present there, who
disclosed the names of the accused. PW-4, though partly hostile,
has admitted material facts including the presence of the
deceased and PW-2 at her house, consumption of liquor, and the
suspicion entertained by her husband Gorelal regarding her
character and his disputes with her on that account.
38. At the same time, the evidence on record also discloses certain
important surrounding circumstances which cannot be ignored.
From the testimony of PW-2 and PW-4, as well as the suggestions
accepted during cross-examination, it is evident that:
• The incident occurred during night hours in a rainy and
dark environment,
• The deceased and PW-2 had consumed substantial
quantity of liquor and were in an intoxicated condition,
• There existed a pre-existing suspicion in the mind of
accused Gorelal regarding an alleged illicit relationship
between PW-2 and his wife Meena Bai.
• There had been prior quarrels between the accused and
his wife on account of such suspicion,
• The deceased was lying on the ground at the time of the
incident, and there is evidence suggesting that the accused
may have mistaken the identity of the deceased.
39. These circumstances assume significance while determining the
nature of the offence committed by the accused.
40. From the evidence discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that
the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that accused Gorelal caused the fatal injuries to the deceased.
However, the crucial question that arises for consideration is
whether the act of the accused amounts to "murder" within the
meaning of Section 300 IPC, or falls within the ambit of "culpable
homicide not amounting to murder".
41. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of
Haryana1 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
1 (2002) 3 SCC 327
of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section
304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding
the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder
punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is
held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder punishable under
Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for one year."
42. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of
Haryana2 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
(f) The age and general health condition of the
accused;
(g) Whether the injury was caused without
premeditation in a sudden fight;
(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting
the injury and the force with which the blow was
inflicted;
(i) The criminal background and adverse history of
the accused;
(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the
death was because of shock;
(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against
the accused;
(l) Incident occurred within the family members or
close relations;
(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after
the incident.
Whether the accused had taken the injured/the
deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that
he/she gets proper medical treatment ?
These are some of the factors which can be taken
into consideration while granting an appropriate
sentence to the accused.
24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only
illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view,
proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the
bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour
of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives
appropriate sentence, in 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."
43. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda3, their
Lordships of the 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.
44. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of
Chhattisgarh4 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
3 (2012) 8 SCC 450
4 (2017) 3 SCC 247
or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel,
a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon
which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves
fatal, he 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 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".
45. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the 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.
46. Further, the 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
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."
47. In the present case, although the injuries inflicted were on a vital
part of the body and were sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death, the surrounding circumstances, particularly
the element of suddenness, intoxication, darkness, and mistaken
identity, indicate that the act was not premeditated in the strict
sense.
48. The evidence suggests that the accused was acting under a
strong emotional disturbance arising out of suspicion regarding his
wife's fidelity. The presence of the deceased and PW-2 in his
house during night hours, coupled with intoxication and prevailing
darkness, appears to have led the accused to act in a sudden and
impulsive manner. The possibility that the accused mistook the
5 (2019) 6 SCC 122
deceased for another person, as reflected from the prosecution
evidence itself, further weakens the element of clear intention to
commit murder of the deceased.
49. In such circumstances, it would not be safe to hold that the
accused had the requisite intention to commit murder as defined
under Section 300 IPC. However, it can safely be held that the
accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death,
and the injuries inflicted were indeed sufficient to cause death.
50. Accordingly, the act of accused Gorelal would fall within the ambit
of Section 304 Part I IPC, being culpable homicide not amounting
to murder.
51. Insofar as accused Murit Ram Kol is concerned, this Court finds
that the evidence against him is not of the same degree and
quality as that against accused Gorelal. Although his presence at
the scene has been alleged, the prosecution has not been able to
establish with certainty any specific overt act attributed to him in
causing fatal injuries to the deceased.
52. The doctrine of common intention under Section 34 IPC requires a
pre-arranged plan and prior meeting of minds. In the present
case, the evidence on record does not clearly establish that
accused Murit Ram shared such common intention with accused
Gorelal to commit the murder of the deceased.
53. However, from the testimony of injured witness PW-2 and medical
evidence Ex.P-14, it is clearly established that injuries were
inflicted upon PW-2 during the same occurrence, including a
serious injury on a vital part of the body. The nature of the injury
and the manner in which it was inflicted indicate that the act was
done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to cause
death.
54. Therefore, even though the charge under Section 302/34 IPC is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused Murit Ram,
his act clearly attracts the offence punishable under Section 307
IPC.
55. Upon an thorough and holistic appreciation of the entire oral and
documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the
considered and firm opinion that the prosecution has succeeded
in establishing the genesis of the occurrence, the place of
incident, and the involvement of accused Gorelal Kol beyond all
reasonable doubt. The testimony of injured eyewitness Shiv Singh
(PW-2), which stands on a higher pedestal of credibility, inspires
full confidence and is duly corroborated by the medical evidence
(Ex.P-14 and Ex.P-12), recovery of the weapon (Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-
6), and the forensic report (Ex.P-31). There is no material
contradiction or infirmity in the prosecution case so as to dislodge
its core foundation.
56. However, this Court cannot be oblivious to the surrounding
circumstances emerging from the record, which unmistakably
indicate that the occurrence was not the result of a premeditated
or cold-blooded design to commit murder. The evidence reveals
that the incident took place during late evening hours in conditions
of darkness and rain. Both the deceased and the injured witness
were under the influence of alcohol and that accused Gorelal was
acting under a deep-seated suspicion regarding the alleged illicit
relationship between his wife and the injured witness. The
cumulative effect of these circumstances introduces a significant
element of doubt with regard to the existence of a clear, deliberate
and pre-formed intention to commit murder of the deceased.
57. Furthermore, the evidence on record probabilises that the
deceased Chamra Singh Gond may have been assaulted under a
mistaken identity, as he was lying on the ground at the time of the
incident. This aspect assumes considerable significance in
assessing the mental element attributable to the accused. The act
of the accused, though undoubtedly intentional and resulting in
fatal consequences, appears to have been committed in a state of
emotional disturbance and impulsive reaction rather than pursuant
to a calculated intention to cause death.
58. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the unequivocal
view that the present case does not fall within the four corners of
"murder" as defined under Section 300 IPC. At the same time, the
nature of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, and the part of the
body targeted clearly establish that the act of accused Gorelal
was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death and
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to
result in death. Consequently, the offence committed by accused
Gorelal squarely falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part I IPC,
being culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
59. Insofar as accused Murit Ram Kol is concerned, this Court finds
that the prosecution evidence does not conclusively establish his
participation in inflicting the fatal injuries upon the deceased. The
evidence regarding his role suffers from lack of specificity and
does not satisfy the strict requirements necessary to invoke the
principle of common intention under Section 34 IPC in relation to
the offence of murder. The benefit of doubt, therefore, must
necessarily enure to him on that count.
60. Nevertheless, it stands clearly proved from the consistent
testimony of injured witness PW-2 and the corroborating medical
evidence (Ex.P-14) that grievous injuries were inflicted upon him
during the same transaction. The nature, location, and severity of
the injuries leave no manner of doubt that the assailant acted with
the requisite intention or knowledge contemplated under Section
307 IPC. In such circumstances, the complicity of accused Murit
Ram in the offence of attempt to murder is established beyond
reasonable doubt.
61. Thus, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion leads this
Court to hold, with a high degree of certainty and judicial
assurance, that while the prosecution has successfully proved the
occurrence and the role of accused Gorelal in causing the death
of the deceased, the offence proved against him is one of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Simultaneously, the
prosecution has failed to establish the charge of murder with the
aid of Section 34 IPC against accused Murit Ram, however, his
liability for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC remains
intact.
62. Consequently, the conviction of accused Gorelal Kol under
Section 302 IPC is liable to be altered to one under Section 304
Part I IPC for 10 year R.I., whereas the conviction of accused
Murit Ram Kol under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is
liable to be set aside. However, his conviction under Section 307
IPC is affirmed.
63. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant- Gorelal Kol is in jail. He is
directed to serve out the sentence as modified above.
64. Insofar as the sentence to be imposed upon accused Murit Ram
Kol is concerned, this Court takes note of the fact that though his
conviction under Section 307 IPC has been found to be legally
sustainable, it is an undisputed position on record that he has
been in continuous judicial custody since 20.09.2020 and has thus
undergone a substantial period of incarceration during the
pendency of trial and appeal. Having regard to the nature of the
injuries sustained by injured witness Shiv Singh (PW-2), the
circumstances in which the incident occurred, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately
met if the sentence imposed upon him is restricted to the period
already undergone.
65. Accordingly, while affirming the conviction of accused Murit Ram
Kol under Section 307 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is
modified to the period already undergone by him in custody.
66. The appellant- Murit Ram Kol is stated to be in jail, therefore, we
direct that he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any
other matter/case.
67. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
herein-above.
68. The appellant- Murit Ram Kol shall be set at liberty forthwith if no
longer required in any other criminal case. However, keeping in
view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed to furnish a
personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of
Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable
sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall
be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking
that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the
instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on
receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
69. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith original record be
transmitted to the trial Court concerned, for necessary information
and action, if any.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
