[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shatruhan @ Manu Dhahare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
2026:CGHC:16587-DB
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.04.17
14:32:59 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1999 of 2022
Shatruhan @ Manu Dhahare S/o Budharulal Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village-Sakroud, Police Station Rancharai, District Balod (C.G.)
... appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rancharai, Distt.-Balod (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For appellant(s) : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
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
Heard Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer for the Respondent/ State.
1. The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed by
the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 09.09.2022 passed by learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Balod (CG) in Sessions Case No. 36/2020, whereby
the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following
manner:-
S. No. Conviction Sentence
1. Under Section 302 of R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- in
IPC default of payment of fine, further R.I.
for 01 month.
2. Under Section 324 of R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-
IPC (two counts) in default of payment of fine, further
R.I. for 01 month (two times).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the on 02.01.2020, the complainant
Khileshwar Prasad Sahu (PW/1) was chatting with other witnesses and
the deceased Lalit Thakur at Bhatapara Chowk. At about 12.50 hours,
the appellant came there, armed with axe and all of sudden, he gave
the axe blow on the right temporal region of the deceased Lalit Thakur.
When Khileshwar Prasad Sahu (PW/1) and Sukhchand @ Bhola
(PW/2) tried to intervene, he also assaulted them by axe. The injured
Khileshwar Prasad Sahu lodged report to the Police on which
Dehatinalashi (Ex-P/1) was recorded by the Police for the offence
under Section 302 and 307 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body of the
deceased (Ex-P/16) was prepared in presence of the witnesses. The
dead body was sent for its post-mortem to Community Health Centre,
Gunderdehi where Dr. Ajay Pal Chandrakar (PW/10) conducted the
post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report
(Ex-P/11). While conducting the post-mortem, the doctor noticed
incised wound on right side of face/ neck region and opined that the
cause of death is Cardio-respiratory arrest due to hemorrhagic shock
as a result of excessive bleeding from a cut of major vessel of neck,
the nature of the injuries is antemortem and mode of death is
homicidal. The injured persons Sukhchand @ Bhola and Khileshwar
Prasad Sahu were also sent for their medical examination to
Community Health Centre, Gunderdehi, where they have also been
medically examined by (PW/10) Dr. Ajay Pal Chandrakar who gave
their medical report (Ex-P/12 and P/13) and found injuries on their
body which were simple in nature. Spot Map (Ex-P/2) was prepared by
the Police and (Ex-P/22) was prepared by the Patwari. Blood stained
and plain soil have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex-
P/4). The appellant was arrested on 03.01.2020 and his memorandum
statement (Ex-P/6) was recorded. Based on his memorandum
statement, blood stained axe has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex-
P/7). Blood stained jacket of the appellant has also been seized from
him vide seizure memo (Ex- P/8). The seized articles were sent for its
query report to the doctor, who gave his query report (Ex-P/14) and
opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased as well as
injured persons could have been caused by the said axe. He referred
the seized articles for chemical examination for confirmation of
presence of blood. The blood stained and plain soil, axe and jacket
seized from the appellant, Gamchha, shirt and lower of the deceased
were sent for its chemical examination to State FSL, Raipur, from were
report (Ex-P/21) was received and according to the FSL report, blood
was found on the send articles except for the plain soil and human
blood was found on axe seized from the appellant and Gamchha of the
deceased. The statement of the the prosecution witnesses under
Section 161 of CrPC have been recorded and after completion of usual
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the
offence under Section 302 and 307 of IPC before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gunderdehi. The case was committed to the
court of learned Sessions Judge, Balod from where the same has been
transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial.
3. The learned trial Court has framed the charge against the appellant for
the offence under Section 302, 307 and 307 of IPC (Section 307 of IPC
on two counts). The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as
14 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
has also been recorded in which he denied the material appears
against him, plead innocence and submitted that he has been falsely
implicated in the offence.
5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC for commission of murder of the
deceased Lalit Thakur and instead of conviction under Section 307 of
IPC, attempt to commit murder of the injured persons, convicted the
appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC ( on two counts) and
sentenced him as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment. Hence this
appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are
material omission and contradiction in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant for the
offence in question. There are material inconsistency in the evidence of
alleged eye witnesses (PW/1) Khileshwar Prasad Sahu and (PW/2)
Sukhchand @ Bhola. There is no motive to assault the deceased by
the appellant and only on apprehension he has been implicated in the
alleged offence. There is no allegation that just before the incident, any
quarrel took place between them. In alternative, he would submit that
the appellant is alleged to have assault the deceased only once and
therefore, the offence of the appellant, if any, does not travel beyond
scope of Section 304 of IPC. He would also submit that by converting
the offence of the appellant under Section 304 Part I or II of IPC his
sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel vahementally opposes and
has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the murder of the
deceased. The eye witnesses (PW/1, PW/2) who are injured in the
same incident have duly supported the prosecution's case. Though, the
allegation that the appellant assaulted the deceased only once but the
same was aimed on his neck that is most vital part of the body and
only by assaulting once, the offence cannot be converted under
Section 304 of IPC. The force of assault, the part of body and the
weapon which is used are the determinative factors for imposing
liability upon the accused as to whether it was a murder or culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case, the appellant
assaulted the deceased by axe which is deadly weapon, that too the
assault made on his neck and major vessels of the neck have been
cutted of, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302
of IPC is justified. He would further submit that the appellant has also
been convicted for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon for
which he has also been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and thus,
witnessing the incident by them has duly been proved. The blood found
on the axe as well as cloths of the appellant and the deceased also
connected him with the offence in question and therefore, there is no
scope for any interference in the conviction and sentence of the
appellant and his appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the trial Court.
9. The first question arises for consideration would be the nature of death
of the deceased.
10.The homicidal death of the deceased has been proved by the
prosecution by the evidence of (PW/1) Khileshwar Prasad Sahu and
(PW/2) Sukhchand @ Bhola and (PW/4) Reman Kumar who are the
eye witnesses to the incident. (PW/11) Ramakant and (PW/11)
Narsingh are the witnesses to the inquest of the dead body of the
deceased and all of them have said that there was injury found on the
body of the deceased by which he died.
11.Dr. Ajay Pal Chandrakar (PW/10) has proved the post-mortem report
of the dead body of the deceased Lalit Thakur. He stated in his
evidence that on 02.01.2020 he conducted the post-mortem of the
dead body of the deceased and found incised wound on right side of
neck region from just below right ear to middle 1/3 of mendibular region
of face, mendibular bone is seen and superficial artery muscle are
cutted, carotid artery and jugular vein (major vessel are cutted).
Profused bleeding from wound side and the injury is antemortem in
nature, caused by sharp and hard weapon. He opined that the cause of
death is cardio respiratory arrest due to hemorrhagic shock, as a result
of excessive bleeding from cut of major vessels of neck. The injuries
are antemortem in nature and death is homicidal. Nothing could be
extracted from the evidence of the doctor (PW/10) in his cross-
examination, so that his evidence could be disbelieved. The suggestion
given by the defence that the injuries found on the body of the
deceased could have been caused by the fall on a pointed stone but he
denied the same. He proved the post-mortem report (Ex-P/11) and the
learned trial Court considering the evidence of the doctor as well as
eye witnesses and other material available on record held that the
death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and we also affirm the
said finding.
12.So far as the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is
concerned, the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of
eye witnesses to the incident (PW/1) Khileshwar Prasad Sahu, (PW/2)
Sukhchand @ Bhola and (PW/4) Reman Kumar, who are the eye
witness to the incident.
13.(PW/1) Khileshwar Prasad Sahu has stated in his evidence that on the
date of incident at about 12.15 -12.30 hours, he was chatting with other
persons near Bhatapara Chowk, at that time, the accused came there
armed with axe and assaulted Lalit Thakur. The incident occurred all of
sudden. All of them rushed towards Lalit Thakur and at the same time,
the appellant gave an axe blow on him also by which he received
injury on his back. He immediately rushed to the primary health centre,
Sarsiva. He witnessed the assault made upon the deceased Lalit
Thakur. He subsequently came to know that the appellant also
assaulted the injured Bhola. In his cross-examination, he remained
firm in saying that the appellant assaulted the deceased as well as him.
In his cross-examination, there is no motive come as to why, the
appellant assaulted the deceased and the witnesses, but the fact of
assault made by the appellant upon the deceased and the witnesses
have been duly established by the evidence of this witness.
14.Similar is the evidence of (PW/2) Sukhchand @ Bhola who is also the
injured witness, he too have stated that on the date of incident when
they were chatting at Bhatapara Chowk, the appellant came there,
armed with axe and assaulted the deceased Lalit Thakur on his neck.
The appellant also assaulted him by which he received injury on his
Battock. He rushed to his own house and thereafter, he was being
sent by the Police to hospital for treatment. He too have remain firm
that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his neck by axe. This
eye witness is consistent in saying that the appellant assaulted the
deceased by axe and them also. Being an injured witness, received
injuries on the same incident, their presence on the spot cannot be
doubted and they firmly stated that the appellant assaulted the
deceased and them by axe.
15.PW/4, Reman Kumar the another eye witness who too have present on
the spot along with the deceased and injured witness. He too has
stated that the appellant came there and assaulted the deceased and
thereafter, he fled away. Nothing in his cross-examination which
discredit his evidence that he has not seen the incident. His evidence
is also corroborate the evidence of PW/1 and PW/2, who proved the
presence of this witness at the time of incident along with them.
16.(PW/7) Surendra Kumar Dewangan is another eye witness who also
stated as (PW/4) Reman Kumar has deposed. He clearly stated that
when they were chatting, the appellant came there and assaulted the
deceased Lalit Thakur by axe. From all these evidences, the
involvement of the appellant in the offence in question has duly been
proved which further corroborate from the FSL report (Ex-P/21) in
which the blood was found on the axe seized from the appellant and
his jacket. For which there is no explanation in his 313 Cr.P.C.
statement and thus, the prosecution has proved that the appellant
caused injury to the deceased as well as witnesses PW/1 and PW/2 by
which the deceased died.
17.The next question for consideration is, whether the case of the
appellant is covered within Exception-4 to Section 300 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 submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellant ?
18.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of
Haryana, reported in 2002 (3) SCC 327 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 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."
19.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State
of Haryana, 2009 (15) SCC 635, 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 for 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;
(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."
20.Likewise, in the matter of State Vs. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012 (8) SCC
450, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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.
21.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, 2017 (3) SCC 247, 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 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 :
"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".
22.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.
23.Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), 2019 (6) SCC 122, has laid down four ingredients 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) he 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."
24.Reverting to the facts of present case, it is quite vivid that on the date
of incident, when the deceased and the injured witnesses along with
the other witnesses were chatting at Bhatapara Chowk in Village-
Sakraudh, the appellant came there, armed with axe and assaulted the
deceased Lalit Thakur and when the PW/1 and PW/2 intervened, they
have also been assaulted by him by which they also received injuries.
The witnesses deposed about single injury on the body of the
deceased. There was no previous quarrel or no reason for assault by
the appellant. The incident occurred all of sudden. Had the appellant
intended to kill the deceased, he would have made repeated blows
upon him. After giving one blow upon the deceased, the appellant
caused injuries to the injured witnesses PW/1 and PW/2. The appellant
made only one blow on the neck of the deceased and not acted an
cruel or unusual manner, there was no premeditation on the part of
the appellant to cause death of the deceased. The appellant did not
have any intention to cause death of the deceased, but by causing
such injury he must have had the knowledge that such injury inflicted
by him would likely to cause death of the deceased and as such, his
case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC,
as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfies the four
necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (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 appellant had not taken any
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
25.So far as the offence under Section 324 of IPC is concerned. The
witnesses (PW/1) and (PW/2) have proved that the appellant caused
injuries to them also when they intervened in the incident. Their injuries
found proved by the doctor (PW/10) Dr. Ajay Pal Chandrakar who
medically examined them. He stated that he medically examined the
injured Sukhchand @ Bhola on 03.01.2020 and found one lacerated
wound on left upper 1/3, left thigh which was simple in nature and gave
his report (Ex-P/12). He also medically examined the injured (PW/1)
and found abrasion on back of the chest which was also simple in
nature and gave his report (Ex-P/13). From the evidence of doctor
(PW/10), the injuries found on the body of the injured witnesses have
been proved which were caused by the appellant. Since, the injuries
were simple in nature, the learned trial Court, instead of convicting him
for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, convicted the appellant for
the offence under Section 324 of IPC on two counts. In which we do
not find any infirmity or perversity and the conviction of the appellant
under Section 324 of IPC on two counts and sentenced are hereby
maintained.
26.The appellant is reported to be in jail since 02.01.2020 and thereby, he
already undergone the entire sentence of R.I. for three years awarded
for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.
27.Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case, considering the evidence of injured eye witnesses
PW/1 and PW/2 and other eye witnesses PW/4 and PW/7 and also
taking into consideration, the evidence of doctor (PW/10), the ends of
justice would meet if the conviction of the appellant under Section 302
of IPC is altered/ converted to Section 304 Part I of IPC.
28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to extent that conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, however, he is
convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, In default of
payment of fine, further R.I. for two months.
29. As the appellant is stated to be in jail, he shall serve the remaining
sentence as modified by this Court.
30. Registry is directed to sent a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are
undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants
informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present
judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal
Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee.
31. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted
to the trial Court forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
sagrika
