[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjeev @ Sanju Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:10167-DB
Digitally signed
by RAVVA
UTTEJ KUMAR
RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 603 of 2015
Sanjeev @ Sanju Thakur S/o Jagadish Thakur, aged about 22 years, R/o
Village Kalgasa, Thana Darima, District Sarguja, (C.G.)
... Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Darima, District- Sarguja, (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
27.02.2026
1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section
374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2013, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Sarguja, District Ambikapur (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No. 11/2012, whereby the appellant-accused has
been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, 1860
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo
additional simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.12.2011 the
Complainant- PW-02 Anil Singh lodged a report in the Police
Station - Darima, District Sarguja (C.G.) regarding the murder of
Krishna making allegation that on 04.12.2011 at 8pm, Krishna
along with appellant/accused Sanjeev alias Sanju Thakur were
warming themselves through bonfire in front of the Motu Baraik's
house whereby both of them had quarreled with each other, but
the accused has taken Tangi (Axe) from his house and assaulted
with it on the head of the deceased Krishna and fled away from
the spot. The accused/appellant committed the murder of the
deceased Krishna. The accused/appellant was arrested on
05.12.2011 on the alleged commission of offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, the panchnama of dead body
was prepared by the police. Further, police seized the property
which was relating to the offence and spot map was prepared,
thereafter, the police sent the body for postmortem. The
statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of the
investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet under Section
302 of IPC against the present accused/appellant.
4. During the course of trial, the charges under Section 302 of IPC
was framed against the present accused/appellant, but he denied
the charge.
5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as
many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The
appellant-accused examined none in his defence nor any
document has been exhibited.
6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.10.2013,
convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC
and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this
criminal appeal has been filed.
7. Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that the impugned judgment passed by the
learned trial court is bad; illegal, perverse and contrary to law
applicable to the facts and circumstances and evidence available
on record. He further argued that the prosecution witnesses have
not supported the case of the prosecution against the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that PW-08
Virendra Kumar has stated that he too was warming himself
through bonfire and when he got up from the middle then, the
fateful incident took place and he came back to the spot and there
he saw Tangi lying on the ground and the appellant had already
fled from the spot, but seizure memo shows that the Tangi was
recovered from Kotha, but the learned trial Court has failed to
consider those aspect. He would further argued that there is no
eye witness of the incident and the prosecution story is based on
circumstantial evidence and witnesses are hostile. The learned
Trial Court committed error of law by convicting the
accused/appellant in spite of failure of prosecution to prove the
charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that this
Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present appeal and the
impugned judgment dated 05.10.2013 of conviction and order of
sentence may kindly be set aside.
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the act attributed to the appellant does not fall within the ambit of
Section 302 IPC, and at best, considering the number and nature
of injury, party of body affected and the weapon used, and the fact
that the incident took place on spur of moment without
premeditation, his act squarely falls within the ambit of Section
304 Part-II i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder and
considering the detention period of the accused i.e., more than 05
years, his sentence may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondent/State supports the
impugned judgment and would submit that the impugned
judgment passed by the trial Court is based on proper
appreciation of material and evidence available on record and the
same requires no interference.
9. 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.
10. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of
deceased Krishna was homicidal in nature ?
11. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record particularly relying upon the
postmortem report of Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-07) has come to the
conclusion that cause of death was 'Cardiopulmonary arrest and
coma due to head injury on the forehead of the deceased'. He has
found that one repaired wound over the scalp at the mid parietal
region of length 8cm, skull bone fracture vertically and linear at
the mid parietal region of length 7 cm and diffuse intracerebral
hemorrhage with clots in brain substance and meninges was
fractured in the bone region.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering
the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding
recorded by the learned trial Court that death of deceased Krishna
was unnatural which was occurred due to injury sustained by the
deceased from the assault made by the appellant by way of a
Tangi on the head and the said finding is based on evidence
available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record.
We hereby affirm that finding that the death of deceased Krishna
was homicidal in nature.
13. Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the
accused-appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in
question as during the commission of the crime ?
14. In the present case, Bundeshwar Singh (PW-3) has categorically
stated that on the date of the incident at around 8:15 pm, he saw
that the accused/appellant and deceased were quarreling with
each other and the appellant was saying that he will kill the
deceased. After pacifying the accused, he made the accused to
go his house and the accused after reaching his home started
searching Tangi (Axe). After a while, Motu shouted that the
accused/appellant had assaulted Krishna. He further admitted in
para 03 of his cross-examination that he saw the blood oozing
from the head of the deceased. (PW-08) Virendra Kumar has
supported the statement of (PW-03) Bundeshwar Singh and has
also stated that the accused came with a tangi and said that he
will kill all the Kanwar community people and he also saw the
blood oozing from the head of the deceased. PW-03 Bundeshwar
Singh has informed the incident to PW-02 Anil Singh and then,
Anil Singh ( the complainant of the case) has lodged the report
vide Ex. P/03 in the Police Station - Darima, District Sarguja
(C.G.) and the postmortem report is Ex. P/13.
15. Surit Sarthi (PW-9), Investigating Officer, has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 04.12.2011, while posted as Sub-
Inspector at Police Station Darima, he registered the First
Information Report (Ex. P-3) on the basis of the written report
lodged by complainant Anil Singh. He stated that the FIR was
recorded exactly as narrated by the complainant and bears his
signatures. During the course of investigation, on 05.12.2011 at
about 14:00 hours, he took the accused into custody and recorded
his memorandum statement (Ex. P-6), wherein the accused
disclosed that he had concealed a tangi (axe) in the cattle shed of
his house. Pursuant to the said memorandum, he seized one iron
tangi from the accused's house situated at village Kalagasa under
seizure memo (Ex. P-7). He described that the handle of the tangi
was 28 inches long and bore stains resembling human blood, and
the blade measured 7 inches in length and 2 inches in width. On
the same date, he seized from the place of occurrence plain soil,
blood-stained soil, and one pair of plastic slippers allegedly
belonging to the accused under seizure memo (Ex. P-8). He
further deposed that he sent a report (Ex. P-12A) to the Chief
Medical Officer, PHC Darima, for examination in relation to the
seized tangi. During investigation, he recorded the statements of
witnesses Anil Singh (Ex. P-4), Budheshwar Singh (Ex. P-5), and
other witnesses namely Virendra @ Motu, Badeik, and Konda @
Nana Guru, as per their narration without adding or omitting
anything. On 08.12.2011, after the postmortem examination of the
deceased Krishna Singh, he seized the clothes worn by the
deceased, viz blue jeans, blue baniyan, and bermuda, in the
presence of witnesses under seizure memo (Ex. P-14). He further
deposed that he arrested the accused on 05.12.2011 in the
presence of witnesses and prepared the arrest memo (Ex. P-15).
Intimation of arrest was given to Jagdish Thakur, and the carbon
copy of the intimation is (Ex. P-15A). He also stated that the
seized weapon, clothes, plain and blood-stained soil were sent to
the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for chemical
examination along with a letter from the Superintendent of Police,
Surguja. Thus, his evidence establishes the registration of FIR
(Ex. P-3), recording of memorandum (Ex. P-6), recovery and
seizure of weapon (Ex. P-7), seizure of material exhibits from the
spot (Ex. P-8), forwarding of articles for examination (Ex. P-12A),
seizure of deceased's clothes (Ex. P-14), arrest of the accused
(Ex. P-15 & Ex. P-15A), recording of witness statements (Ex. P-4
& Ex. P-5), and submission of charge-sheet.
16. On perusal of the statement of the relevant witnesses, it reveals
that the accused/appellant had quarrel with the deceased at
around 8:30 pm and thereafter, the accused/appellant went to his
house, searched for Tangi (Axe) and came with the same and
then assaulted Krishna on the head.
17. The case of the prosecution is based on the theory of last seen
together.
18. Now the question is whether the learned trial Court is justified in
convicting the appellant relying upon the theory of last seen
together to be duly established.
19. Admittedly, the prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence. The five golden principles to constitute the panchsheel
of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have
been narrated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the
matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1 ,
in which it was observed in paragraph 153 as under :
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established :
(1)the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may
be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or
should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2 where the
following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807
: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a
court can convict and the mental distance
between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2)the facts so established should be
consistent hypothesis except that the accused
is guilty,
(3)the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4)they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5)there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
2 (1973) 2 SCC 793
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
20. From the evidence of PW-03 Bundeshwar Singh and PW-08
Virendra Kumar, it is crystal clear that the appellant and the
deceased were warming their bodies through bonfire and in front
of the Motu Baraik's house whereby both of them had quarreled
with each other, and the appellant was saying that he would kill
the deceased. PW-03 Bundeshwar after pacifying the accused,
made the accused to go his house and the accused after reaching
his house started searching Tangi (Axe). After a while, Motu
shouted that the accused/appellant had assaulted Krishna and the
aforesaid witnesses stated that they have seen the blood oozing
from the head of the deceased. From the testimony of the
aforesaid prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been
successful in proving this fact that the accused/appellant and the
deceased was last seen together, the deceased sustained injury
on his head and the accused was holding tangi in his hand and
that the deceased sustained injury immediately after he was seen
holding tangi in his hand & when the deceased was being taken to
hospital, he succumbed to the injuries during the course of the
treatment. Therefore, the chain of evidence must be so complete
and cogent as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused. The evidence on
record clearly establishes that, in all human probability, the offence
was committed by the appellant. It is also pertinent to observe that
the circumstances proved on record exclude every possible
hypothesis except that of the appellant's guilt.
21. Applying the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their
Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts of the present
case and considering the statements of the witnesses, this Court
is of the considered view that the present accused/appellant
committed the murder of the deceased by way of axe.
22. 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?
23. It has been held by this Court in the matter of Jaiprakash @ Bau
Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.
1119 of 2024 in paras 23, 24, 26, 27 and 28 which reads as thus:-
"23.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir
Singh v. State of Haryana3 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
3 (2002) 3 SCC 327
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."
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh
Singh v. State of Haryana4 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
4 (2009) 15 SCC 635
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."
26. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 5 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 : (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
5 (2017) 3 SCC 247
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".
27. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the
same would be case of Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and if
it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to
cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a
case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
28. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)6 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."
6 (2019) 6 SCC 122
24. In this case, there was no premeditation on the part of the
appellant to cause death of the deceased Krishna and only because of
the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant, the appellant has
assaulted the deceased by way of axe on his forehead and only one
injury was caused to the deceased and the appellant then fled away.
Thereafter, Anil Singh took the deceased to the hospital for the treatment,
his MLC was done and during the course of treatment, the deceased was
died. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that 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 injuries inflicted
by him would likely to cause death of Krishna, 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 satisfied 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. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC
is altered/converted into Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
26. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the
IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of
the IPC. The record shows that the appellant has remained in jail for
more than 05 years, thus considering the detention period, his sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount
imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.
27. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view
the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is also
directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one
surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be
effective for a period of six months alongwith 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 thereon shall
appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
28. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. The criminal appeal is
partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.
29. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted
to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge Judge
U.K. Raju
