[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shiv Prasad @ Ladhu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
CRA No. 1920 of 2017
2026:CGHC:13113-DB
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
ANKIT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ANKIT KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.03.19
17:10:11
+0530
CRA No. 1920 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment dated 12.09.2017 passed in Sessions Trial
No.546/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.]
Shiv Prasad @ Ladhu S/o Shri Jagdharan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Madva Sarharipara, P. S. Chando, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Chando, District
Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant :- Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate.
For State-Respondent :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate.
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
(19.03.2026)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred
by the appellant-accused is directed against the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2017
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Surguja
Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 546/2011 by which the
appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section
302 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer
imprisonment for life with fine of ₹ 1,000/-; in default of
payment of fine he has to undergo additional rigorous
imprisonment for six months and also for offence under Section
201 of the IPC and sentenced therein to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of ₹ 100/-; in default
of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment
for 1 month. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution in, nutshell, is that in the intervening
night of 30.08.2011 and 31.08.2011, at village Madva Sarharipara,
Police Station Chando, the appellant assaulted his wife Naihari by
hand and fist by which she suffered grievous injuries and died. To
screen himself from the offence, he made the last rituals and gave the
wrong information to others. Against the said act of the appellant,
Sukhram (PW-6) reported the matter to the police pursuant to which
merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs.P/6 & P/11,
respectively. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/12. Nazari
naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/17. Inquest proceeding (Ex.P/3) were
conducted and the dead body of the deceased was subjected to
postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/8) proved by Dr. R.S.
Markam (PW-7) cause of death was haemomorhage leading to shock
(collapse of right lung) and homicidal in nature. Wheels of
investigation started running and the appellant was arrested.
3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for
the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court
of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant /
accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.
4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as
many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents and defence
in support of its case has neither examined any witness nor
exhibited any document.
5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, convicted the
appellant / accused for the offences as mentioned in the
opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal
has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
6. Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, would
submit that appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in
question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which
is perverse to the record. He would also submit if the case of the
prosecution is taken, as it is, at best, the conviction for offence
under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II would be made out. He
would further submit that the appellant was behind the bars for
more than 10 years as he was in jail from 22.09.2011 and on
06.05.2022 he was granted bail by this Court and, as such, it is a
fit case where conviction of the appellant for offence under
Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence
under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. Thus, the present
appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel,
would support the impugned judgment and submit that
prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond
reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant for the aforesaid offences. He would also submit that it
is not the case of alteration of offence from under Section 302 of
IPC to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC where the
conviction of the appellant can be modified for lesser offence,
therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records
meticulously.
9. The first question, as to whether the death of the deceased was
homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in
affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P/8) proved
by Dr. R.S. Markam (PW-7), which, in our considered opinion, is a
correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record
which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly,
we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court holding that the
death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
10. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the
appellant has assaulted the deceased?
11. The trial Court has convicted the appellant basically on the
statement of Anita (PW-2), daughter of the appellant and
deceased, who in her statement before the Court has stated that
the her mother told her that the appellant assaulted her
(deceased) and thereafter she died. Also, the conviction of the
appellant is based on the postmortem report (Ex.P/18) proved by
Dr. R.S. Markam (PW-7), as in the postmortem report, it was
opined by doctor (PW-7) that the cause of death of the deceased
was haemmorhage leading to shock due to collapse of right lung
and the ribs No.4, 5 & 6 were fractured on account of which right
lung was collapsed and homicidal in nature. As such, the trial
Court has rightly held that it the appellant who caused the injuries
to the deceased and we hereby affirm the said findings of the
trial Court.
12. Now, the question for consideration is whether the conviction of
the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be
converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-I or
Part-II of IPC as contended by learned counsel for the appellant?
13. In the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh1, the Supreme
Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same
would be case of Section 304 Part-I of 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 IPC.
(2017) 3 SCC 247
14. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by their Lordships
of the Supreme Court in above-stated judgment and as per the
prosecution case, it is quite vivid that the quarrel took place
between the appellant and the deceased due to which out of
anger, the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased by
hand and fist and on account of which ribs No.4, 5 & 6 got
fractured and right lung got collapsed. As such, considering the
nature of injury which has occurred on the body of the deceased
and further considering the medical evidence available on the
record, it is quite vivid that there was no intention on the part of
the appellant, but he must have had knowledge that such injury
inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to
cause her death, therefore, this is a case in which the conviction
of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be
converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of the
IPC.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the
appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as
well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the
learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Considering that there was
no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of his
wife Naihari (deceased), the appellant is convicted for offence
punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to
the period already undergone by him as he was in jail from
22.09.2011 and on 06.05.2022 he was granted bail by this Court,
meaning thereby, he has already suffered jail sentence of more
than 10 years. However, the fine amount imposed by the
learned trial Court shall remain intact.
16. So far as the conviction and sentence of the appellant for
offence under Section 201 of the IPC are well merited and the
appellant has already completed his jail sentence awarded by the
trial Court for the said offence i.e. R.I. for 2 years, as he has
already undergone R.I. for more than 10 years of his jail sentence
and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However,
the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain
intact. Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, he need not
surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a
period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-
A of the CrPC.
17. This criminal appeal is partly allowed.
18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original
record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for
information and necessary action, if any. Sd/
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Ankit
