Chhattisgarh High Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Domestic Violence Case - 2025-04-03

High Court Downgrades Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Axe Killing Case

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – In a significant judgment delivered on February 18, 2025, a division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , has partly allowed a criminal appeal, altering a trial court's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The case, Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2021 , involved Sonsingh Baghel , who was initially convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his wife, Savita Baghel .

Case Background

The prosecution’s case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Sangeeta Nag , the daughter of the deceased. According to the FIR, Sonsingh Baghel , fueled by alcohol and suspicion of his wife's character, attacked Savita Baghel with a ‘tangia’ (axe), resulting in her death. The trial court in Jagdalpur had convicted Sonsingh for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Arguments Presented

Representing the appellant, Advocate Sudhir Kumar Bajpai argued that the trial court's conviction was unjustified as the prosecution failed to prove motive, and the case rested on weak circumstantial evidence. He emphasized that key witnesses, including the daughters of the accused and deceased, were declared hostile, and medical evidence was not adequately corroborated. Bajpai contended that the incident occurred without premeditation in the heat of passion.

Conversely, the State, represented by Panel Lawyer Shailendra Sharma , defended the trial court's judgment. Sharma argued that Sonsingh Baghel had indeed caused the death of his wife by attacking her with a deadly weapon and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was appropriate.

Court's Observations and Decision

The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence, including the post-mortem report confirming homicide due to injuries from a heavy, sharp-edged weapon, and the forensic report linking blood stains on the seized axe and the accused's clothes. The court acknowledged the testimony of the daughters, who, despite being partially hostile, consistently stated that their father confessed to killing their mother with a ‘tangia’.

While upholding the trial court's finding that Sonsingh was indeed the perpetrator, the High Court delved into whether the act constituted murder or culpable homicide. Referencing various Supreme Court precedents, including Rampal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Basdev Vs. State of Pepsu , the bench highlighted the distinction between intention and knowledge in determining the nature of the offense.

The court applied the principles of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC , which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fights without premeditation in the heat of passion. The judgment noted:

> “Though there was no motive or premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of deceased, but in heat of passion, he became furious and with intention to cause death of deceased caused such injuries and by doing so, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely cause death of the deceased, as such, his case would falls within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC...”

Relying on precedents like Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana , Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana , State v. Sanjeev Nanda , Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh , and Anbazhagan vs. The State , the court concluded that the incident, driven by suspicion and occurring in the heat of passion, fit within the ambit of culpable homicide.

Final Verdict and Implications

Consequently, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicted Sonsingh Baghel under Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Considering the appellant's incarceration since August 15, 2019, the court directed him to serve the modified sentence.

This judgment underscores the nuanced interpretation of intention and knowledge in homicide cases, particularly within domestic disputes, and highlights the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in mitigating murder charges to culpable homicide in specific circumstances. The decision provides clarity on the legal thresholds differentiating murder from culpable homicide when actions are committed in the heat of passion without premeditation.