2025:CGHC:31866-DB NAFR Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o C= HH HI AG TH T IC SO GU AR RT H ,OF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.07.14 17:09:46 +0530 CRA No. 1014 of 2015 {Arising out of Judgment dated 08.05.2015 in Sessions Case No.10/2015 of the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha)}

Baishakhu S/o Ramdas Baiga, aged about 20 Years, R/o Village Shitalpani, Police Station Chilphi, Civil and Revenue District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police of Police Station Chilphi, Civil and Revenue District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent.

For Appellant : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal &

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Judgment on Board (10/07/2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J This Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under

1.

Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Case No.10/2015 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.11.2014 in the night

2.

hours at about 11 pm, in the house of the deceased Ramdas Baiga, the accused/appellant assaulted his father Ramdas by hands and fists, as a result of which, his father died, thereby, the appellant committed the offence. It is further case of the prosecution that at the relevant time informant Goutariha (PW- 1), nephew of the deceased, was sleeping at his house and when he heard sound of quarrel from the house of the appellant, he reached there and saw that the deceased was lying dead inside the room. When he asked as to how the deceased died, the appellant told him that his father Ramdas was beating his mother Sonkunwar Bai (PW-3), therefore, he assaulted him with hands and fists, as a result of which, his father died. Subsequently, Merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) and FIR (Ex.P/5) was lodged by informant Gautariha (PW-1).

The spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/8. Memorandum

3.

statement of the accused was recorded vide (Ex.P/3) and nothing was seized from his possession. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.-P/3. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Santosh Luniya (PW-6) and he gave his report vide Ex.-P/13 opining that the cause of death is hemorrhage shock due to injury on the vital organs.

In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as

4.

many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents.

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and

5.

documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

Shri Govind Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the

6.

appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that at best offence under Section 304 (Part-II) would be made out against the appellant herein because the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased on spur of moment and he has no intention or premeditation to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellants is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and, since the appellant remain