The court established that injuries caused during a sudden quarrel may reduce culpable homicide from murder under IPC if they meet exceptions set forth in law.

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

29.07.2025

1. Heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent / State.

2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 34/2017, whereby the appellant have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 06 months.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that after the marriage of the deceased Smt. Bhuneswari Yadav was solemnized with the accused 11 months before the incident, thereafter she was living in her in-laws' house and about 15 days before the date of incident, due to the birth of her child, she had gone to her aunt's house in village Purur to get health benefits. The accused went to village Purur and brought her to his house before the date of incident and after eating dinner they slept in his room. When the deceased said that she would not live with the accused and there was an argument between them regarding doubt on the character of the deceased, the accused hit her on the head with an iron shovel kept at the scene of incident several times and injured her due to which the deceased became unconscious. When the parents and brother of the accused came to know about this, she was admitted to Mekahra Hospital, Raipur for treatment. On receiving the memo of her death during treatment on 19.05.2017, Case No. 0/17 was registered in Police Station Maudhapara, Raipur and the Panchnama of the dead body was done. Since the place of incident was Magarlod Police Station, on receiving the case diary from Maudhapara police station, Raipur, a numbered case was registered and investigation was started as the crime under section 302 of IPC was found against the accused.

4. During the investigation, spot map, site map, property seizure sheet of the place were prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet was presented against the accused before the concerned Court.

5. After examining the charge-sheet and the attached documents and hearing the arguments of the prosecution and defence, the charges were framed against the accused. When the charge under Section 302 of the IPC was found to be made out, a charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and when the charge was read out and explained to him, the accused denied having committed the alleged offence and sought trial.

6. To prove the case by the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined (PW-1 to PW-14) and 43 documents were exhibited. When the accused was asked for clarification by preparing a statement of charges under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the facts revealed in the evidence of the witnesses examined in the case, he expressed ignorance about the circumstances proved by the prosecution and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case but expressed his desire to give no evidence in his defence.

7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on rec