2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Umend Banjare – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 486 of 2005

For an offence under Section 304(2) IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, even absent specific intent. Sentencing must balance the gravity of the offence with mitigating factors, prioritizing proportionality and victim compensation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 299, 300, 304(2), 323, 294, 506 and 302/34 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 374(2), 313, 175, 157 and 428 - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Conviction - Sentence reduction - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution alleged that the appellant caused death during a physical altercation using a lathi with an iron grip - Trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304(2) of IPC and acquitted others - On appeal, it was contended that the prosecution was based on delayed FIR, non-examination of material witnesses, lack of medical proof regarding cause of death, and that the appellant acted to protect himself in a sudden fight - High Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, distinguishing it from intentional murder - The court applied the test of proportionality in sentencing, considering the age of the appellant and the significant time elapsed since the incident.

(B) Evidence - Credibility of version - Testimony of an eye-witness - A witness whose version is unassailable, consistent, and withstands rigorous cross-examination, and whose statement remains intact regarding the core spectrum of the crime, is a sterling witness whose version can be accepted without corroboration. (Para 29)

(C) Sentencing - Proportionality - The objective of punishment is deterrence, ensuring fairness to both the accused and the victim's family - Courts must strike a balance between aggravating and mitigating factors, including age, absence of criminal antecedents, and the time elapsed post-incident. (Paras 47-48)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder after a physical altercation resulted in a head injury leading to the victim's death. The appellant argued that the FIR was delayed, the investigation was flawed, and he had acted in exercise of private defence. The trial court acquitted four other co-accused but found the appellant guilty based on the specific weapon used (a lathi with an iron grip).

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death but lacked the specific intent for murder. The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304(2) IPC but deemed the 7-year imprisonment excessive due to the age of the appellant and the 22-year delay since the incident.

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 304(2) IPC was supported by credible evidence and whether the court should grant a sentence of 'already undergone' or provide for victim compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused inflicts a single blow to the head with a weapon capable of causing grievous injury, the act reflects knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death. Given the lapse of time, lack of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the specific weapon, the conviction is sustained but the sentence is modified to serve the ends of justice by increasing fine as victim compensation.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction confirmed, sentence reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment with enhanced fine as victim compensation.