SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Prakash Meshram – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 2190 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya Khare
For the Respondents: Soumya Rai

A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC shall be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC when the fatal injury is inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation, attracting the protection of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300, Exception 4 and Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appellant convicted for murder - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, recovery of weapon and blood-stained clothes, and medical evidence - Conversion of conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC where act is committed without premeditation in sudden fight in heat of passion - (Paras 54-65)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Discovery of weapon at instance of accused - Admissibility and evidentiary value - When recovery is proved by consistent testimony of official witnesses and forensic evidence confirms presence of human blood, such evidence provides a vital link in the chain of circumstances - (Paras 42-46)

(C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of proof - Where facts are specially within knowledge of accused - Failure of accused to explain presence of deceased in his premises and incriminating circumstances in his statement under Section 313 CrPC provides an additional link in chain of circumstances - (Para 48)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murder after the deceased was found with fatal head injuries in the courtyard of the appellant's house. The prosecution relied upon the last seen theory, memorandum statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and recovery of a blood-stained wooden stick and clothes, supported by forensic reports. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment.

Findings of Court:
Evidence established the death was homicidal. The chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, proving the authorship of the injury by the appellant. However, there was no prior enmity or premeditation, and the act appeared to be the result of a sudden altercation.

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC regarding murder was sustainable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an incident occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation, the act falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Thus, while the appellant was responsible for the fatal injury, the intention to cause death or sufficient bodily harm for murder was not established, necessitating an alteration of conviction to Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court conviction and case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. defense argues lack of complete chain of evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. prosecution contends circumstantial evidence proves guilt. (Para 16 , 17)
4. proving the homicidal nature of the death. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. establishing appellant's guilt through circumstantial chain. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. converting section 302 to section 304 (part i). (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
7. final modification of conviction and sentencing order. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. Today, though the criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally as the appellant is in jail since 23.05.2022.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, stands disposed of.

4. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused 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 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.50/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.05.2022, an information was lodged at Police Station Gaurela by the informant regarding the death of deceased Itwar Singh Gond, who had sustained a head injury and succumbed to the same at District Hospital, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi. On the basis of the said information, merg intimation (Ex. P/20) was registered and the police initiated inquest proceedings. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report/panchayatnama (Ex. P/22) in the presence of witnesses after summoning panch witnesses under Section 175 Cr.P.C. (Ex. P/21). The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination vide application (Ex. P/23), and the postmortem report (Ex. P/15 and short PM report Ex. P/27) revealed that the death was homicidal in nature caused by head injury.

6. Since the incident fell within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station, merg inquiry was converted into a regular criminal case, and FIR (Ex. P/24) was registered against the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, the spot map (Ex. P/09) was prepared based on the statements of witnesses, and a detailed map was also obtained through the Patwari (Ex. P/30). From the place of occurrence, blood-stained soil and plain soil were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/02 & P/03) in presence of witnesses. The accused was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex. P/01) was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein he disclosed that he had committed the murder of the deceased and had concealed the weapon of offence and the clothes worn at the time of incident. Pursuant to the said memorandum, a wooden stick (weapon of offence) and a blue T-shirt were recovered at the instance of the accused vide seizure memo (Ex. P/02 & P/03). The seized articles were sent for medical examination and chemical analysis. The medical examination of the seized s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top