Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Narendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1323 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Mishra
For the Respondents: Soumya Rai

A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained upon unreliable ocular evidence and doubtful recovery of weapons; if the act is committed without specific intent to cause death but with knowledge of likely lethal consequences, it is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 and Section 304 (Part II) - Culpable homicide - Conviction set aside from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC - Prosecution testimony of sole eye-witness found to be based on hearsay and assumptions - Absence of reliable, independent eyewitness account - Failure to prove link between seized weapon and alleged crime - Held, suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt; prosecution failed to conclusively establish intention to cause death, however, knowledge of likely consequence of act established. (Paras 31, 40, 41)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Sudden fight - Heat of passion - Absence of premeditation - Requirements for applicability - Discussed. (Paras 34, 37)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his cousin under Section 302 IPC based on allegations that he assaulted the deceased with an axe following a dispute over agricultural produce. The High Court analyzed the evidentiary value of the sole eye-witness account and the seizure of the weapon, noting significant material contradictions and procedural infirmities.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that while the homicidal nature of the death was established medically, the circumstantial and ocular evidence was insufficient to sustain a murder conviction. The conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable given the unreliable witness testimony and procedural gaps in evidence, and whether the case warranted a lesser charge under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: Where evidence fails to establish a clear intent to kill and witnesses are found unreliable or doubtful, the conviction cannot be sustained under Section 302 IPC; however, if the act is shown to have been committed with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, it falls under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II).

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural status of appeal and nature of charge under section 302 ipc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. summary of prosecution case and evidence presented before the trial court. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. defence contentions regarding evidentiary infirmities and request for section modification. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. prosecution response supporting the original conviction. (Para 13 , 14)
5. establishment of homicidal nature of death through medical evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. assessment of evidence connecting the accused to the crime and reliability of eyewitnesses. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. legal standard for applying exception 4 to section 300 and distinguishing intention from knowledge. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
8. final modification of conviction to section 304 part ii and sentencing details. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Mishra, 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 27.03.2020.

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 30.09.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.03/2021, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 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, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.

5. The prosecution case, as unfolded before the Trial Court, is that on 27.03.2020, the complainant Ram Singh (PW-9) lodged an information at Police Station Ramkola stating that at about 09:00 AM, while he was engaged in his routine work, a minor girl aged about 3 years, daughter of his cousin brother Bokha alias Ramhulas, came crying and informed him that her father was being assaulted by someone. Upon receiving this information, the complainant, along with Surendra Singh (PW-10), immediately rushed to the house of his cousin brother Bokha alias Ramhulas. Upon reaching the spot, they found that Bokha alias Ramhulas was lying dead in the courtyard of his house with bleeding injuries on his head. Near the place of occurrence, a tangi (axe), a knife and a bamboo stick were found lying. Subsequently, Rajkunwar (PW-1), mother of Surendra Singh, disclosed that the accused Narendra Singh @ Munna had earlier quarrelled with the deceased and had taken away paddy from him while hurling abuses, and had also threatened that he would kill him. On the date of incident, the accused came to the house of the deceased, abused him and assaulted him with a tangi, causing his death, and thereafter fled from the spot.

6. On the basis of the said information given by Ram Singh (PW-9), a First Information Report (Ex.P/12) was registered at Police Station Ramkola against the accused Narendra Singh @ Munna for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency prepared the spot map (Ex.P/8), inquest report (Ex.P/10), and seized blood-stained soil and other articles from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11). The weapon of offence, i.e., tangi, was seized vide Ex.P/5 pursuant to memorandum statement (Ex.P/4) of the accuse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JNarendra Singh – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 1323 of 2021

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Narendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1323 of 2021