Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Setram Nagesia – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 234 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chitendra Singh
For the Respondents: Anusha Naik

An offence qualifies for Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide) if it arises from a sudden, unpremeditated fight in the heat of passion, provided the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300, Exception 4 - Culpable homicide - Sudden quarrel - Heat of passion - Appellant and deceased engaged in dispute over untethering of cattle - Weapon used (wooden channel) was picked up from the spot - No evidence of premeditation - Whether offence falls under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 Part II - Held, exception 4 applies - Conviction converted. (Paras 32, 33, 34, 35)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Appellate Court - Duty to ensure appropriate sentence based on gravity of offence - Factors such as motive, nature of weapon, and conduct after incident highlighted. (Para 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant and the deceased uncle's wife had a prior land dispute. The incident occurred when the appellant began untethering the uncle's cattle, leading to a quarrel. The appellant struck the deceased on the head with a wooden channel, causing fatal injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC. The appellant appealed, arguing the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the incident did not show premeditation and occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel over cattle. Consequently, the conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. The sentence was reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC could be sustained, or if the case fit the requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Ratio Decidendi: If an act is committed in a sudden fight without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly, the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, warranting a conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. case background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. submission regarding application of exception 4 to section 300 ipc. (Para 12 , 13)
3. establishment of homicidal nature and authorship of the crime. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. legal precedents regarding exception 4, sudden fights, and sentencing factors. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. assessment of witness testimony and medical evidence corrobation. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. application of exception 4 to the current case facts indicating no premeditation. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
7. modification of conviction to section 304 part ii and final sentencing. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Chitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. Though the matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 1 of 2024 (application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail), however, considering that the appellant has been in custody since 07.10.2022, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

3. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) is directed against the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2023 passed by the learned Session Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.) (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), in Session Case No. 189 of 2022, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction under Section	Sentence
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), amended Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘BNS’)	Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 months R.I. more.
Section 323 of the IPC	R.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more.

All the sentences awarded shall run concurrently.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant, a resident of village Taragi under Police Station Batouli, lived there with his family. On 06.11.2022 at about 5:00 p.m., the appellant was discussing the sale of land with the village watchman. At that time, his uncle Nansai (PW-1) and aunt Basanti were also present. During the discussion, a dispute arose between the appellant and his uncle Nansai. The appellant started quarreling, questioning why cattle had been tied there, and began untethering them. Nansai and Basanti objected and tried to stop him. Thereafter, near the watchman’s house, the appellant picked up a wooden channel (used for bending iron rods), abused them, and threatened to kill Basanti. He struck her on the head with the said object, causing her to fall on the spot with profuse bleeding. When Nansai intervened, the appellant assaulted him with fists and attempted to strangulate him. At that moment, Pakas Uraon intervened and rescued Nansai. Due to the assault, Basanti died.

5. On receiving information of Basanti’s death from Nansai, Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar Pandey (PW-12) registered merg intimation No. 57/2022 (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Batouli. Based on the report, FIR No. 137/2022 was registered under Sections 294, 506, 323, and 302 of the IPC (Ex.P/2). Injured Nansai was sent for medical examination (Ex.P/17). During investigation, the inquest (Ex.P/5) was prepared after issuing notice (Ex.P/4), and a spot map (Ex.P/3) was drawn. The postmortem report (Ex.P/18), proved by Dr. Umang Bothra (PW-8), opined that the death was due to coma resulting from head injury and was homicidal in nature.

6. On 07.11.2022, the appellant was taken into custody and interrogated. His memorandum statement (Ex.P/13) led to the recovery of the wooden channel used in the offence from his backyard, which was seized (Ex.P/14) in the presence of witnesses.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JSetram Nagesia – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 234 of 2024

An offence qualifies for Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide) if it arises from a sudden, unpremeditated fight in the heat of passion, provided the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Setram Nagesia – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 234 of 2024