Topari Nagesiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREETKAUR Date: 2025.07.25 11:04:28 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:35681-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 109 of 2024

¶6

Topari Nagesiya S/o Mahavir Aged About 40 Years R/o Kotpali Karmahipara, Outpost Ganeshmod, Police Station Balrampur, Tehsil And District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant(s) versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Balrampur, Tehsil And District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶12

Judgment on board

¶13

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

¶14

24.07.2025

¶15

This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District-

¶16

2

¶17

Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 111/2021, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 month, under Section 506(b) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 month and under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Manshi Nag was the wife of the accused Topri Nagesia. On the incident date 27.03.2021, the accused Topri Nagesia had gone to the weekly market in village Baskepi with his wife Manshi Nagesia and at 05:00 PM, he returned home from the Baskepi market after drinking liquor and at 10:00 PM, when the deceased Manshi Nagesia served food to the accused, he got angry and said that the deceased was serving banana vegetable and while abusing the deceased, he beat her on her chest, stomach, waist and left elbow with a bamboo stick, due to which the deceased became unconscious and was unable to talk.

¶19

Witness Ramjatan (PW-2), who is a resident of Lahsunpath, had gone to Kotpali village of the accused to visit relatives. After the

¶20

3

¶21

incident, on 30.03.2021, he went to the house of deceased Manshi. He saw that the health of the deceased was very bad and there were bruises on her body. On asking about the deceased, she informed about the assault by the accused. Then Ramjatan (PW-2) returned to his home in Lahsunpath and went to the house of the father of the deceased and informed about the assault by the accused on Manshi. Then the father of the deceased, Sengtu Nagesia, went along with Ramnath (PW-3) and Ramjatan (PW-2) and saw the deceased. When the deceased regained consciousness, she told that the accused had assaulted her with a stick. They took the deceased to Ganeshmod police post where a report was lodged by the deceased against the accused. On the report lodged by the deceased, a crime under Sections 294, 506, 323 IPC was registered at the Ganeshmod police station and the deceased was taken to Balrampur Hospital by her father and witnesses in a private vehicle, where she was being treated at Ambikapur Hospital after being referred by the doctor, and she died on 16.04.2021 at 12 noon, in relation to which, on receiving the inquest information, the inquest intimation was registered and the inquest investigation was conducted, a visual map of the scene of the incident was prepared, and in the presence of witnesses, the Panchnama of the dead body was prepared and the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted, the examination report of the dead body was obtained, and in the inquest investigation, prima facie finding of the accused having

¶22

4

¶23

committed the crime, the crime under Section 302 IPC was added against the accused and investigation was taken up.

¶24

During investigation, the bed head ticket of the deceased was obtained, statements of witnesses were taken. Memorandum statement of the accused was recorded, bamboo stick was seized from the possession of the accused on his indication and the accused was arrested. Medical opinion was obtained by querying the bamboo stick seized from the accused. Patwari map of the place of incident was prepared and after investigation, chargesheet was presented against the accused under Sections 294, 506, 323, 302 of IPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class Balrampur (C.G.), from where the case was handed over to the learned Sessions Judge for trial.

¶25

In this case, the trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 294, 506 (part two), 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and read them out to him. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During the trial, the accused claimed to be innocent and that he had been falsely implicated, but no evidence was produced on his behalf in his defence.

¶26

During the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witness in support of its case and exhibited 16 documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16).

¶27

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 29.11.2023,

¶28

5

¶29

convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302, 506(b) and 323 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed.

¶30

Mr. Aashotosh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to the deceased in spur of moment. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.

¶31

On the other hand, learned State counsels for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the appellant has caused murder of deceased by deadly

¶32

6

¶33

attacking her with bamboo stick due to which, she succumbed to her injuries, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302, 506(b) and 323 of the IPC and it is not a case where the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC and as such, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶35

The first question for consideration would be whether the deceased died under unnatural circumstances ?

¶36

With regard to this question, statements of S.N. Gole (PW-10), Assistant Professor, Government Medical College Ambikapur and Dr. Animesh (PW-14), Medical Officer, District Hospital, Balrampur (C.G.), is taken on record.

¶37

Dr. Animesh (PW-14) Medical Officer, District Hospital, Balrampur (C.G.) while supporting the prosecution has stated that on 31.03.2021 at about 01:24 pm, when the injured Manshi Nagesia was brought by constable Nanheswar Kujur of Ganeshmod outpost, he examined the injured person and stated that the following injuries were found on the body of the injured person:-

¶38

Abrasion on frontal part of head measuring 10x10 cm caused by a hard and blunt object.

¶39

A 5x5 cm abrasion was found on the right side of the

¶40

7

¶41

face which appeared to be caused by a hard and blunt object.

¶42

An abrasion measuring 5x5 cm on the left side of left hand which appeared to be caused by a hard and blunt object.

¶43

Abrasion 2x2 cm near elbow joint of right arm which appeared to be caused by a hard and blunt object.

¶44

Abrasion 5x5 cm in epigastric region above navel which appeared to be caused by a hard and blunt object.

¶45

Abrasion 2x2 cm on right leg which appeared to be caused by a hard and blunt object.

¶46

Dr. Animesh (PW-14) further stated that the patient was unconscious and had a history of bleeding from the nose and that the patient was brought for treatment 4-5 days after the incident and that considering the unconscious state of the patient and bleeding from the nose and the injuries, he was advised to get a CT Scan done. This witness also stated that surgery was advised due to swelling in the stomach of the patient and that since his institution/hospital did not have the facility of CT Scan, dhe was referred to a higher facility institution for treatment.

¶47

S.N. Gole (PW-10), Assistant Professor, Government Medical College Ambikapur supporting the prosecution has stated that on 16.04.2021 at 03:45 p.m., when the body of the deceased Manshi was presented for post-mortem by constable Santoshi Pandey of Police Sahayata Kendra Hospital Ambikapur, she was identified by her father.

¶48

8

¶49

The post-mortem examiner of the deceased, S.N. Gole (PW-12) in his statement further stated that on examining the dead body of the deceased, both the eyes of the deceased were closed and pupils were fixed and dilated, mouth was half open and tongue was inside, a 01.x 0.5 cm cut wound was present on the inner part of the upper lip and there was stiffness in the throat region of the body.

¶50

S.N.Gole (PW-12) further stated in his statement that on external examination of the dead body of the deceased, following injuries were found:

¶51

Abdomen was bloated with a 4x2 cm faded yellow colored contusion in epigastric area.

¶52

03 cm long vertical cut injury was close to right labia majora.

¶53

There was a shallow cut wound measuring 2 x 1 cm on the right leg.

¶54

There were 3 x 1 cm and 2 x 1 cm scratches on the right elbow.

¶55

S.N. Gole (PW-12) in his further statement stated that on internal examination of the dead body of the deceased, there was a contusion of 3x1 cm in the internal part of the frontal scalp on the left side in the region of skull and spinal cord, brain was swollen and SAH type of brain hemorrhage was present, all the organs of the chest region were intact and congested. Two hundred ml of yellow coloured fluid was present in each pleural cavity, five litre of yellow coloured fluid was present in the abdominal cavity. The

¶56

9

¶57

presence of fluid of the abdominal cavity, intestinal membrane, mouth, pharynx and oesophagus, spleen, both kidneys, urinary tract, internal and external genitals, stomach, small and large intestine were intact and congested, stomach was empty, 2x2 cm contusion in liver and congested liver was reported.

¶58

S.N. Gole (PW-12) further opined in his postmortem report (Ex.P12) that the deceased died due to cardio-respiratory arrest due to sepsis (septicemia) caused by injuries caused by hard and blunt objects.

¶59

Medical witness S.N. Gole (PW-12) supporting the prosecution story has stated that the seized bamboo stick used in the crime has been examined and that the deceased may have been injured by the said seized and examined bamboo stick and has confirmed the examination report Exhibit P-14 given by him.

¶60

In the cross-examination, witness S.N. Gole (PW-12), the doctor confirmed several key points. The injuries on the deceased's body were deemed normal in nature, and timely medical treatment could have potentially saved the deceased's life. The doctor did not treat the injuries before the postmortem and had no information about prior treatment. The lack of timely treatment likely contributed to the fatal outcome due to infection from the injury. The doctor disagreed with suggestions that the injuries could have resulted from a fall while intoxicated or that the stick in question couldn't have caused the injuries. Additionally, the doctor noted that the stick examined was not sealed, and the query

¶61

10

¶62

report didn't detail any stains on it. Only the bamboo stick was presented for examination, with no other instruments considered.

¶63

These points highlight the doctor's testimony and potential weaknesses in the prosecution's case regarding the nature of the injuries and the role of the stick in causing them.

¶64

Thus, from the above evidence analysis and perusal of the medical evidence and documents available on record, it is proved that the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased were normal, and the deceased died due to lack of timely treatment likely contributed to the fatal outcome due to infection from the injuries sustained.

¶65

Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question.

¶66

In this regard, deceased's father Sengtu (PW-1), Ramjatan Nagesia (PW-2) and Ramnath Nagesia (PW-3) are important witnesses, hence their statements are taken into consideration.

¶67

Ramjatan Nagesia (PW-2) has stated while supporting the prosecution story that one year ago, he went to his sister Ruchiya's house in village Kotpali, thereafter from there he went to his niece deceased Manshi Nagesia's house and called out to deceased Manshi, but when there was no response from inside, he opened the door of the house and went inside and saw that the deceased was lying face down on the ground, blood was oozing

¶68

11

¶69

from her face. This witness has further stated in his statement that on asking about the above, deceased Manshi said that she was having fever, then he said that you are not having fever, how are you bleeding, on which Manshi did not tell anything. He further stated that he came to village Lahasunpath and informed Manshi's father Sengtu about the incident, and also booked a car along with deceased Manshi's father and Ramnath and went to Manshi's house and then took Manshi to Ganeshmod Police Station and registered a report and took the deceased to Balrampur Hospital for treatment and got her admitted and from there she was referred by the doctors. It has also been stated that on investigation, she was taken to District Hospital Ambikapur and it has also been stated that deceased Manshi died there during treatment.

¶70

During the cross-examination, Ramjatan Nagesia (PW-2) has stated that in his judicial statement on being asked by him It has been stated that she had fever, and it has been stated that when the deceased was asked about not having fever and bleeding, she did not say anything. This witness Ramjatan Nagesia (PW-2) has not supported in his judicial statement that the deceased had informed him about the accused beating her, which is an error on the part of the prosecution.

¶71

Father of the deceased Sengtu (PW-1) has also supported the statement of Ramjatan Nagesia and stated that last year during

¶72

12

¶73

Holi festival, his brother-in-law Ramjatan Nagesia told him about his daughter being unconscious in the house due to accused Topri Nagesia beating her, and when he went to village Kotpali, he found his daughter lying unconscious. Further in the statement, this witness has also stated seeing injury marks on the head and other parts of the body of his daughter and on being asked, he has stated that accused Topri had beaten her with a stick. He further stated in his statement that he took his daughter, the deceased, in a private vehicle Scorpio to Ganesh Mod Chowki and lodged a report and took her to Balrampur Hospital for treatment and after primary treatment she was referred to Ambikapur Hospital and as per the prosecution story, during the treatment his daughter died.

¶74

During the cross-examination, Sengtu (PW-1) has stated in his main examination that his daughter Manshi told him that the accused Topri Nagesia had beaten her with a stick, but the said witness has admitted in paragraph 8 of cross-examination that he did not see the accused beating the deceased and has stated that the police did not take any action before him, in view of which, on perusal of the record, it is found that Sengtu (PW-1) has admitted that he did not see the accused beating the deceased, which is natural and the correct fact, because neither is the prosecution's story of the said witness being present at the time of the incident and seeing it, nor is such a situation evident from the evidence.

¶75

13

¶76

Ramnath Nagesia (PW-3) also supporting the prosecution story and the statements of witnesses Ramjatan and Sengtu has stated in his judicial statement that one year ago witness Ramjatan had gone to the house of deceased Manshi and on seeing her condition Ramjatan had come and informed him and the deceased's father Sengtu that the deceased was lying unconscious in the house and this witness as per the prosecution story has stated that he had gone to Manshi's house along with Sengtu and Ramjatan and had seen her and on being questioned she was injured due to the beating by the accused. He has also stated that he informed about their arrival. Further in his statement, this witness has also stated that the deceased was taken to Ganeshmod police station and a report was filed and she was taken to Balrampur hospital and then to Ambikapur district hospital and that Manshi died during treatment there.

¶77

Chainsay Kispotta Head Constable (PW-11) also supported the prosecution in his judicial statement dated 16.04.2021 and stated that as per the written complaint given by the doctor regarding the death of the deceased at Police Sahayata Kendra Medical College Hospital Ambikapur, the intimation form Exhibit P-15 was prepared and notice Exhibit P-09 was sent to the witness regarding his presence in the body panchanama and map panchayatnama Exhibit P-10 was prepared. Investigating officer Ropan Ram Pankra, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-12) also supported the prosecution and stated that an unnumbered First

¶78

14

¶79

Information Report Exhibit P-16 was registered at Police Outpost Ganesh Mod.

¶80

Perusal of the above statements reveals that after the incident, the prosecution witness Ramjatan was the first to know about the incident when he went to the house of the deceased on 30.03.2021. Thereafter, the said witness informed the father of the deceased and other people, he came along with them to the house of the deceased and saw the deceased and found her in an unconscious and injured state. Thereafter, the said witnesses along with the father of the deceased and other witnesses took the deceased to Ganeshmond police station on 31.03.2021 and the deceased Manshi lodged a First Information Report there. It is evident that the deceased was unable to lodge the report immediately due to her injured and unconscious condition after the incident and she did not have the resources available with her. And, after the arrival of the deceased's father and witnesses, the deceased got the help and resources required for reporting the incident. It is evident that the deceased Manshi Nagesia did not have the resources available for the period from the incident till the filing of the report, and hence, it is evident that the First Information Report related to the incident was lodged with delay. The grounds are found to be proper, sufficient and correct.

¶81

The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, whether the case of the appellant is covered within

¶82

15

¶83

Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

¶84

The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1 has observed as under:-

¶85

“21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.”

¶86

The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of

¶87

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

¶88

16

¶89

Haryana 2 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which state as under :-

¶90

“23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under :

¶91

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶92

(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;

¶93

(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

¶94

(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;

¶95

(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;

¶96

(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;

¶97

(g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;

¶98

(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;

¶99

(i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;

¶100

(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;

¶101

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶102

17

¶103

(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;

¶104

(l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;

¶105

(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident.

¶106

Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ?

¶107

These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.

¶108

The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.”

¶109

Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda 3, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is

¶110

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

¶111

18

¶112

likely to cause death.

¶113

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 4 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-

¶114

“20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under :(SCC p. 220, para 7)

¶115

“7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”

¶116

Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 596, para 9)

¶117

“9. …. '18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients

¶118

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶119

19

¶120

mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”.

¶121

In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

¶122

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under:

¶123

“ 16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required:

¶124

(i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and

¶125

5 (2019) 6 SCC 122

¶126

20

¶127

(iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

¶128

Reverting to the facts of the present case and in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra) and the statements made by the witnesses Sengtu, father of the deceased (PW-1), Ramjatan Nagesiya (PW-2), Ramnath Nagesiya (PW-3) regarding the incident, it is quite vivid that the accused and the deceased are husband and wife and on the date of the incident i.e. on 27.03.2021, the accused Topri Nagesia came back home from Baskepi market in an intoxicated condition and when the deceased Manshi Nagesia served food to the accused, he got angry and said that the deceased was serving banana vegetable and while abusing the deceased, the accused out of that anger and in heat of passion, hit the deceased with a bamboo stick, due to which the deceased suffered injuries on her person. The appellant did not have any intention to cause death of deceased, but by causing such injuries, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely to cause death of deceased, as such, his case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfied the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue

¶129

21

¶130

advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Further, as per statement of Dr. Animesh (PW-14), it is quite vivid that the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased was normal in nature and the injuries becoming fatal could be attributed to lack of timely treatment.

¶131

Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the evidence of Sengtu, father of the deceased (PW-1), Ramjatan Nagesiya (PW-2), Ramnath Nagesiya (PW-3), statement of medical officer Dr. Animesh (PW-14), nature of injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased, postmortem report (Ex.P-14) and the fact that the appellant is languishing in jail since 29.05.2021, it would meet the end of justice that if the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

¶132

Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 PartII of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years.

¶133

The appellant is stated to be in jail since 29.05.2021 being the date of arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above.

¶134

The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶135

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellants are

¶136

22

¶137

undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶138

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶139

Sd/- Sd/-

¶140

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶141

Manpreet

Topari Nagesiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Topari Nagesiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepkesh Prajapati Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Devesh Kumar Dwivedi (Wrongly Typed as Devesh Dwivedi ) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikram Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devesh Kumar Dwivedi (Wrongly Typed as Devesh Dwivedi) Vs State of Chhattisgarh