High Court Clarifies Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, Affirms Conversion of Section 302 Conviction to Section 304 Part II, and Reduces Sentences Under Sections 307 and 449 IPC
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1292/2019 of PRAMOD RATHORE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010292772019 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal; Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court’s findings; applies and clarifies Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC & CrPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that where an assault causing death occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation, heat of passion, or cruelty and the assailant had only knowledge that injuries could be fatal, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies. A conviction under Section 302 IPC must then be converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The Court further ruled that sentences for Sections 307 and 449 IPC, though merited by convictions, may be reduced where the prescribed terms are disproportionate to the circumstances, especially if already served. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The Court applied the Supreme Court’s tests for Exception 4—absence of premeditation, heat of passion, lack of undue advantage and cruelty—and distinguished intent from mere knowledge per Arjun. It analysed the ingredients of Sections 302, 304 Part II, 307, and 449 IPC, and invoked CrPC Section 374(2) for appellate jurisdiction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Father and son entered the deceased’s home to recover interest, assaulted him by fists and by banging his head on stairs; three eye-witnesses testified; post-mortem confirmed homicidal death; a knife was seized; injured son suffered grievous wounds; charges were framed under Sections 302, 307, 449, and 307/34 IPC. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44528-DB; see paras 20–21 of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on conversion of murder to culpable homicide and sentence reduction |
| Follows | Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017); Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh (1989); Arumugam v. State (2008) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies when death results from a sudden fight without premeditation, heat of passion, or cruelty.
- Establishes that mere knowledge of fatal consequences (without intent) mandates conversion of Section 302 conviction to Section 304 Part II.
- Confirms the High Court’s power under Section 374(2) CrPC to reduce disproportionate sentences even after conviction.
- Reinforces that sentences under Sections 307 and 449 IPC may be curtailed to the term already served if warranted by facts.
- Provides a binding precedent for future quashing or conversion applications in non-premeditated homicide cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Homicidal Nature Affirmed
Post-mortem report (Ex.P-16) held death homicidal; finding affirmed as neither perverse nor contrary to record. - Credibility of Eye-Witnesses
PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 consistently testified that A-1 assaulted the deceased by fist and head-banging; injuries corroborated by medical evidence. - Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
Relied on Surinder Kumar and Arumugam for criteria: sudden fight, no premeditation, heat of passion, no cruelty or undue advantage. - Distinction Between Intent and Knowledge
Followed Arjun v. State to differentiate murder (intent + knowledge) from culpable homicide not amounting to murder (knowledge alone). - Conversion and Sentence Reduction
Converted Section 302 conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC; reduced term to 8 years. Concurrent sentences under Sections 307 and 449 IPC cut from 10 to 2 years. - Appeal Jurisdiction under CrPC 374(2)
Exercised inherent power to adjust sentences considering period already undergone.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants)
- No dangerous weapon was used; the assault occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation.
- At best, appellant A-1 had knowledge that injuries could be fatal, invoking Section 304 Part II, not Section 302.
- Appellant A-2 has undergone over two years in custody; further punishment is unnecessary.
Respondent (State)
- The prosecution proved murder beyond reasonable doubt; the trial court correctly convicted under Section 302.
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is inapplicable; reduction or conversion of conviction is unwarranted.
- The prescribed sentences under Sections 307 and 449 IPC are justified by the nature of injuries inflicted.
Factual Background
On the night of 24 September 2018 at Purani Basti, the appellants—father and son—allegedly trespassed into the deceased’s home to demand 20% interest on a loan. Upon refusal, they assaulted him by hand and banged his head on stairs, causing grievous injuries; he died during treatment. His son, Gourishankar, also suffered knife wounds. Three eye-witnesses reported the incident; the police registered MERG, recorded the scene map, seized a knife, and obtained a post-mortem report confirming homicidal death. Charges were framed under Sections 302, 307, 449, and 307/34 IPC, and both appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 300 IPC, Exception 4: Requires a sudden fight, absence of premeditation, heat of passion, and no undue advantage or cruelty.
- Section 302 IPC vs. Section 304 Part II IPC: Murder entails intent; culpable homicide not amounting to murder applies where there is knowledge of fatal consequence without intent.
- Sections 307 and 449 IPC: Attempt to murder and house-trespass with intent to commit an offence, respectively; both merited conviction but discretionary reduction of sentence.
- Section 374(2) CrPC: Empowers the High Court to confirm, reverse, modify, or alter any finding, sentence, or order.
- Section 437-A CrPC: Bail bond extension for six months for appellant A-2 already on bail.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44528-DB
- Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 3 SCC 247 (paras 20–21)
- Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217 (para 7)
- Arumugam v. State, (2008) 15 SCC 590 (para 9)