HC affirms homicidal death but applies Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to convert conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II, reduces sentences under Sections 307 and 449—binding criminal appellate authority
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA No. 1086 of 2019 of Niranjan Prasad Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010227912019 |
| Date of Registration | 10-07-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Partly Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal & Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The assault by hand and fist with head-banging on stairs, without use of a dangerous weapon or premeditation, falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC when the accused had knowledge the blows could cause death but no intention to kill. Supreme Court precedents in Surinder Kumar, Arumugam and Arjun guide that knowledge alone attracts Section 304 Part-II IPC, not Section 302. In such cases, appellate courts may adjust sentences under Sections 307 and 449 IPC in light of time already served. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was therefore altered to 304 Part-II IPC and the related sentences were reduced. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied | The court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC as elaborated in Surinder Kumar and Arumugam, distinguishing between intention and knowledge per Arjun. It relied on eye-witness and medical evidence to establish causation and exercised appellate discretion in resentencing. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 24 September 2018 at Bhagat Chowk, Janjgir-Champa, father and son appellants trespassed into the deceased’s house to demand 20% interest. Pramod assaulted the deceased by hand and fist and banged his head on the stairs; the deceased later died. They also injured the deceased’s son with a knife. Three eye-witnesses and the post-mortem report confirmed a homicidal death. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44528-DB |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Practical Impact | No details on binding or persuasive value explicitly stated in the judgment. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that an assault by hand and fist resulting in death without use of a weapon or premeditation qualifies for conversion of a murder charge (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II IPC) under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
- Reaffirms the four-pronged test for Exception 4: sudden fight, no premeditation, heat of passion, and absence of cruelty or undue advantage.
- Distinguishes between knowledge and intention to kill, following Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, guiding that knowledge of likely death attracts Section 304 Part-II, not Section 302.
- Confirms appellate courts’ authority to reduce sentences under Sections 307 and 449 IPC in light of time already served.
- Lawyers may cite this decision to support conversion of murder convictions in sudden-fight cases and to seek sentence reductions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The post-mortem report (Ex.P-16) unequivocally established homicidal death by injuries to vital organs.
- Eye-witnesses PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 proved that Pramod assaulted the deceased by hand and fist and banged his head on the stairs, causing fatal injuries.
- No dangerous weapon was used; there was no premeditation or cruelty—criteria for Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
- Supreme Court precedents (Surinder Kumar, Arumugam) define the requirements for Exception 4; Arjun distinguishes intention (Section 304 Part I) from knowledge (Section 304 Part II).
- Applying these principles, conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentences under Sections 307 and 449 IPC were reduced to the term already undergone or two years’ imprisonment as appropriate.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Assault involved only hand and fist and head-banging; no dangerous weapon or premeditation—at most culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
- Pramod has already undergone substantial sentence; Niranjan has served over two years—appeal should be allowed in part.
Respondent (State):
- Prosecution proved all elements of murder and attempt to murder beyond reasonable doubt; no basis to convert Section 302 conviction or reduce sentences; appeal should be dismissed.
Factual Background
- On 24 September 2018 at around 9 PM, Pramod Rathore (son) and Niranjan Prasad Rathore (father) entered Vishnu Prasad Nirmalkar’s home to recover 20% interest on a loan.
- When the deceased refused to pay, Pramod assaulted him with hand and fist and banged his head on stairs, causing grievous injuries; the deceased died during treatment in hospital.
- The appellants also injured the deceased’s son with a knife.
- Three family members and a neighbor witnessed the incident; police recorded zero Merg, FIR and post-mortem confirmed homicidal injuries.
- Both appellants were charged, tried in Sessions Trial No. 01/2019, convicted under Sections 302, 307, 449 and 34 IPC, and sentenced to life and terms up to ten years.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (murder) vs. Section 304 Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder): intention versus knowledge distinction per Arjun.
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight): requires absence of premeditation, heat of passion, no cruel or undue advantage—defined in Surinder Kumar and Arumugam.
- Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and Section 449 IPC (house-trespass) convictions upheld but sentences reduced in exercise of appellate discretion.
- Section 34 IPC (common intention) supports joint liability for father and son.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- (2025) CGHC 44528-DB
- Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 3 SCC 247
- Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217
- Arumugam v. State, (2008) 15 SCC 590