When Is Conviction Under Section 304 Part II IPC Unsustainable and Properly Altered to Section 325 IPC?

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that in the absence of clear proof of intention or knowledge requisite for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC cannot be sustained and must be altered to Section 325 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. This decision upholds and applies existing Supreme Court precedent, reinforcing the distinction between the two offences for future criminal trials in Chhattisgarh.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The court clarified that where intention or knowledge to cause death cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction under Section 304-II IPC is unsustainable and can be legally altered to Section 325 IPC.
• Medical evidence indicating the cause of death was uncertain, especially where alternative causes (such as an enlarged spleen) are possible, militates against upholding a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Reliance on Supreme Court precedent (Lal Mandi v. State of W.B.) for this distinction reinforces its utility as both a shield and a sword in similar factual matrices.
• Lawyers should particularly note the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses and inconclusive medical opinion in securing downgrading of charges from Section 304-II to Section 325 IPC.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 304-II IPC on the basis of an altercation in which the appellant kicked the deceased, leading to her death.
2. Upon appeal, this conviction was scrutinized in light of the medical evidence and the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
3. The only eyewitness stated the appellant assaulted the deceased with kicks, and no weapon was used.
4. The medical expert stated the cause of death was hemorrhage due to an enlarged and ruptured spleen, with the nature of death uncertain. It was admitted the spleen could have ruptured from a fall or other non-assault-related causes.
5. Key prosecution witnesses (including the deceased’s husband) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story, instead stating the deceased had been unwell.
6. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lal Mandi v. State of W.B., which held that absent clear evidence of intention/knowledge, Section 304-II cannot be invoked and only Section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) applies.
7. The High Court held that neither intention nor knowledge required for Section 304 Part II was established and only Section 325 was attracted on these facts.
8. The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone considering the prolonged pendency, nature of injury, and time already spent in custody.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant)

• The injuries were caused only by leg and not sufficient to attract Section 304-II IPC.
• The doctor testified that the spleen was enlarged and could have ruptured for reasons other than assault.
• The deceased’s husband (PW-4) did not support the prosecution and stated the deceased was ill.
• Even on prosecution’s evidence, at best the case would fall under Section 325 IPC.
• The appellant had already served more than a year in custody and did not misuse bail.

Respondent (State)

• Prosecution established the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
• The trial court correctly appreciated evidence and convicted under Section 304-II IPC.
• Not a case for alteration of charge to Section 325 IPC; appeal should be dismissed.

Factual Background

The appellant, the second wife of Joseph Minz, was alleged to have had an altercation with the deceased, the first wife, on 17.07.2006, during which she kicked the deceased over the stomach and chest, leading to the deceased’s instantaneous death. The deceased’s husband lodged morgue intimation and police began investigation, leading to filing of charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC. Evidence at trial included one eyewitness, medical opinion about a ruptured spleen (with the nature of death uncertain), and hostile key witnesses. The trial court ultimately convicted the appellant under Section 304-II IPC, sentencing her to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellant appealed the conviction.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 304 Part II IPC – Conviction requires proof of knowledge or intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death.
• Section 325 IPC – Applies where grievous hurt is voluntarily caused without intention or knowledge required for Section 304-II.
• The court analysed the application of mens rea requirements and the necessity of conclusive medical and testimonial evidence for establishing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The medical opinion indicating uncertainty, alternative possible causes (including pre-existing ailment), and lack of use of weapons led to reclassification of the offence.

Procedural Innovations

• The Court formally appointed legal aid counsel when the appellant was unrepresented at hearing, ensuring compliance with fair trial requirements.
• The Court directed compliance with Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, asking the appellant to execute a bond for appearance in the event of special leave petition.
• No changes to evidentiary requirements or suo motu guidelines issued.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedent (Lal Mandi v. State of W.B., (1995) 3 SCC 603) applied and followed to clarify the distinction between culpable homicide and grievous hurt.

Citations

• Lal Mandi v. State of West Bengal, (1995) 3 SCC 603
• Decision described as “AFR” (Approved for Reporting)
• CNR: CGHC010101162008
• Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:44940
• Paragraphs 15–18 of the judgment discuss the Supreme Court precedent and its application.