Chattisgarh High Court
Balsingh Nuruti vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
2026:CGHC:18930-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2390 of 2025
1 - Balsingh Nuruti S/o Late Manguram Nuruti Aged About 45 Years R/o Village-
Aamakot, Police Station Siksod, Distt. North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Siksod, Distt.
North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
24.04.2026
Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Shri Shailendera Sharma, PL, appearing for the
State.
1. Present appeal has been listed for consideration on IA No.2 of 2025
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. However,
considering the fact that appellant is in jail since 28.12.2019, with the
consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
Cra 2390 of 2025
2
2. Present appeal under section 415 (2) of the BNS 2023 filed by the
appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
26.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Banupratappur,
District-North Bastar, Kanker in Session Trial-15 of 2020 whereby appellant
has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with default
stipulation:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 325 of the RI for three years, and to
IPC {Section 117(2) of pay fine of Rs.500/-
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023}
Under Section 302 of the Life imprisonment, and to
IPC {Section 103(1) of pay fine of Rs.500/-
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023}
3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 27.12.2019, complainant-Balram
Nuruti, PW1, lodged dehati merg intimation Ex.P2 informing that in the
evening of the day before, he came back to his fields from the market, he
saw his mother lying in the field in pool of blood. When he asked from his
younger brother Baldev Nuruti PW2, he disclosed that there was a quarrel
between the appellant Balsingh Nuruti and the deceased Jugteenbai, and
the appellant assaulted the deceased by danda. The incident was intervened
by Baldev Nuruti and he too was assaulted by the appellant. He took his
mother to the hospital where she was declared dead. Based on the dehati
merg intimation, dehati nalishi Ex.P1 was also recorded by the police.
Inquest of the dead body Ex.P7 was prepared by the police in presence of
Cra 2390 of 2025
3
the witnesses and the dead-body was sent to the community health centre,
Antagarh, where PW9 Dr.Sheetal Dugga conducted postmortem of dead
body of the deceased and found the injury on right frontal region, left
mandible region and found fracture of manubrium and clavicle bone. Doctor
has opined that cause of death was head injury and nature of death was
homicidal and gave postmortem report Ex.P8. Injured Baldev Nuruti was
also sent for medical examination to the Community Health Centre,
Antagarh, where he too was examined by PW9 Dr.Sheetal Dugga. While
medically examining the injured Baldev Nuruti, doctor noticed one tear on
frontal part of the head with swelling on right hand wrist joint and gave his
report Ex.P16. He advised for X-ray of right wrist joint. After examining the
X-ray report, he found fracture of Alna Bone of right wrist which was grievous
in nature. Spot map Ex.P3 was prepared by the police, Blood stained and
plain soil and one part of the danda was seized from the spot vide seizure
memo Ex.P13. Sport map Ex.P4 was prepared by the Patwari. Merg
intimation Ex.P18 was recorded at police station Sixole and then FIR Ex.P19
was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the
IPC. Appellant was taken into custody on 28.12.2019 and his memorandum
statement Ex.P11 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, the
Bamboo Club in two pieces, T-shirt, and half pant of the appellant have been
seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P.12. Pieces of bamboo club were
sent for their query report to the doctor who after examining the articles gave
query report Ex.P17 and opined that injury found on the body of the
deceased could have been caused by the said pieces of bamboo club and
for confirmation of blood he referred them for chemical examination. The
Cra 2390 of 2025
4
blood stained and plain soil, parts of the danda seized from the spot, pieces
of bamboo club, T-shirt and half pant seized from the appellant were sent for
their chemical examination to Regional FSL, Jagdalpur from where FSL
report was received vide Ex.P27 and according to the FSL report, human
blood was found on half pant of the appellant and blood was found on the
blood stained soil, part of the danda seized from the spot and one piece of
danda seized from the appellant.
4. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC were recorded
and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the appellant for the offence under section 302 and 325 IPC before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratapur, Kanker.
5. The case was committed to the learned court of North Bastar, Kanker
from where it has been transferred to the learned trial court for its trial. The
learned trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence
under sections 302, and 325 of the IPC. Appellant denied the charge and
claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the allegation against the appellant, prosecution has
examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under
section 313 of the CRPC has also been recorded in which he denied the
circumstances appearing against him pleaded innocence and submitted that
he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
Cra 2390 of 2025
5
7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence lead by the
prosecution, learned trial court has convicted the appellant and sentenced
him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material
omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which
cannot be made basis to convict him for the offence in question. There is no
motive to commit the murder of the deceased who is his own mother. There
is no independent witness in the case and the injured witness PW2 Baldev
Nuruti is an interested witness, whose vision is very less and he is unable to
see. Therefore, it cannot be said that the incident was witnessed by him. It
is only an apprehension that the appellant himself assaulted the deceased.
Even from the FSL report, in absence of any blood group, the same cannot
be considered as incriminating evidence against the appellant to connect
him with the offence in question. In alternative, he would submit that there
was a property dispute between the family members. PW1 Balram Nuruti &
PW2 Baldev Nuruti are own brothers of the appellant and there was no
property partition between them. On the issue of property partition, there
was altercation took place in the house and the deceased started shouting
and in that even the incident occurred which is on the heat of passion and
there was no premeditation. Therefore, the offence of the appellant, if any,
does not travel beyond scope of 304 of the IPC and therefore, by altering his
conviction from the offence of 302, to 304 Part-II IPC, his sentence may be
Cra 2390 of 2025
6
reduced for the period already undergone by him, as the appellant is in jail
since 2019.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the state opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted
that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but for minor
omissions and contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is
consistent and sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for commission of
murder of the deceased, who is none other but his own mother. Repeated
blows by danda were given by the appellant upon the deceased which
reflected from her postmortem report and when the injured Baldev Nuruti
PW2 intervened, he too was being assaulted. By this act of the appellant, his
intention was clear to commit murder of the deceased. Therefore, witness
PW2 duly supported the prosecution case which has been corroborated by
the FSL report and other evidence available on record. Therefore, there is
no scope for interference by this court in this appeal and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the trial court.
11. The first and foremost question arises for consideration is about the
nature of death of the deceased that whether the deceased died due to
homicidal death or by any other reason.
12. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Dr.Sheetal Dugga
PW9, who conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and
Cra 2390 of 2025
7
gave report Ex.P8. He stated in his evidence that he conducted the
postmortem of the dead body of the deceased on 27.12.2019 and while
conducting the postmortem, he noticed incised wound on right frontal region,
lacerated wound on left mandible region. He also found fracture of
manubrium and clavicle bone and also left 1, 2, 3 ribs. Doctor has opined
that cause of death was head injury and nature of death was homicidal and
gave postmortem report Ex.P8. He also proved query report Ex.P17.
In cross examination, he admitted that if the assault would have been
made by the danda, the injury depends upon the kind of danda. The assault
may cause death or may not. The defense could not extract any material in
his cross-examination so that the injury found on the body of the deceased
or the nature of death could be disbelieved. Homicidal death of the
deceased was further supported by the witness of dehati merg intimation
Ex.P1, given by PW1 Balram Nuruti who saw injuries on the body of the
deceased and also by the witnesses of inquest PW7 Samsai and PW8
Nirmal Kumar Tandia, who found various injuries of the dead body of the
deceased and thus finding recorded by the learned trial court that the death
of the deceased Jugteenbai is homicidal in nature is based on proper
appreciation of evidence and material available on record.
13. With respect to the involvement of the present appellant in the offence
in question, the case of the prosecution based on the evidence of PW2
Baldev Nuruti, who is injured witness and brother of the appellant. PW2 has
stated in his evidence that appellant-Balsingh Nuruti is his brother and
deceased was his mother. They were residing together. On the date of
Cra 2390 of 2025
8
incident when he heard noise of his mother that Balsingh is assaulting her,
he went on the spot and tried to intervene but the appellant assaulted his
mother and he also made assault upon him by danda. His elder brother
Balram Nuruti PW1 has gone to Nawagarh Market. When he came from the
market, his mother was lying there in pool of blood and then he tried to
arrange a vehicle. He informed his elder brother PW1 Balram Nuruti that
Balsingh Nuruti assaulted their mother.
In cross-examination, he admitted that he lost his vision by both the
eyes and he can perform his routine work with the help of others. He denied
that since he could not see properly, he could not tell as to who assaulted his
mother. He remained firm in saying that appellant- Balsingh Nuruti assaulted
their mother. The defense had tried to put various questions to this witness.
However, this witness remained firm in saying that Balsingh assaulted their
mother by danda and he remained firm in saying that appellant Balsingh
Nuruti is the person who assaulted their mother. PW2 Baldev Nuruti is the
injured witness, who too injured on his body. Though he is son of the
deceased but also brother of the appellant. He cannot be said to be an
interested witness. Rather, he would be best witness to depose about the
incident, which he did to the best of his ability. From his evidence, nothing
could be extracted by the defense that appellant has not committed any
offence. The injury found on the body of the injured PW2 Baldev Nuruti has
been proved by PW9 Dr.Sheetal Dugga, who gave his MLC report Ex.P16
and found injury on his frontal part of head and right wrist joint and found
fracture of alna bone of right wrist. The injuries found on the body of the
Cra 2390 of 2025
9
Baldev Nuruti injured witness further proved his presence on the spot and it
is the allegation that when he tried to intervene with the appellant while
assaulting her, appellant assaulted him and his mother.
14. The involvement of the appellant in the offence in question further
proved in the FSL report Ex.P27 in which the blood was found on the half
pant of the appellant, as well as the pieces of the bamboo club seized from
him for which there is no explanation in his 313 CrPC statement.
15. PW1 Balram Nuruti, brother of the appellant and son of the deceased.
He stated in his evidence that when he came back from the market his
brother Baldev Nuruti PW2 informed him about the incident and he saw the
dead body of his mother lying in pool of blood. Then he tried to arrange
vehicle and thereafter, he went to the police station for lodging report.
Though this witness has been declared hostile, however he supported the
prosecution case that when he enquired about the incident from his brother
Baldev Nuruti- PW2, he informed him that Balsingh Nuruti assaulted his
mother and himself.
In cross-examination, he admitted that his brother Baldev Nuruti is
having very less vision and differently able person. He admitted that
villagers have raised suspicion that his brother may have caused injuries to
his mother. Police have taken his brother Balsingh Nuruti in custody on
suspicion. Since he was not an eye witness to the incident he was only
informed by his brother Baldev Nuruti, PW2 that Balsingh Nuruti assaulted
the deceased by danda which he supported the evidence of PW2 Baldev
Cra 2390 of 2025
10
Nuruti because it is the evidence of PW2 also that his brother Balram came
from the market and he disclosed the incident to him.
16. From the above evidence, the involvement of the appellant in the
offence in question has been established by the prosecution that he is the
perpetrator of the crime in question.
17. The next question for consideration would be whether the case of
appellant-Jitendra is covered within exception 4 of section 300 of the IPC
vis-Ã -vis culpable homicide not amounting murder and his conviction can be
converted to 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC as contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant.
18. Cause of death assigned in the postmortem report of the deceased is
‘Head injury and nature of death is homicide’. It is a trite law that “culpable
homicide” is a genus and “murder” is its species and all “murders” are
“culpable homicides, but all “culpable homicides are not murders” as held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rampal Singh Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh1.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basdev Vs. State of
Pepsu2 has made the following observations :
“Of course, we have to distinguish between motive, intention
and knowledge. Motive is something which prompts a man
to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the1
(2012) 8 SCC 2892
AIR 1956 SC 488
Cra 2390 of 2025
11consequences of the act. In many cases intention and
knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing
more or less and intention can be presumed from
knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and
intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that
they connote different things. Even in some English
decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this
has led to a certain amount of confusion.”
20. It requires to be borne in mind that the test suggested in the aforesaid
decision and the fact that the legislature has used two different
terminologies, ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ and separate punishments are
provided for an act committed with an intent to cause bodily injury which is
likely to cause death and for an act committed with a knowledge that his act
is likely to cause death without intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, it would be unsafe to treat ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’ in equal
terms. They are not different things. Knowledge would be one of the
circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring
the requisite intent. Where the evidence would not disclose that there was
any intention to cause death of the deceased but it was clear that the
accused had knowledge that his acts were likely to cause death, the
accused can be held guilty under second part of Section 304 IPC. It is in this
background that the expression used in Indian Penal Code namely
“intention” and “knowledge” has to be seen as there being a thin line of
distinction between these two expressions. The act to constitute murder, if in
given facts and circumstances, would disclose that the ingredients of Section
300 are not satisfied and such act is one of extreme recklessness, it would
Cra 2390 of 2025
12
not attract the said Section. In order to bring a case within Part 3 of Section
300 IPC, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular
bodily injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause
death. In other words, that the injury found to be present was the injury that
was intended to be inflicted.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of
Haryana3 has observed as under:-
“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.”
22. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of
Haryana4 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into
consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with
3
(2002) 3 SCC 327
4
(2009) 15 SCC 635
Cra 2390 of 2025
13
reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which state as
under :-
“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 :
(a) Motive or previous enmity;
(b)Whether the incident had taken place on the spur
of the moment;
(c)The intention/knowledge of the accused while
inflicting the blow or injury;
(d)Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the
victim died after several days;
(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;
(f) The age and general health condition of the
accused;
(g)Whether the injury was caused without
premeditation in a sudden fight;
(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting
the injury and the force with which the blow was
inflicted;
(i) The criminal background and adverse history of
the accused;
(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death but
the death was because of shock;
(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against
the accused;
(l) Incident occurred within the family members or
Cra 2390 of 2025
14close relations;
(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after
the incident.
Whether the accused had taken the injured/the
deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure
that he/she gets proper medical treatment ?
These are some of the factors which can be
taken into consideration while granting an
appropriate sentence to the accused.
24. 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.”
23. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda5, 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 likely to cause death.
5
(2012) 8 SCC 450
Cra 2390 of 2025
15
24. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of
Chhattisgarh6 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in
paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-
“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)
“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.
6
(2017) 3 SCC 247
Cra 2390 of 2025
16
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.”
21. 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)
“9. …. 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 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
Cra 2390 of 2025
17account 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”.
25. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Hon’ble 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.
26. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State
(NCT of Delhi)7 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to
7
(2019) 6 SCC 122
Cra 2390 of 2025
18
bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which
reads as under:
“16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
shows that the following four ingredients are required:
(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 offender had not taken any undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner.”
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of
Anbazhagan vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police in
Criminal Appeal No.2043 of 2023 disposed of on 20.07.2023 has defined the
context of the true test to be adopted to find out the intention or knowledge
of the accused in doing the act as under:
“60. Few important principles of law discernible from the
aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:
(1) When the court is confronted with the question, what
offence the accused could be said to have committed, the
true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the
accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge
was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section
300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a
Cra 2390 of 2025
19single injury was caused. To illustrate: ‘A’ is bound hand
and foot. ‘B’ comes and placing his revolver against the
head of ‘A’, shoots ‘A’ in his head killing him
instantaneously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding
that the intention of ‘B’ in shooting ‘A’ was to kill him,
though only single injury was caused. The case would,
therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section
300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, ‘B’ sneaks into
the bed room of his enemy ‘A’ while the latter is asleep on
his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of ‘A’, ‘B’ forcibly
plunges a sword in the left chest of ‘A’ and runs away. ‘A’
dies shortly thereafter. The injury to ‘A’ was found to be
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
There may be no difficulty in holding that ‘B’ intentionally
inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that
the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act
of ‘B’ within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and
render him guilty of the offence of murder although only
single injury was caused.
(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused
may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the
IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be
murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the
Cra 2390 of 2025
20
accused’s case attracts any one of the five exceptions
enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling
within any of those exceptions, the offence would be
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within
Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the
accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of
Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of
Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within Clause (4)
of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or
knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or
3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be attracted but
not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the IPC. In that
situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It
would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the
case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be
an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall
within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.
(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person
falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable
homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is
punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however,
it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the
second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first
Cra 2390 of 2025
21
part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty
intention,’ whereas the second part would apply when
there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’.
(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury
was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the
requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC,
are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.
(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following
classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the
other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by
one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the injury
caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is
covered by the expression ‘sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death’ but is of a lower degree
of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury
‘likely to cause death’ and the case does not fall under
Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is
done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but
without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause
death.
To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two
parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part,
Cra 2390 of 2025
22
the crime of murder is first established and the accused is
then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section
300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of
murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the
purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence
punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the
IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the
exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
(6) The word ‘likely’ means probably and it is distinguished
from more ‘possibly’. When chances of happening are
even or greater than its not happening, we may say that
the thing will ‘probably happen’. In reaching the
conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of
the accused and then judge whether the accused had the
knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death.
(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section
299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has
always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a
charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category
of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable
homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting
to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder
when the case is brought within the five exceptions to
Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said
Cra 2390 of 2025
23
five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on
the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be
required under the law to bring the case under any of the
four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the
charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this
onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section
300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of
murder would not be made out and the case may be one
of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as
described under Section 299 of the IPC.
(8) The court must address itself to the question of mens
rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the
assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the
deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct
evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn
from the proved circumstances of the case. The court
must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon
used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree
of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack,
the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.
(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a
culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury
or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to
cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if
Cra 2390 of 2025
24
death has actually been caused and intention to cause
such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts
resulting in the injury or injuries.
(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in
the death of the victim, no inference, as a general
principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the
intention to cause the death or that particular injury which
resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused
had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of
fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.
(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had
the intention to cause death of any person or to cause
bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if
he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the
victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of
Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions
applies.
(12) In determining the question, whether an accused had
guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a
single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact
that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight
Cra 2390 of 2025
25
or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury
was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a
simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty
knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section
304 Part II of the IPC.”
28. Referring to the facts of the present case in light of the principles laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above stated judgments, it is quite
vivid that the incident occurred suddenly in the course of quarrel between
the appellant and the deceased over dispute of family property. Prosecution
evidence itself indicates that there was verbal altercation immediately
preceding the incident. There is nothing on record to show that accused has
any prior intention and preplan to commit murder of the deceased. The
incident appears to have occurred in a spur of moment.
29. Although the assault was made on the vital part of the body i.e. on
chest, the concerned circumstances clearly indicate that act of the appellant
comes within the Ambit of exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC as it was
committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion
and as such his case would fall within the purview of except 4 of section 300
IPC as Act of the Appellant herein completely satisfy the four necessary
ingredients of exception 4 to the section 300 IPC. They are (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 offender had not taken any undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Cra 2390 of 2025
26
30. Thus upon careful consideration of entire evidence on record including
relevant testimony of witnesses, PW2 Baldev Nuruti and other witnesses
PW1 Balram Nuruti and the medical evidence of PW9 Dr.Sheetal Dugga and
the FSL report Ex.P27 confirming presence of blood on the weapon danda
and half pant of the appellant, this court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has successfully proved the offence of the appellant beyond any
reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the deceased which resulted
into death of the deceased Jugteenbai and made injury and fracture of right
alna bone of PW2 Baldev Nuruti.
31. However, considering the circumstances in which the incident occurred
in a sudden quarrel, without any premeditation and in heat of passion, the
act of the appellant would fall within the ambit of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
32. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant- Balsingh Nuruti under Section
302 of the IPC is set aside, instead thereof, he is convicted under Section
304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years.
33. Appellant is reported to be in jail since 28.12.2019 being the date of
arrest. He is directed to serve out the sentence as modified above.
34. Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
35. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned
Superintendent of jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail term, to
serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail
Cra 2390 of 2025
27
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 Service Committee.
36. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the
trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
padma
Digitally signed by
V PADMAVATHI
Date: 2026.04.28
14:46:02 +0530