Chattisgarh High Court
Setram Nagesia vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18642-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 234 of 2024
Setram Nagesia S/o Kuwarsai Nagesia Aged About 31 Years
Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Tongripara, Police Station- Batouli,
District- Surguja, C.G.
... Appellant(s)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station- Batouli, District
Surguja, C.G.
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Chitendra Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
23.04.2026
Digitally
1. Heard Mr. Chitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
heard Ms. Anusha Naik, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
MORLE Date:
2026.04.23
18:33:40
+0530appearing for the State/respondent.
2
2. Though the matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 1 of 2024
(application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail), however,
considering that the appellant has been in custody since 07.10.2022,
and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is
taken up for final hearing.
3. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC‘) is directed against the
impugned judgment dated 23.12.2023 passed by the learned Session
Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja (C.G.) (for short, ‘learned
trial Court’), in Session Case No. 189 of 2022, by which the appellant
has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction under Section Sentence
Section 302 of the Indian Rigorous imprisonment (for short,
Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC‘), ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-,
amended Section 103 of the in default of payment of fine, 06
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for months R.I. more.
short, ‘BNS’)
Section 323 of the IPC R.I. for 03 months and fine of
Rs.100/-, in default of payment of
fine, 01 month R.I. more.
All the sentences awarded shall run concurrently.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant, a
resident of village Taragi under Police Station Batouli, lived there with
his family. On 06.11.2022 at about 5:00 p.m., the appellant was
discussing the sale of land with the village watchman. At that time, his
3
uncle Nansai (PW-1) and aunt Basanti were also present. During the
discussion, a dispute arose between the appellant and his uncle
Nansai. The appellant started quarreling, questioning why cattle had
been tied there, and began untethering them. Nansai and Basanti
objected and tried to stop him. Thereafter, near the watchman’s house,
the appellant picked up a wooden channel (used for bending iron rods),
abused them, and threatened to kill Basanti. He struck her on the head
with the said object, causing her to fall on the spot with profuse
bleeding. When Nansai intervened, the appellant assaulted him with
fists and attempted to strangulate him. At that moment, Pakas Uraon
intervened and rescued Nansai. Due to the assault, Basanti died.
5. On receiving information of Basanti’s death from Nansai, Sub-
Inspector Pramod Kumar Pandey (PW-12) registered merg intimation
No. 57/2022 (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Batouli. Based on the report, FIR
No. 137/2022 was registered under Sections 294, 506, 323, and 302 of
the IPC (Ex.P/2). Injured Nansai was sent for medical examination
(Ex.P/17). During investigation, the inquest (Ex.P/5) was prepared after
issuing notice (Ex.P/4), and a spot map (Ex.P/3) was drawn. The
postmortem report (Ex.P/18), proved by Dr. Umang Bothra (PW-8),
opined that the death was due to coma resulting from head injury and
was homicidal in nature.
6. On 07.11.2022, the appellant was taken into custody and
interrogated. His memorandum statement (Ex.P/13) led to the recovery
of the wooden channel used in the offence from his backyard, which
4
was seized (Ex.P/14) in the presence of witnesses. Blood-stained and
plain soil were seized from the spot (Ex.P/12). The seized weapon was
sent for medical opinion, and report (Ex.P/19) confirmed that the injuries
could have been caused by the said object.
7. A requisition (Ex.P/23) was sent for preparation of the patwari
map. The appellant was arrested (Ex.P/15). The clothes of the
deceased were seized (Ex.P/21) and sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Ambikapur, from where report (Ex.P/24) was received.
Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
8. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before
the competent Court, and the case was committed to the Court of
Session for trial.
9. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506
Part II, 302, and 323 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charges and
claimed trial, pleading false implication.
10. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 25
documents. The appellant did not adduce any defence evidence.
11. By judgment dated 23.12.2023, the learned trial Court convicted
the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced
him accordingly, which is under challenge in the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction
under Section 302 of the IPC is unsustainable as the prosecution has
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that
5
the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel without premeditation, in the
heat of passion, and therefore, falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of
the IPC (now corresponding to Section 100 of the BNS). It is argued
that, at best, the offence would amount to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or Part II of
the IPC (now Sections 101/102 BNS).
13. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned
judgment and submits that the case does not fall within any exception. It
is contended that the conviction under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC
is justified and calls for no interference.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the record.
15. The first question for consideration is whether the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature.
16. Dr. Umang Bothra (PW-8), who conducted the postmortem on
07.10.2022 at about 2:40 p.m., found a lacerated wound (5 × 3 × 2 cm)
on the parietal-occipital region, along with skull fracture, extradural,
subdural, and intracerebral hemorrhages, and a tear in the meninges.
He opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object,
were ante-mortem, grievous, and sufficient to cause death. The cause
of death was coma due to head injury, and the nature of death was
homicidal. He proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/18), and his
testimony remained unshaken. Thus, the homicidal nature of death
stands conclusively established, and the finding of the learned trial
6
Court in this regard is affirmed.
17. The next question is whether the appellant is the author of the
crime. The learned trial Court has rightly relied upon the testimony of
Nansai (PW-1), the eyewitness, who categorically stated that the
appellant struck the deceased on the head with a wooden channel. His
testimony is corroborated by medical evidence. From the evidence on
record, it is clearly established that the appellant inflicted the fatal injury
on the deceased. The finding of the learned trial Court on this aspect is
well-founded and is hereby affirmed.
18. This leads to the next question: whether the case falls within
Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC (corresponding to Section 100 of
the BNS), and whether the conviction can be altered to culpable
homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC (now
Sections 101/102 BNS), as contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v.
State of Haryana1 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
1 (2002) 3 SCC 327
7not 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.”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v.
State of Haryana2 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 :-
“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 :
2 (2009) 15 SCC 635
8
(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
9
against the accused;
(l) Incident occurred within the family members
or close 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.”
21. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda3, their
3 (2012) 8 SCC 450
10
Lordships of the Hon’ble 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.
22. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v.
State of Chhattisgarh4 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
4 (2017) 3 SCC 247
11the 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.”
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. …. ’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
12ingredients 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”.
23. 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
13
not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be
a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
24. Further, the Hon’ble 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:
“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."
25. In this regard, Nansai (PW-1), the husband of the deceased and
an eyewitness, has deposed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of his examination-
in-chief that he knows the appellant, who is his nephew, and that the
deceased Basanti was his wife. He further stated that about six months
prior to the incident, the appellant had taken his wife to his house on the
pretext of offering liquor. He also deposed that the appellant had earlier
5 (2019) 6 SCC 122
14sold his own land and was attempting to acquire his land, due to which
there existed a dispute between them. He further submits that on the
date of the incident, when he returned after grazing cattle and was tying
them, the appellant started untethering his cattle. Despite his objection,
the appellant did not stop. His wife also intervened, but the appellant
paid no heed and struck her on the head with a wooden channel (used
for bending iron rods), causing her to fall on the spot. When he
attempted to rescue her, the appellant assaulted him with fists and
blows, knocked him down, and attempted to strangulate him. At that
juncture, Pakas Uraon arrived and rescued him. By then, his wife had
succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, Rajendra and Dhanu Bunakar
reached the spot. The witness also sustained injuries on his arms, legs,
chest, and neck.
26. The witness further deposed that immediately after the incident,
he, along with Rajeshwar Uraon and Rajendra Uraon, went to Police
Station Batouli, where he lodged the merg intimation (Ex.P/1) and the
FIR (Ex.P/2).
27. In support of PW-1, the prosecution examined Paikas Kujur (PW-
2), Kunti Bai (PW-3), and Dhanu (PW-4). However, PW-2 merely stated
that he saw the deceased lying injured with bleeding near the
watchman’s house and that Nansai and the appellant were present
there. PW-3 and PW-4 did not witness the incident and only heard
about the death. These witnesses were declared hostile and did not
materially support the prosecution case.
15
28. Rajendra (PW-5) deposed that Nansai informed him about the
death of Basanti and took him to the police station, where the report
was lodged. Similarly, Rajeshwar (PW-6), the village watchman, stated
that upon returning home, he found Basanti lying dead with a head
injury and profuse bleeding. He further stated that Nansai informed him
that the appellant had assaulted Basanti with a wooden channel and
had also beaten him, after which they went to the police station and
lodged the report.
29. Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar Pandey (PW-12) has proved that
on 07.10.2022, upon information given by Nansai, merg No. 57/2022
(Ex.P/1) and FIR No. 137/2022 (Ex.P/2) were registered. He further
proved the preparation of the spot map (Ex.P/3), seizure of blood-
stained and plain soil (Ex.P/12), sending of the dead body for
postmortem (Ex.P/18), and recording of the memorandum of the
appellant (Ex.P/13), pursuant to which the wooden channel was
recovered and seized (Ex.P/14). However, seizure witnesses Rajendra
(PW-5) and Rajeshwar (PW-6), though admitting their signatures on the
memorandum and seizure memos, did not support the prosecution case
regarding recovery and were declared hostile. They denied that any
disclosure statement was made by the appellant or that recovery was
effected in their presence. It is well settled that such hostility does not
ipso facto render the recovery inadmissible, particularly when supported
by other cogent evidence. Any alleged confessional statement before
police remains inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
16
30. Further, the testimony of PW-1 regarding assault on him is
corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Priya Singh Thakur (PW-7), who
examined him on 07.10.2022 and found multiple abrasions near the
right knee and swelling with pain in the neck. She opined that the
injuries were simple in nature and caused within 18-19 hours prior to
examination (Ex.P/17). This lends assurance to the version of PW-1.
31. Thus, the testimony of PW-1, being natural, consistent, and
corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, inspires
confidence and is sufficient to establish that the appellant inflicted the
fatal injury on the deceased.
32. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it emerges from the
evidence on record that, although there existed a prior land dispute
between the parties, the incident in question occurred on account of a
sudden quarrel relating to tying and untethering of cattle. The weapon
used was a wooden channel picked up from the spot itself. There is no
evidence of premeditation, nor is there material to show that the
accused had come prepared to commit the offence.
33. The circumstances clearly indicate that the act was committed in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Although there existed a
prior land dispute between the parties, the evidence on record does not
suggest that the appellant acted pursuant to any premeditated plan to
cause the death of the deceased. The assault appears to have been
triggered by the immediate altercation relating to untethering of cattle.
The weapon used was a wooden channel picked up from the spot,
17
further negating prior preparation. Though the injury inflicted proved
fatal, there is no material to establish that the appellant took undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner beyond the act itself.
The occurrence appears to be a result of a sudden fight in the course of
a verbal altercation which escalated spontaneously.
34. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present case squarely falls within Exception 4 to Section 101 of
the BNS (corresponding to Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC), as
the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, and in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
35. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of
the IPC (now corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS) is liable to be
altered to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC (now corresponding
to Section 104 of the BNS), as the appellant can be attributed with
knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, but without the
intention to cause death.
36. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the nature
of injury, the manner of occurrence, and the fact that the appellant has
been in custody since 07.10.2022, this Court deems it appropriate to
sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 07
years. The fine amount and default stipulation imposed by the learned
trial Court shall remain unaltered. The conviction and sentence of the
appellant under Section 323 of the IPC are hereby affirmed.
37. The appellant is in custody and shall serve out the remaining
18
sentence as modified hereinabove.
38. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
above. In view of the final disposal of the appeal, I.A. No. 1 of 2024
stands disposed of as having become infructuous.
39. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the
Superintendent of the concerned Jail for compliance and to inform the
appellant that he is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services
Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Let a
certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be sent to
the trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan