Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Prasad Pando vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 March, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1 / 15
2025:CGHC:11195
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1245 of 2023
➢ Ram Prasad Pando S/o Late Sharma Pando Aged About 42 Years
Resident of Village Koluha, Police Station- Chandni, Biharpur, District-
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
➢ State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station-Patna, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Binu Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Judgment on Board
06/03/2025
1. Though, today the present appeal is listed for hearing on I.A.
No.01/2023, which is an application under Section 389 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, but with the consent of learned counsel for
the parties and considering the age of the appellant and his period of
detention, the appeal is heard finally.
2 / 15
2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2023 stands disposed of.
3. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2)
of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (CG) in Sessions Case No.
151/2021, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted and
sentenced in the following manner:
CONVICTION SENTENCE
U/s 304 Part-I of Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with
Penal Code. fine of ₹ 100/-, in default of payment of
fine 15 days additional R.I.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that that the deceased Sumitra
Pando was the wife of the accused, both were residents of village
Koluha, Chandni Biharpur, used to work as a nomad, had also come to
village Hathwar many times before for work. On the date of incident,
11/07/2021, the deceased and the accused came to the house of
Phoolmat Bai, the accused asked Phoolmat Bai for liquor to drink, to
which she denied, then the deceased started quarreling with accused
appellant over her money. Phoolmat Bai stopped both of them from
fighting, but the accused did not listen and started fighting while
threatening to kill his wife, Phoolmat Bai was left the place, locked the
door of her house and started going to work. When she came back, she
saw Sumitra Pando lying on the ground, bleeding from her nose. The
accused had fled. She informed her neighbours about the incident. The
police was informed and the police arrived at the spot. As per the
3 / 15
information given by Smt. Phoolmat Bai, a merg intimation 54/2021 was
registered and crime number 195/2021 under section 302 IPC was
registered against the accused in Patna police station. Panchnama of
the dead body of the deceased was done in front of witnesses. Map
Panchayatnama Ex.P.-2 was prepared. The dead body was examined
by Dr. Rajesh Kumar. In the post-mortem report, he found the death of
the deceased to be of homicide nature. The accused was arrested and
arrest panchnama Ex.P.-19 was prepared.
5. After complete investigation in the case, charge sheet was filed against
the accused under Section 302 IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Baikunthpur, from where, on 29/11/2021, the case was
referred to the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Korea, Baikunthpur. Learned
trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 of
IPC which was denied by the appellant and he prayed for trial of his
case.
6. Statement of accused person was also recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against
him, pleaded innocence and false implication and he has not examined
any witness in his defence.
7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined following
witnesses.
Sr. Name of prosecution witness(es) Prosecution
No. witness No.
1. Krishn Kumar PW-1
2. Rishi Rai Singh PW-2
3. Sumitra Paikra PW-3
4. Govind Singh PW-4
4 / 15
5. Rambade Pando PW-5
6. Phoolmat Bai PW-6
7. Heera say PW-7
8. Dr. Rajesh Kumar PW-8
9. Patwari- Deep Sikha Say PW-9
10. Investigation Officer Inspector Sourabh Kumar PW-10
Dwivedi
8. Besides the ocular evidence, prosecution has also exhibited following
documents.
Sr. No. Document(s) Ext. No.
1. property seizure sheet Exhibit P-1
2. map panchayatnama Exhibit P-2
3. notice letter for appearing in map Exhibit P-3
panchayatnama (death investigation)
4. police statement of Krishna Kumar Paikra Exhibit P-4
5. sight map Exhibit P-5
6. police statement of Rishi Rai Singh Exhibit P-6
7. police statement of Govind Singh Exhibit P-8
8. police statement of Ram Bade Pando Exhibit P-9
9. postmortem report Exhibit P.-10
10. application for postmortem Exhibit P-10A
11. rural death intimation Exhibit P.-10B
12. sight map Exhibit P.-11
13. preparation of sight map by Patwari Exhibit P-11A
14. rural discharge Exhibit P-12
15. letter sent to Joint Director Regional Forensic Exhibit P-12A
Science Laboratory Ambikapur
16. Receipt acknowledgment Exhibit P-13A
17. Police statement of Phoolmat Bai Exhibit P-13
18. Police statement of Heera Sai Pando Exhibit P-14A
19. FSL report Exhibit P-14
20. Marg Intimation Exhibit P-15
21. First Information Report
Exhibit P-16
5 / 15
22. Information regarding registration of crime Exhibit P.-17
23. Duty Certificate Exhibit P.-18
24. Arrest Panchnama Exhibit P.-19
25. Information of Arrest Exhibit P.-20
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya
after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record
vide impugned judgment dated 19.04.2023 has acquitted the appellant
from the charge under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced
the appellant under Section 304 Part I of IPC. Being aggrieved by the
said judgment, the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has
been preferred by the appellant.
10. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that finding recorded by the learned trial Court is baseless,
perverse, erroneous and contrary to the materiel evidence available on
record. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and
documentary evidence placed before it in its proper perspective. There
are material contradictions and omissions in the diary and Court
statement of the witnesses which cannot be made basis for conviction
of the appellant. Prosecution has not adduced any cogent and reliable
evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. He submits that that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond a
reasonable doubt, as required under criminal jurisprudence. Learned
trial Court erred in convicting the Appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC
despite the absence of clear and cogent evidence proving the presence
of intention or knowledge required to sustain such a conviction. The trial
6 / 15
Court failed to consider material inconsistencies and contradictions in
the statements of prosecution witnesses, which raise serious doubts
about the veracity of the prosecution case. Learned Trial Court has not
properly considered the absence of motive, which is a crucial factor in
cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The sentence
imposed upon the Appellant is unduly harsh and disproportionate to the
facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant is entitled to the
benefit of exception under Section 300 IPC, which has not been
considered by the Learned Trial Court while passing the impugned
judgment. The case at best falls within Section 304 Part II IPC,
considering the circumstances and lack of premeditation. The impugned
judgment is otherwise unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside
on grounds of misapplication of law and misappreciation of evidence.
This failure amounts to a legal oversight that demands correction by this
Hon’ble Court.
11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of
learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the nature
and gravity of offence, age of the victim, who was his wife, on the date
of incident, and conduct of the appellant, the punishment imposed upon
him is proportionate to the act committed and therefore appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
records of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.
13. The question for consideration would be whether the accused-appellant
is the perpetrator of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court
has recorded in affirmative on the basis of testimony and evidence
7 / 15
brought, it is clear that it is the appellant herein who on the fateful date
and time has caused grievous injuries strangulating his wife (deceased),
due to which she died. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly held
that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the person
of the deceased wife and caused her death. Accordingly, I hereby affirm
the said finding.
14. The aforesaid finding brings up to the next question for consideration,
whether the case of the appellant is covered within Exception 4 to
Section 300 of the IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or
Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant?
15. In the present case, Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on
12/07/2021 by Dr. Rajesh Kumar (PW-8) According to him, the death of
the deceased was due to respiratory arrest due to strangulation which
happened within 12 to 48 hours of postmortem. The nature of death was
homicide. He has given Ex.P.-12 report in this regard. In the cross-
examination, he has denied that the thumb mark on the neck of the
deceased could have come due to moving the dead body after death.
Thus, from the statement of the medical witness Dr. Rajesh Kumar (PW-
8) and the post-mortem report given by him (Ex.P.-10) it is clear that the
death of the deceased was due to obstruction of breathing due to
strangulation. Thus, the death of the deceased is of the nature of
criminal homicide.
16. Now it has to be seen in the case whether the accused has caused the
death of his wife. There is no eyewitness in this regard. The case
against the accused is based on circumstantial evidence. Regarding
8 / 15
circumstantial evidence, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of U.P. vs. Dr. Ravindra Prasad Mital1 enunciated
the essential elements for circumstantial evidence, according to which
for circumstantial evidence –
1- The circumstances from which the conclusion is
drawn should be fully proved.
2- It should be conclusive in nature.
3- All the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of guilt and inconsistent with
innocence.
4- It should to a moral certainty exclude the possibility
of guilt of any person other than accused.
17. Regarding circumstantial evidence, reference was made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the judgment in Sharad Birdichand Sharda v. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 has held that –
1- The circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. The facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is
to say, they should not be explainable on only other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilt
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency.
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be Proved and
5. there must be a chain of evidence.
18. If the evidence in the case is considered on the touchstone of the above
precedent, then in this regard important witness in the case Phoolmat
Bai (PW-6) found deceased Sumitra dead in her courtyard. She says
that the deceased is the wife of the accused. The accused was asking
for money from his wife, she does not know why he was asking for
money. Thereafter she went to sow saplings. When she came and saw,
1 1992 (3) SCC 300
9 / 15
the deceased was made to sleep in her courtyard, the accused was not
there, the deceased had died. She told the above things when the
police came. Rural Death Intimation Ex.P.-10B and Rural Nalasi Ex.P.-
12 were recorded by the police, which have her signature.
19. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and on being
asked leading questions, she admitted that both the accused and the
deceased used to go out and work. On the date of the incident, the
accused had asked his wife for alcohol was asking for money. The fact
that the accused was beating his wife has been denied. The quarrel
escalated so she went to the field to work, at that time the accused
threw his wife on the ground and was sitting on her and holding her
neck. In the cross-examination, it has been admitted that as the incident
happened in an open shade, anybody could have come. On the date of
incident there was a minor altercation between the accused and his
wife. It is also admitted that after listening to the minor argument she
went to her work. When she returned from work, there was a crowd of
people at the incident spot.
20. The deceased and the accused were seen together before the incident.
The deceased and the accused were husband and wife. Both had come
together to the house of witness Phoolmat (PW-6). On the day of the
incident, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused.
Phoolmat had even forbidden them from fighting. When Phoolmat
returned home from the field, the deceased was found dead in the
courtyard. The accused had fled leaving his dead wife behind. It does
not reflect his normal conduct, rather his running away from there after
the incident shows his subsequent conduct under Section 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act and the dispute between the deceased and the
10 / 15
accused before the death shows his previous conduct. Just before the
incident, the accused and the deceased were seen together. In such a
situation, there are sufficient grounds to draw a presumption against the
accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the accused
has not given any explanation in this regard. In such a situation, it is
proved that the accused himself has caused the death of his wife.
21. It is now to be seen in the case whether the criminal homicide
committed by the accused on his wife falls in the category of murder.
22. The 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 :
(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
2 (2009) 15 SCC 635
11 / 15the 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
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.”
23. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of
Chhattisgarh3 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 is it
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
3 (2017) 3 SCC 247
12 / 15
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 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 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”.
24. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the 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
13 / 15
304 Part-II of the IPC.
25. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of
Delhi)4 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.”
26. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence of prosecutrix the Court concurs
with the findings of the trial court regarding the involvement of the
appellant in the incident. The evidence presented, including witness
testimonies and medical reports, establishes the appellant’s culpability
under Section 304 Part I IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant
had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, even if there was
no intention to do so. Moreover, nothing has been elicited by the
defence as to why the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime
and thus the stand of false implication taken by the accused/appellant is
also not worth acceptance.
27. The argument that the Trial Court ignored material contradictions in
witness statements is without merit. Minor inconsistencies, if any, do not
affect the core of the prosecution’s case, which remains unimpeachable.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution is clear and consistent, and
4 (2019) 6 SCC 122
14 / 15
the statements of witnesses, when read holistically, do not create any
reasonable doubt regarding the Appellant’s involvement. Furthermore,
the contradictions pointed out by the defense are trivial in nature and do
not affect the reliability of the prosecution’s case as a whole. Thus,
conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 304 Part I of IPC
suffers from no illegality and the same is hereby maintained.
28. As regards the quantum of sentence, I find no reason to interfere with
the punishment imposed by the Trial Court. The sentence awarded is
neither excessive nor disproportionate, considering the gravity of the
offense and the circumstances under which it was committed. The
nature of the assault, the degree of force used, and the resultant fatal
injuries leave no doubt that the punishment is appropriate. The
sentencing order reflects due consideration of all mitigating and
aggravating circumstances, and no special circumstances have been
brought forth to justify any leniency in the sentence imposed. The
punishment serves both a deterrent and retributive purpose, ensuring
justice for the victim while upholding the rule of law.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity in the judgment
and order of conviction passed by the Learned Trial Court. The
evidence, both oral and documentary, has been duly appreciated, and
no error, either in law or in fact, has been demonstrated that would
warrant interference by this Court. The findings of the Trial Court are
well-reasoned, based on credible evidence, and in accordance with
established legal principles. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
30. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned
15 / 15
Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to
serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to
assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring 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.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
pwn
