Puna Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2023 passed by the court of 7th Additional Session Judge Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 122 of 2021, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for 01 month.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.11.2020, the complainant Narad Prasad Lodhi (PW-2) appeared in the Police Station, Arang and filed a report that on 10.11.2020, some people of village were gambling in Mahamaya Chowk of the village, where the complainant’s son Chhabiram Lodhi had also gone, at around 10.00 p.m., an argument took place between Chhabiram Lodhi and the appellant Puna Ram Sahu and two other co-accused, who were juvenile, regarding transaction of money. In the meanwhile, the three accused persons threatened to kill Chhabiram Lodhi by abusing his mother and sister and beaten him with fists, kicks and punches, due to which the stomach of Chhabiram Lodhi got injured and swollen, who was admitted at Shreyansh Hospital, Arang on 13.11.2020. On 14.11.2020, an application was sent through a constable to Shreyansh Hospital, Arang for conducting MLC of injured Chhabiram Lodhi.

On the report of the complainant, First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P-1 and the case was taken up for investigation. During the investigation, after reaching the incident site, a perspective map of the incident site was prepared in the presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-2. Statement of the complainant Narad Prasad Lodhi (PW-2), witnesses Premlal Sahu (PW-5) and Siyaram Sahu (PW-1) were recorded. A complaint (Ex.P-18) was given to Shreyans Hospital, Arang to obtain medical opinion regarding the treatment of injured Chhabiram Lodhi. The doctors said that the injuries sustained by the victim were life-threatening and the present condition of the victim was said to be serious and there was a possibility of death. A memo (Ex.P-19) was sent to the Executive Magistrate, Arang for taking the statement of the injured Chhabiram Lodhi as he was in critical condition and a memo (Ex. P-10) was given to Shreyansh Hospital, Arang to take the statement of injured Chhabiram, but statement could not be recorded as the injured was in serious condition and not in a position to give statement. MLC report is Ex. P-9.

Thereafter, on the basis of sufficient evidence, Section 307 of the IPC was added to the said crime after receiving the query report Ex.P-11 of the injuries caused to Chhabiram Lodhi by Dr. P. L. Dewangan of Shreyansh Hospital and Research Centre. During investigation of the case, after interrogating the accused Puna Ram Sahu, teenagers A and B, who were in conflict with the law, they confessed to commit the crime. On 19.11.2020, accused Puna Ram Sahu, teenagers A and B, who were in conflict with law, were arrested and sent to judicial remand. The arrest sheet of accused Puna Ram Sahu (Ex. P-21) was prepared and information about the arrest of the accused (Ex.P-20) was given to his family.

Looking to the serious condition of the victim, he was referred to Shri Balaji Hospital, Dubey Colony, Mova Raipur, wherein, during treatment he died on 21.11.2020 and intimation of death of deceased Chhabiram Lodhi was given to Police Station – Pandari, wherein unnumbered Merg No. 0/81/2020 dated 21.11.2020 was recorded vide Ex.P-25 and thereafter, Section 302 of IPC was added.

The Investigating Officer, after giving notice under Section 175 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-3) to the Panchas prepared inquest (Ex.P-4) on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur vide Ex.P-23, where Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW-14) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-23 and found following injuries:-

(i) Surgically stitched would of 16 cm present vertically over midline of abdomen with stapled pin in situ.

(ii) Drain tube site present 10 cm left of umbilicus at umbilical level.

(iii) Contusion of 3cm x 1cm present vertically on anterior aspect of right thigh of bluish green colour.

(iv) Abrasion wound of 0.5cm x 0.5cm present on dorsum of right little finger with black scab.

(v) Contusion of size ranging 1cm x 1cm to 3cm 2 2cm present intermittently over whole of intestine and surrounding mesentry.

(vi) Stitched wound of 10cm present over whole circumference of intestine, 35 cm from inferior pancreatic border with stites in situ.

The autopsy surgeon opined that provisional cause of death was blunt injuries to abdomen and its complications.”

Viscera was preserved vide Ex.P-8 and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for conducting FSL vide Ex.P-16 and receipt was obtained vide Ex.P-17, wherefrom FSL report was received vide Ex.P-28. Letter (Ex.P-14) was sent to Tehsildar, Arang for preparing a map of the incident site. Patwari has prepared a map of the incident site vide Ex.P-6 and Panchnama vide Ex.P-7.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 294, 323, 506, 307, 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed by the police in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur received the case on transfer for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence that he is not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in crime in question. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The appellant-accused examined none in his defence.

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28.06.2023, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed.

Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to deceased in spur of moment, as while playing gambling on account of some money transaction dispute, the incident took place and the appellant alongwith co-accused have assaulted the deceased by hand, fists and punches. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant fall within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC.

On the other hand, Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that it is not a case where the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/ converted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC and as such, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

The first question for consideration would be whether the deceased died under unnatural circumstances ?

The witness examined on behalf of the prosecution, Narad Prasad Lodhi (PW-1) has stated in his Court examination in chief that on 10.11.2020 at 10.00 p.m., accused Puna Ram and delinquent boys A and B had beaten the deceased by hand and fists due to which there was swelling in the stomach. He further stated that due to the health of his son deceased Chhabiram Lodhi not being well in Shreyansh Hospital, Arang, he admitted his deceased son to Balaji Hospital, Raipur, where during treatment, his son died from the said injury on 21.11.2020.

Medical witness Dr. P. L. Dewangan (PW-9) has stated in his Court main examination that on 13.11.2020, the patient Chhabiram Lodhi was brought to the hospital for treatment of stomach ache around 3.00 pm. During examination, it was found that the patient had swelling in his stomach and severe pain. He admitted that he was told by the patient and his family members that alleged incident of assault was committed around 09.00-10.00 pm on 10.11.2020. This witness further stated that sonography and CT scan of the patient was done in which the possibility of internal injury and blood flow in the internal organs of the patient’s stomach, especially in the abhdomen, was revealed. The patient was advised to undergo operation, for which his family members expressed consent on 14.11.2020. During the operation, it was found that the patient had a severe cut injury in his small intestine due to which there was a lot of bleeding and formation of pus had started. He further stated that since there was no improvement after operation, the family members were advised to take the patient to a bigger hospital and the patient was taken to Raipur on 20.11.2020 afternoon. He has given MLC report Ex.P-9 and query report Ex.P-11. As per the MLC report, the patient’s stomach was found to be swollen and hard due to which the patient reported having unbearable pain. In the CT scan report, there was a possibility of injury and hole in the intestinal lining of the patient. The said would seemed to be caused by hard and blunt object. He has further stated that he had opined in the query report (Ex.P-11) regarding the injuries suffered by the patient that if the patient is not treated immediately then he may die due to internal injuries.

Dr. Devendra Nayak (PW-15), the other medical witness examined in the case, has stated in his main examination in the Court that on 20.11.2020 at around 04.41 pm, the injured Chhabiram Lodhi was brought to Balaji Hospital, Raipur. The condition of patient was very critical. The patient’s stomach operation had been done in some other hospital and the infection was spread throughout the the patient’s body. Further this witness has stated that the patient was having difficulty in taking respiration and hence he had to be kept in ventilator. The patient's condition was worsened and on 21.11.2020 his heart stopped working and he died at around 4.00 pm.

According to Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi, who has conducted postmorterm on the dead body of the deceased, the cause of death of the deceased was injuries caused to the abdomen and complications arising therefrom.

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statements of Narad Prasad Lodhi (PW-1), father of the deceased, Dr. P. L. Dewangan (PW-9), who has conducted MLC, Dr. Devendra Nayak (PW-15), who has examined the deceased in Shri Balaji Hospital, Dr. Utkarsh Tripathi (PW-14), who conducted postmortem, has come to the conclusion that cause of death was blunt injuries to abdomen and its complications and the deceased died under unnatural circumstances.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions advanced by them, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the deceased Chhabiram Lodhi died under unnatural circumstances is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding.

Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by relying upon the testimonies of last seen witnesses Narad Prasad Lodhi (PW-1), father of the deceased, Gopichand Lodhi (PW-3) and Premlal Sahu (PW-5) who have stated that at around 9.30-10.00 pm, a meeting was going on regarding the installation of the idol of Lakshmi Mata in their village and at the same time they have seen that there was quarrel and marpeet took place between deceased Chhabiram Lodhi, accused/appellant Puna Ram Sahu and teenagers A and B, who were in conflict with the law on account of money transaction. In this situation, based on the principle of last seen together, according to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on the accused Puna Ram Sahu as to what happend after around 9.30 to 10.00 pm in the night, but the accused Puna Ram Sahu has not given any explanation in this regard. Therefore, on the basis of last seen theory, it is proved that Puna Ram Sahu has caused fatal injuries by hand and fist on his abdomen due to which the deceased died on account of its complications. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased and caused his death. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

The aforesaid finding brings us 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 ?

The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327 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.”

The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635 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 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 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.

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.”

Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450, 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.

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 3 SCC 247 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. 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.”

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 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”.

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 304 Part-II of the IPC.

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 6 SCC 122 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.”

In the present case, Narad Prasad Lodhi (PW-2), father of the deceased has stated in para-2 of his examination-in-chief that the incident took place on 10.11.2020 at 10.00 pm. On the date of incident, a meeting was going on regarding the installation of the idol of Lakshmi Mata in his village Khamtarai. During the same, the accused Puna Ram Sahu spoke about money transactions and minors Gulshan Sahu and Deepak Sahu beat the deceased Chhabiram Lodhi with fists, kicks and punches. In para-3, he has further stated that deceased, after reaching home, told him that due to the beating by the accused in the said incident, there was swelling in his stomach and Gopi Lodhi, Surendra Sahu, Premlal Sahu were present at the place of said incident. He further stated that the accused and their parents told him not to lodge a report in the police station, they will give money for the treatment of his son. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen the incident, his son deceased Chhabiram told him about the incident, he also admitted that his son has not told him about the incident at night, he told him about the incident at next day morning. He also admitted that the incident took place on 10.11.2020 and the deceased was admitted to Shreyansh Hospital on 13.11.2020 and he had lodged FIR on 14.11.2020. He denied the suggestion that after lodging of FIR, police did not come to interrogate the deceased, he himself said that his son was not in a position to give the statement.

Gopichan Lodhi (PW-3) has stated in para-2 of his examination-in-chief that the incident occurred on the night of 10.11.2020 around 09.00-10.00 pm. On the date of incident, a meeting was going on regarding the installation of the idol of Lakshmi Mata in his village and he was present there. During the meeting, there was abuse and fighting between the accused Puna Ram Sahu and and deceased Chhabiram Lodhi. Accused Puna Ram Sahu, Gulshan & Deepak all three were together. Siyaram, Tilak and many people of the village were present at the place of incident. After the fight was over, he went to his home. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not seen any over the body of the deceased.

Premlal Sahu (PW-5) has stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident took place on 10.11.2020 between 9.30-10 pm. About 22-23 people of the village were sitting on the Mahamaya Khallari stage for discussion regarding the installation of Lakshmimata idol. Deceased Chhabiram Lodhi and accused Puna Ram Sahu, Gulshan and Deepak Sahu, who were in conflict with law, came near the meeting fighting. The people present there myself, Tilak Yadav, Siyaram Sahu, Hitesh Sahu went to intervene the fight. After the rescue, we sat down again in the meeting to discuss. At the same time, a fight again started between the deceased and the accused. They again intervened and after that the fighting was stopped and the people present there went to their respective homes. He and Surendra had gone to drop the deceased to his house. He left the deceased at his house and came to back to his house. On the second or third day of the incident, the father of deceased Chhabiram Lodhi had called the village Panch, Deputy Sarpanch, Sarpanch and the accused also to his house. He also gone to deceased house. The father of the deceased told the people present that the accused had assaulted the deceased by hand, feet, kicks and punches. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not aware about the reason of fight between the deceased and the accused. Though he has admitted that when he had gone to drop the deceased to his home, the deceased was in good condition, but he himself says that the deceased went home groaning. When this witness was asked how deceased Chhabiram had died, he said that it was due to assault by the accused.

Ram Swaroop Sahu (PW-8) has stated in para-2 of his examination-in-chief that accused Puna Ram, Gulshan and Deepak had beaten the deceased Chhabiram Lodhi with legs and fists near Bajrangbali temple, Mahamaya Chowk. After being beaten, the deceased Chhabiram was brought to his home by the people of the village. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was not present at the place of incident on the date of incident and he had not seen the fight taking place, the deceased’s father Narad Lodhi had told him about the beating by the accused. He denied the suggestion that no meeting was held regarding the incident. He also denied the suggestion that accused had told him about the said incident.

The Investigating Officer, Suresh Singh Parihar (PW-13), has stated in para-2 of his examination-in-chief that during his posting at Police Station, Aarang, he had started investigating the case after receiving the case diary of Crime No. 533/2020 U/s 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC and on 14.11.2020, Chhabiram Lodhi S/o Narad Lodhi, aged 23 years was sent to Shreyansh Hospital, Arang through constable after filing the application form for first aid treatment of injuries due to assault. After reaching the incident site on 17.11.2020, a visual map of the incident site was prepared in presence of the witnesses. On 18.11.2020, the statements of applicant Narad Prasad Lodhi, witnesses Premlal Sahu and Siyaram Sahu were recorded and on 19.11.2020, due to presence of sufficient evidence against the accused Puna Ram Sahu, he was taken into custody.

Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that as per evidences of last seen witnesses Gopichand Lodhi (PW-3), Premlal Sahu (PW-5) and Ram Swaroop Sahu (PW-8) the incident took place on 10.11.2020 between 9.30-10 pm while a meeting was going on regarding the installation of the idol of Lakshmi Mata in their village and at the same time they have seen that there was quarrel and marpeet took place between deceased Chhabiram Lodhi, accused/ appellant Puna Ram Sahu and teenagers A and B, who were in conflict with the law on account of money transaction, then they left the deceased at his house and came to back to their house. From the above-stated statements, it is clear that in a heat of passion and on sudden provocation due to some money transaction dispute, the appellant/accused Puna Ram Sahu and and teenagers A and B, who were in conflict with the law assaulted deceased Chhabiram Lodhi by hand, fists, kick and punches. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of deceased Chhabiram Lodhi. The appellant did not has any intention to cause death of deceased, but by causing such injuries, he must has had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely to cause death of Chhabiram Lodhi, as such, his case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (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 appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the evidence of Gopichand Lodhi (PW-3), Premlal Sahu (PW-5) and Ram Swaroop Sahu (PW-8) and taking into consideration that at present appellant- Puna Ram Sahu is aged about 46 years, and he is in jail since 19.11.2020 and he has completed near about 03 years and 1½ months, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.

Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. It is stated that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the remaining sentence as modified by this Court.

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.