2021 INSC 0068
1 
 	
         REPORTABLE  
      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  
      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  121  OF 2021 
     
 
 
Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas       …Appellant  
 
     Versus 
 
State of Chhattisgarh       …Respondent  
 
 
 
 
 
      J U D G M E N T  
 
 
 
 
M.R. SHAH, J. 
 
 
1.  Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the  impugned judgment and order 
dated 27.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in 
Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2009, by which the High Court has dismissed the 
said appeal prefer red by the appellant –  original accused and has confirmed the 
judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting 
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and by 
which the appellant –  accused was sentenc ed to undergo life imprisonment, the 
appellant  – original accused has preferred the present appeal.

10 
 	
for 62 days. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the deceased survived for 
62 days and that his condition was stable when he was discharged from the 
hospit al, this Court was of the opinion that the Court cannot draw  inference that 
intended injury caused was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death 
so as to attract Section 300 Thirdly IPC.  Thereafter, on facts, this Court 
modified the conviction from that of Section 302 IPC to Section 304-I IPC and 
sentenced the accused to undergo 10 years R.I.  There is no absolute proposition 
of law laid down by this Court in the said decision that in all cases where 
deceased died due to septicemia, case would fall under Section 304- I IPC. In the 
present case, though the deceased died due to septicemia, however, it is required 
to be noted that he died while taking treatment in the hospital and that too he 
died within three days from the date of occurrence of the incident.  Therefore, 
on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable.  
 However, at the same time, it is also required to be noted that the 
deceased was admitted to the hospital after 24 hours and thereafter he died 
within three days due to septicemia.  If he was given the treatment immediately, 
the result might have been different.  In any case, as observed hereinabove, 
there was no premeditation on the part of the accused; the accused did not carry 
any weapon; quarrel started all of a sudden and tha t the accused pushed the 
deceased and stood on the abdomen and therefore, as observed hereinabove, the 
case would fall under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and neither clause 3 of 
Section 300 nor clause 4 of Section 300 shall be attracted.  Therefore, as

11 
 	
o bserved hereinabove, at the most, the accused can be said to have committed 
the offence under Section 304- I, IPC. 
11.  In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present 
appeal succeeds in part.  The impugned judgment and order passed  by the High 
Court as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court 
convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC  are 
hereby modified to the extent convicting the appellant- accused for the offence 
under Section 304-I, IPC and sentencing him to the period already undergone 
by him i.e., 14.5 years.  Rest of the judgment and order passed by the learned 
trial Court, confirme d by the High Court, is hereby confirmed.  
12.  The appellant -accused be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any 
other case. 
 
       …………………………………..J.  
       [Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]  
 
 
 
New Delhi;       ………………………………….J.  
February 11, 2021.      [M.R. Shah]