The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Chhattisgarh High Court, questioning how its judges could be expected to properly assess evidence if they did not understand basic principles of criminal law.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the remarks while hearing a plea challenging a November 2024 judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The High Court order had set aside a man's murder conviction and instead convicted him of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to 10 years in prison instead of life imprisonment.

"Just see the pathetic condition of the High Court. The judges don’t know what is Section 304 part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder involving intention to cause death or likely-fatal injury) and Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder involving knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but no such intention)! And you expect the judges to appreciate the evidence!" said the Court.

The Bench further criticised the High Court for what it described as a recurring failure to understand basic legal principles.

“This is not the first judgement we are coming across. These are all principles of law which law schools teach in the first year of academic session,” said the Court.

The case concerned the death of a woman who was assaulted in February 2021. According to the prosecution, the woman was found lying in a pool of blood after the accused visited her home looking for her son. Before she died, she told her husband that the accused had assaulted her.

A post-mortem examination found injuries to her head and face and confirmed that her death was caused by a head injury.

A trial court convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment in September 2022.

Subsequently, in November 2024, a Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising then Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajani Dubey reduced his conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which applies when a person knows their actions could cause death but does not intend to kill.

The High Court sentenced him to 10 years in prison, holding that the assault took place during a sudden quarrel and that he had not intended to kill the woman.

The accused has now approached the Supreme Court.

Questioning the High Court's decision, the apex court said it had failed to properly examine the circumstances of the crime.

“The High Court as usual in a very slipshod manner and without any understanding of law partly allowed the appeal by altering the convicting from Section 302 to section 304 part II of IPC. It appears the High Court overlooked the nature of injuries, weapons used, and the genesis of occurrence,” said the Court in its order.

The Bench sought a reply from the accused, asking him to explain why the High Court's decision should not be set aside.

“Let notice be issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show case as to why order of the high court should not be set aside and the judgement and order passed by the High Court holding him guilty of murder should not be restored. We shall reconsider this part having regard to the merits of the case,” said the Court.

Additionally, the Court also sought a reply from the State of Chhattisgarh.

[Read Live Coverage]