JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Ram lal was tried for the offence under s. 302, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali. By the judgment dated February 29, 1980, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for the offence under s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. Feeling dis-satisfied by his conviction and sentence, the appellant Ramlal has preferred this appeal in this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the trial and conviction of the appellant are as under: 3. On November 25, 1978, at about 4.30 P.M. PW 4 Hariram lodged the First Information Report at Police Station Looni to the effect that his nephew Bhagirath has been injured by Ramlal. A case under s. 302 IPC was registered. PW II Laxminarain, the Station House Officer, Looni, went to the site and proceeded with the necessary investigation. The site inspection plan were prepared. Postmortem examination of deceased Bhagirath was conducted by PW 2 Dr. N.S. Kothari, Medical Juriste, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. PW 2 Dr. N.S. Kothari prepared the postmortem examination report (Ex. P. 2). The Doctor noted the following injuries on the dead body of Bhagirath "(1) Incised stitched wound 23.0 cm. long on the left fronto-parietal occipital region of the scalp (torn) long tordinal direction slightly curved 7.5 cm. above the superior aspect of the left ear pinna 40 cm. above and lateral to the left eye brow with cophatohaemetoma on removing the stiches the wounds margins are clean out with cutting of under lying bones i.e. left frontal, parietal and left occipital bones. The membrances covering the brain are out with clean cut margin underlying the wound. There is cut in the left hemisphere of the brain in the parietal region with intra cranial haemorrhage. All the tissue underneath the wound is clearly divided in ending bones and membrances of the brain." In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was comma as a result of head injury. 4. Appellant Ramlal also reached that police station 5.45 P.M. on the same day i.e. 25-11-1978 and informed the SRO about his being given a beating by Bhagirath. The SHO had already information regarding the Bhagirath and his injuries. He, therefore, arrested the accused. After his arrest, while in custody, appellant Ramlal furnished information for getting recovered Dhariya from his field. Appellant Ramlal also reached that police station 5.45 P.M. on the same day i.e. 25-11-1978 and informed the SRO about his being given a beating by Bhagirath. The SHO had already information regarding the Bhagirath and his injuries. He, therefore, arrested the accused. After his arrest, while in custody, appellant Ramlal furnished information for getting recovered Dhariya from his field. The SHO in pursuance of the information, recovered the Dharia from the field of the appellant. Articles suspected to be stained with blood recovered during the course of investigation were sent to the Chemical Analyser for chemical analysis. On November 27, 1978, at about 6 A.M. injured Bhagirath succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The case initially registered under section 307 IPC was converted to one under section 302 IPC. The reports of the Chemical Analyser and the Serologist were received. The Serologist detected human blood on the clothes of the deceased and the accused. The origin of the blood on the Dhariya could not be known. After completion of the necessary investigation, charge sheet against the appellant and his mother Smt. Gavari against whom there was allegation of instigating the appellant for committing the crime was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali. The learned Magistrate finding it a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions Judge, Pali to stand their trial. 5. Before framing of the charge Smt. Gavari expired and the case proceeded against the appellant only. The learned Sessions Judge Pali charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC and recorded his plea. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In order to substantiate its case prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr. PC took the plea that when he was grazing cows in the field of Haste Sargara. Bhagirath deceased went there and started beating on the pretext he had given a beating to his mother (Bhagirath's mother). The appellant had a Dharia with him. On having sustained three or four injuries in the back from Bhagirath, the appellant inflicted Dharia blow on the head of Bhagirath. Thereafter, he went to the Sarpanch, and from there to the Police Station and complained that Bhagirath would kill him. The SHO detained him these. The appellant had a Dharia with him. On having sustained three or four injuries in the back from Bhagirath, the appellant inflicted Dharia blow on the head of Bhagirath. Thereafter, he went to the Sarpanch, and from there to the Police Station and complained that Bhagirath would kill him. The SHO detained him these. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the testimony of PW 4 Harirarn. According to PW 4 Hariram, he rushed to the site on hearing the out cry of Smt. Shanti and saw Bhagirath lying there in injured condition. This witnesses has deposed about Bhagirath informing him that Ramlal, at the instigation of his mother Smt. Gavari had caused injuries to him, with Dharia As Bhagirath had succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, this oral dying declaration was relied on by the learned Sessions Judge as an important piece of evidence against the appellant. Another witness.:s on whom the learned Sessions Judge relied on is Haste, who has deposed that he had seen Ramlal running in the field at the relevant time on the date of the incident. The learned Session Judge held the appellant guilty for the murder of Bhagirath and passed the judgment under appeal. 6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted in view of the statement of the appellant under s. 313 Cr. PC, he does not want to advance arguments on the merits of the case. Learned counsel as such argued the case on the point as to what offence is made out. Mr. Bishnoi strenuously contended that taking the prosecution case to be true, the case cannot be said to fall within the ambit of s. 302 IPC. The reasons given by Mr. Bishnoi are that there were injuries on the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest but the Police did not care to get those injuries examined. Much emphasis has ben laid by Mr. Bishnoi on the conduct of the appellant in his immediately going to the Sarpanch Kesharam (PW 6) and informing him in the presence of Bhanwarsingh (PW 7) that he bad been given a beating by Bhagirath. Mr. Bishnoi vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not believed any prosecution witness regarding the origin of the quarrel and, therefore, the version given by the appellant before the Sarpanch and later on before the SHO should be believed. Mr. Bishnoi vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not believed any prosecution witness regarding the origin of the quarrel and, therefore, the version given by the appellant before the Sarpanch and later on before the SHO should be believed. That, if a person sustains injuries at the hands of other he has every right to defend himself, be it by causing grievous injuries to the assaillant Mr.Bishnoi referred to the medical evidence and submitted that only one injury had been caused by the deceased and had the intention been to commit murder, the appellant would have caused more injuries. Mr. Bishnoi substantiates his contention by placing reliance on certain authorities which we would discuss later on. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor controverting these contentions submitted that the injury by a sharp edged weapon on the head i.e. a vital- part of the body resulting in death of the victim in itself is sufficient to bring home the guilt under s. 302 IPC. 8. At the very outset, it may be observed that from the prosecution evidence, the origin of the quarrel cannot be known. The prosecution case is that on the appellant's cows entering the field of deceased Bhagirath, a few days prior to the present incident,there was hot altercation between the appellant and Smt. Bhagwati, mother of the deceased. The prosecution case is that three or four days prior to the incident, Ram lal cause] simple injuries to Bhagwati, mother of the deceased. A complaint was lodged. This, according to the prosecution was the motive for the commission of the crime. 9. It is relevant to observe that there was no quarrel between Bhagi Rath and Ram lal. However, if there is enmity between the mother of a person, he would naturally feel aggrieved with her assailant. The pertinent question to be determined in the case is whether the prosecution case about Ram lal causing head injuries to Bhagirath without there being any immediate reason for the same is correct or the defence story narrated by the appellant has some substance. 10. PW 6 Sarpanch Keshram stated that on 25-11-1978 in the evening Ram lal (appellant) went to him and informed that he had been belaboured and his further was not at the house, so the report is to be lodged at the Police Station. 10. PW 6 Sarpanch Keshram stated that on 25-11-1978 in the evening Ram lal (appellant) went to him and informed that he had been belaboured and his further was not at the house, so the report is to be lodged at the Police Station. According to the witness,, he and Bhanwar Singh, who was sitting with him, took Ramlal to the Police Station. There Circle Inspector Narainsingh was present. The accused informed the SHO about the beating given to him and showed the injuries on his hack. The SHO told him that the injury of the victim on the other side is more serious and he, therefore, arrested the appellant. In cross-examination, PW o Kesharam has stated that Ramlal had informed that he had a quarrel with Bhagirath in connection with the grazing of the cows and that as Bhagirath has given beating to him, he also did the same. PW 7 Bhanwarlal @ Bhanwarsingh has also supported this version. He stated that appellant Ramlal informed him and Kesharam about his being given a beating and that he wanted to lodge the report at the Police Station. The witness Bhanwarshigh also stated about the bruises on the back of the appellant and injuries on his elbow. This witness has stated that he and Kesharam accompanied the appellant to the Police Station. PW 11 SHO Laxmi Narain has admitted that Ram Lal and gone to the Police Station at 5 45 P.M. though he has denied that Kesharam and Bhanwarsingh accompanied him. He has stated that Sarpanch Kesharam reached there after some time. This witness has stated about Ramlal reporting that Bhagirath had caused injuries to him. He has also admitted that there were simple injuries on the back of the appellant and he was complaining of pain but he did not get him medically examined because in his opinion, the injuries were simple in nature. 11. From the statements of these three witnesses, this is proved that the accused had injuries on his person when he went to the Police Station at 5.45 P.M. The duration of the injuries is not known because no medical opinion was sought on the point. 11. From the statements of these three witnesses, this is proved that the accused had injuries on his person when he went to the Police Station at 5.45 P.M. The duration of the injuries is not known because no medical opinion was sought on the point. However, from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the appellant in immediately going the Kesharam and informing him and Bhanwarsingh about his being belaboured by Bhagirath and sustaining the injuries lends to the inference that the injuries were sustained by appellant on the same day and in the same incident in which Bhagirath had sustained injuries. In case, a person accused of some offence immediately after the occurrence goes to the Police Station of his own accord and informs about his sustaining injuries at the hands of the person to whom he had injured and the Police Officer notes the injuries in the arrest memo, it is expected of the Investigating Officer to make investigation in that regard. In the present case, the Investigating Officer has taken the question of the injuries on the person of the appellant lightly. 12. PW 11 SHO Laxmi Narain admits that he did not consider it necessary to find out as to whether deceased Bhagirath sustained injuries first or the appellant and who was the aggressor. 13. The trial Judge has not relied upon the statements of PW 1 Kewalia and PW 3 Mst. Shanti regarding the origin of' the quarrel. When the accused and the deceased both sustained injuries, prosecution case that. it was only Ramlal who gave the beating does not impress. From the circumstances that the appellant sustained injuries and immediately rushed to the Sarpanch Kesharam and then to the Police Station and informed about the incident, and, there arises doubt regarding the incident having taken place in the way, prosecution alleges. However, trivial the injuries sustained by the appellant might be this much is certain that some hot altercation or abusing might have ensued prior to the appellant causing injury to Bhagirath. 14. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant has built up the argument that it is a case of right of private defence. The question that who was the aggressor in the case is not necessary for us to see. Bhagirath having sustained the injuries with Dharia could not be in a position to inflict any injury to Ramlal. 14. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the appellant has built up the argument that it is a case of right of private defence. The question that who was the aggressor in the case is not necessary for us to see. Bhagirath having sustained the injuries with Dharia could not be in a position to inflict any injury to Ramlal. 15. Even though, we are impressed by the argument of Mr. Bishnoi that the appellant might have inflicted Dharia blow to Bhagirath in exercise of his right of private defence, we do not agree with him that on this ground, the appellant deserves acquittal. The reason is simple. The nature of the weapon used by the appellant, the part of the body on which the weapon was struck and the nature of the injury clearly indicate that the appellant had caused injury with an intention to cause such bodily injury to the victim. From the above discussion, it is clear that Ramiei has caused injuries to Bhagirath in exercise of his Fight of private defence bit he as caused more service injury on the vital part of the body of deceased Bhagirath than was necessary in the given circumstances of the case. His case does not fall I within the definition of murder under s. 302 IPC rather fails within exception I 2 of that section. 16. In Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 126 there was short quarrel followed by assault and the accused gave one blow with a dagger to the deceased which landed in epigastrium area. The victim succumbed to the injury. In the given circumstances, their Lordships did not consider it to be a case falling within clause (3) of s. 300, rather considered it to be a case under s. 304 Part II IPC. According to their Lordships, it was something like hit and run and that the accused inflicted an injury he know to be likely to cause death. 17. In Jagtarsingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463 in a case of sudden quarrel, at spur of moment, arising out of trivial reason on chance meeting of parties, a single blow by knife on the chest of victim was caused which resulted in his death. 17. In Jagtarsingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463 in a case of sudden quarrel, at spur of moment, arising out of trivial reason on chance meeting of parties, a single blow by knife on the chest of victim was caused which resulted in his death. The appellant was imputed with the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause a death, and therefore, he was held guilty for the offence under s. 304 Part II. 18. The above referred two cases are not applicable to the present case. Here, as observed above, the weapon of the offence, part of the body hit by it and the nature of the injury cannot be said to be of such a type that the accused may not be attributed with intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death. 19. In Gurdayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 (I) Crimes 623 , there were three injuries caused by the accused. First was an incised wound second was bruise and the third was lacerated wound. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that after causing one incised wound, the assaillant did not use the sharp-edged weapon, in the appeal against the conviction of the appellant, the conviction of the appellant was altered from s. 302 IPC to one under s. 304 Part I. 20. In view of our discussion above, we are of the opinion that that there is sufficient material on record to suggest that the appellant had sustained injuries in the incident and his statement under s. 313 Cr. PC is plausible. It is a case of exceeding right of private defence. However, as we have concluded from the weapon used and the nature of the injury envisaged by s. 304 Part I, IPC appellant is held guilty for the offence under s. 304 Part I. We, therefore, alter the conviction of the accused appellant from s. 300 to s. 304 Part I. Regarding the sentence to be awarded it may be noted that the age of the appellant on the date of his statement tinder s. 313 Cr. PC as estimated by the Court was 19 years and only one injury was caused by the appellant. In such circumstances, we are of opinion that rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. PC as estimated by the Court was 19 years and only one injury was caused by the appellant. In such circumstances, we are of opinion that rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to under go rigorous imprisonment for two months would meet the ends of justice. 21. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under s. 302 IPC is altered to one under s. 304 Part 1, IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under s. 302 IPC, is set aside. He is instead of sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further under go two month's rigorous imprisonment.Appeal Partly allowed. *******