JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---By a judgment and order dated November 10, 1987 the learned Additional Session Judge, Thane in Session Case No. 157 of 1986, convicted the appellant accused for an offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life which has been impugned in this appeal. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are as under: Dattu Shankar Surose (P.W. 1) who is the complainant in this case has an agricultural field at village Dahivali in Ulhasnagar Taluka of Thane District. Deceased Shreeram Surose who was his cousin had a field on the western side of the field of the complainant. Between these two fields, there was a field belonging to Dattu Babaji Magar (P.W. 2). There is a rank to the western side and an canal from where that tank passes through the field of deceased Shreeram towards the field of complainant Dattu Surose. 3. On February 21, 1983 deceased Shreeram was planting paddy crop in his field. There were eight to ten labourers working therein including Ashok Gajanan Surose (P.W. 3) and Janya Balya Wagh (P.W. 4). For the purpose of planting paddy crop, water was brought from the canal. Between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 Noon on that day while the operation of paddy plantation was going on in the field of the deceased, the accused felt that the flow of the water going to the field of the complainant was blocked or diverted and, therefore, he questioned the deceased as to why had he done so. Deceased Shreeram tried to convince the accused that he had neither blocked nor diverted the water from the canal, the accused was unconvinced and exchange of abuses took place between both of them. They also caught hold of the shirts of one another and there was a scuffle. The accused than caught hold of the deceased and give him two to three blows with the result that the deceased fell down with his face towards the ground when the accused sat on his back and pushed his head into the mud. The prosecution witness 2,3 and 4 intervened and rescued the deceased. Thereafter they removed mud from his mouth, washed the face and tried to give him water which he could not take and fell dead. 4. The prosecution witness 2,3 and 4 intervened and rescued the deceased. Thereafter they removed mud from his mouth, washed the face and tried to give him water which he could not take and fell dead. 4. Complainant Dattu Surose want to Kulgaon Police Station and reported the matter. Police Station Officer Ramchandra Sawant (P.W. 6) recorded the said complaint (Exh. 11). Thereafter the neighbours removed the body of Shreeram to his house. Police Sub-Inspector Laxman Sali (P.W. 7) carried out the further investigation during which he got postmortem examination held on the dead body of Shreeram and on completion of the investigation charge-sheeted the accused in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ulhasnagar who committed the case to the Court of Session at Thane. 5. The accuse pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and suggested a defence in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that on account of severe heat at about 12 Noon the deceased fell sick and became unconscious in the mud on account of which he died. In his statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code he pleaded that complainant Dattu Surose had some monetary transactions with him on account of which he falsely implicated him in this case. 6. Now, the star witness of the prosecution is complainant Dattu Sorose who deposed that on the relevant day and the time of the incident he was proceeding from his village to his land where tomato crop was raised. He was at a distance of about 50 feet from his field when he noticed a quarrel going on between the accused and deceased Shreeram on account of sharing water of the panel. He also deposed that the accused and deceased Shreeram were abusing one another and that they caught hold of the shirts of one another. He, therefore, reached the spot and separated them. The other prosecution witnesses also arrived on the spot and separated the accused and deceased Shreeram. According to him, the accused had caught hold of deceased Shreeram and after giving him a couple of blows fell him down in the mud and then sat on his back, caught hold of his hair and pushed his head in to the mud on account of which the face of Shreeram was completely smeared and covered with mud. According to him, the accused had caught hold of deceased Shreeram and after giving him a couple of blows fell him down in the mud and then sat on his back, caught hold of his hair and pushed his head in to the mud on account of which the face of Shreeram was completely smeared and covered with mud. He was rescued, lifted, cleaned and given a wash by the prosecution witnesses and when he was offered water which he could not take and fell dead. He went to Kulgaon Police Station and lodged his complaint as per First Information Report (Exh. 11) a perusal or which completely corroborates his evidence given in the examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination one omission was brought on the record inasmuch as he had not stated before the police that the accused had given three-four fist blows to Shreeram before pushing him down on the ground. This minor omission on the part of the witness does not make the prosecution case weak in any manner. The evidence of this witness which is supported by his First information Report is fully corroborated by Dattu Magar (P.W. 2), Ashok Surose (P.W. 3) and Janya Wagh (P.W. 4). 7. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution through Dr. Prabhakar Bhave (P.W. 8) also corroborates the evidence of the complianant. Dr. Bhave's evidence shows that on February 21, 1983 the police had brought dead body of Shreeram Shankar Surose for autopsy which he had performed on that very day between 5.40 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. He had noticed two abrasions near ear on the top of the left shoulder admeasuring 1" x 1" which could have been caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours of the death of Shreeram. He had also noticed fracture of right side ribs. Both the injuries were ante-mortem. The internal medical examination revealed that the deceased had received four injuries as under:--- "(1) Fracture of ribs (right) four, five and six in the mid auxiliary line. Laceration of the pleura right side. (2) Few mud particles seen in trachea upper part and larynx. (3) Laceration right lung middle lobe outer side 1" x 1/4" blood clots seen in the right side cavity. Laceration of the pleura right side. (2) Few mud particles seen in trachea upper part and larynx. (3) Laceration right lung middle lobe outer side 1" x 1/4" blood clots seen in the right side cavity. (4) In the stomach there was one litre of turbid watery fluid." According to him, the probable cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to lacerations of the right lung and fracture of ribs. He also deposed that if the victim was lying down in the mud and if somebody was sitting on his back and was hitting his head, the injuries sustained by deceased Shreeram were possible. Hence it is to be seen that the medical evidence is quite consistent with the ocular testimony given by the four prosecution witnesses. 8. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt in our mind that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Shreeram died an unnatural death at the hands of the accused. The question, however, is whether the accused can be convicted for an offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In our opinion, the offence has to be reduced to one of culpable homicide not amount to murder punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the prosecution case, even if accepted as they are, show that the accused had committed an act without premeditation in a sudden, fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in cruel or unusual manner because this is a manner in which two agriculturists normally fight when they have a dispute of the kind pointed out in this case. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is covered squarely by Exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. That being so the accused could be convicted only for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code because all that can be said against him that he caused such bodily injury to the deceased as were likely to cause his death. 9. Now, the question is about the sentence. The accused is a young man of 26. The unfortunate incident took place at the spur of a moment during usual quarrel between two agriculturists. 9. Now, the question is about the sentence. The accused is a young man of 26. The unfortunate incident took place at the spur of a moment during usual quarrel between two agriculturists. The accused was in jail for three months and fifteen days as an under trial prisoner and after conviction he has remained in jail for two years, nine months and four days. In other words, he has already suffered a sentence of three years and nineteen days. In our judgement, so much of the sentence that the accused has so far undergone will serve the ends of justice. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused for an offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment Inflicted on him by the learned trial judge are quashed and set aside. He, however, stands convicted for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304. Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. Since he has been already in jail for more than three years, it is hereby directed that he shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required in some other case. Appeal allowed partly. -----