JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-5-93 and the Order of Sentence dated 28-5-93, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh (Camp Chittorgarh), by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. 2. Appellant Ratan Lal along with his son Mohan alias Gudda, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 28-11-90, at about 10.00 a.m. in village Janjli, Police Station, Arnod (district Chittorgarh), when Bhagirath (the deceased) was digging a pit in front of his house for accumulation of the waste-water and was being assisted by his servant Bhuvan having a spade in his hand while Bhagirath himself was having a Sabble, the accused-appellant Ratan Lal along with his son Mohan alias Gudda, came there. Appellant Ratan Lal was armed with a Dhariya. Co-accused Mohan alias Gudda obstructed Bhagirath in digging the pit. Appellant Ratan Lal thereafter asked Bhagirath that his father persuaded his brother to gift the land for a temple but he is digging the pit for the out-let of the waste water in front of the house of his sister and hence he would kill him today. By asking so, appellant Ratan Lal inflicted an injury by the Dhariya on the head of Bhagirath and after infliction of the injury, appellant Ratan Lal and his son Gudda ran away. Bhagirath, on receiving the head injury, fell down and became unconscious. This incident, according to the prosecution, was witnessed by Smt. Krishna - the widow of deceased Bhagirath, Jaggannath, Ganesh and Bhuvan. An information regarding the incident was conveyed to Bheru Lal - the father of deceased Bhagirath - by Kanhaiya Lal, who had gone to attend the 12th day post-death rite of a villager. Bheru Lal, on receiving the information, came to the house, took injured Bhagirath on a tractor to Amod and lodged the report of the incident at the Police Station. At that-time Bhagirath was unconscious. From Police Station, Arnod, Bhagirath was taken to the General Hospital, Pratabgarh, but in the way, he succumbed to the injury. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined sixteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. At that-time Bhagirath was unconscious. From Police Station, Arnod, Bhagirath was taken to the General Hospital, Pratabgarh, but in the way, he succumbed to the injury. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined sixteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted co-accused Mohan alias Gudda of the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and, also, acquitted accused-appellant Ratan Lal of the offence under Section 302 IPC, but convicted him for the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. It is against this judgment dated 28-5-93, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratabgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. that the appellant has preferred this Jail Appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence available on record connecting the appellant with the crime. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are all interested witnesses and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the appellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below. 4. The nature of evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the evidence of four eye witnesses, viz., PW 4 Smt. Krishna Bai (the widow of deceased Bhagirath), PW 6 Jaggannath, PW 7 Bhuvan - the servant of the deceased who was assisting him in digging the pit - and PW 8 Ganesh. This evidence is supported by the evidence of PW 1 Bheru Lal - the father of deceased Bhagirath - who came at the place of the incident immediately after receiving the information from Kanhaiya Lal that his son Bhagirath had received a head-injury at the hands of the accused. PW 9 Ram Chandra Kumawat and PW 10 Kanhaiya Lal are the witnesses who came at the place of the occurrence on hearing the cries. PW 9 Ram Chandra Kumawat and PW 10 Kanhaiya Lal are the witnesses who came at the place of the occurrence on hearing the cries. PW 2 Bhagirath is a Motbir witness regarding the site-plan Ex.P. 2, Panchnama-a-Lash Ex.P. 6, recovery of the clothes of the deceased vide Ex.P. 5, recovery of blood-smeared soil vide Ex.P. 4 and the delivery of the dead body of Bhagirath vide Ex.P. 5. PW 3 Vikram Singh and PW 5 Nathu are the Motbir witnesses, in whose presence the recovery of the Dhariya was made but PW 5 Nathu has not supported the prosecution case during the trial and he was declared hostile. PW 11 Dr. N.C. Bose was the Medical Officer posted at the Primary Health Centre, Amod, at the relevant time, who examined Bhagirath on 28-11-90 when he was brought to the Primary Health Centre by three-four persons. According to him, at that time Bhagirath was having an injury on his head and he referred the case to the General Hospital, Pratabgarh. PW 12 Dr. Satish Kumar was the Medical Officer posted at Government Hospital, Pratabgarh, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Bhagirath and found two injuries on his head. PW 13/16 Tej Singh was the Station House Officer, Police Station, Arnod, who conducted the investigation. He registered the F.I.R. (Ex.P. 1) and after completion of the investigation, presented the challrn in the Court. PW 14 Prakash Chandra was the Constable, who took the four sealed packets for F.S.L. Examination. He first took the packets to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh, and then to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, where he deposited the sealed packets for F.S.L. examination. PW 15 Ratan Lal was the Malkhana Incharge at Police Station, Arnod, with whom the sealed articles and the Dhariya were deposited. He, also, gave these articles to PW 14 Prakash Chandra Constable for taking the same to the aforesaid Laboratory. 5. The prosecution case, therefore, rests upon the statements of the four eye witnesses. PW 4 Smt. Krishna Bai (the widow of deceased Bhagirath) has stated that eight-nine months before, at about 10.00 a.m., she was in her house and her husband Bhagirath was digging a pit in the lane for accumulation of waste-water discharged from the house so that the water may not spread in the lane. PW 4 Smt. Krishna Bai (the widow of deceased Bhagirath) has stated that eight-nine months before, at about 10.00 a.m., she was in her house and her husband Bhagirath was digging a pit in the lane for accumulation of waste-water discharged from the house so that the water may not spread in the lane. The servant Bhuvan was, also, assisting her husband Bhagirath. Ganesh and Jaggannath came there and started talking him. She, also, came out-side the house. In the meanwhile, accused Gudda and appellant Ratan Lal came there. Gudda caught- hold the hands of her husband and asked him why he was digging the pit in front of the house of her aunt (father's sister) and appellant Ratan Lal told Bhagirath, "You get the land of my brother gifted to the temple but you are digging a pit in front of the house of my sister and, therefore, he will be killed today." After saying so, appellant Ratan Lal inflicted an injury by Dhariya on the head of Bhagirath, who, after receiving the injury, fell down while the accused ran away. Thereafter Bhagirath was taken inside the house and put on a cot. Witnesses Ram Chandra Kumawat and Ram Chandra Rajput, also, came there. Her father-in-law, who had gone to attend the 12th day rite of a villager near a pond, came there. Thereafter her father-in-law brought a tractor, took Bhagirath to the Police Station and she, also, accompanied them. From Police Station, Amod, Bhagirath was first taken to the Primary Health Centre, Amod, and then to the General Hospital, Pratabgarh, and at Pratabgarh she was informed that Bhagirath had died. PW 6 Jaggannath - the other eye witness - has stated that about nine months before, at about 10.00 a.m. in village Janjli, he was going to his house at Ghata to take a bath in connection with the 12th day rite of a villager. Bhagirath was digging a pit in front of his house. Ganesh was, also, there. He inquired from Bhagirath why he was digging the pit, on which Bhagirath informed that the water spreads in the lane and the muddy-water results in nuisance. At that time both the accused came there. Bhagirath was digging a pit in front of his house. Ganesh was, also, there. He inquired from Bhagirath why he was digging the pit, on which Bhagirath informed that the water spreads in the lane and the muddy-water results in nuisance. At that time both the accused came there. Accused Gudda caught-hold the Sabble and appellant Ratan Lal, after asking Bhagirath that his father got the land gifted to the temple but he was digging the pit in front of his sister's house and, therefore, he would kill him, inflicted an injury by a Dhariya on the head of Bhagirath, who, on receiving the injury, fell down on the ground. Ram Chandra Kumawat and Ram Chandra Rajput, also, came there on hearing their voice. Bhagirath's wife was, also, standing out-side the house. Bhuvan -the servant of Bhagirath - was, also, there. Similar is the statement of PW 8 Ganesh and PW 7 Bhuvan. Lengthy cross-examinations were conducted on all the four eye witnesses but nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. From the statements of all these four eye witnesses, the infliction of injury by Dhariya by appellant Ratan Lal on the head of Bhagirath, stands proved. The evidence of these four eye witnesses stand corroborated from the recovery of the Dhariya, which was found stained with blood. The recovery of Dhariya was made on the information and at the instance of the appellant and from the evidence, produced by the prosecution, the recovery of this weapon of offence from the possession of the appellant on his information and at his instance, stands proved. This Dhariya was found positive for human blood in the F.S.L. examination, though the Group of the Blood could not be determined as it was found insufficient for examination. The recovery of Dhariya which was found positive for human blood, is a link in the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. 6. The evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses further finds support from the evidence of PW 1 Bheru Lal, PW 9 Ram Chandra Kumawat and PW 10 Kanhaiya Lal as well as from the medical evidence of Dr. N.C. Bose and Dr. Satish Kumar. The prosecution has, therefore, proved the case against the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable manner of doubt. 6. The evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses further finds support from the evidence of PW 1 Bheru Lal, PW 9 Ram Chandra Kumawat and PW 10 Kanhaiya Lal as well as from the medical evidence of Dr. N.C. Bose and Dr. Satish Kumar. The prosecution has, therefore, proved the case against the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable manner of doubt. As the accused-appellant inflicted only one injury by the Dhariya, there is no repetition of injuries and the incident took place on the spur of moment on a trivial matter, therefore, the learned lower Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. 7. The next question, which requires consideration in the present case, is: what should be the appropriate sentence to be imposed against the accused-appellant? The incident took place on the spur of moment due to digging of a pit by Bhagirath in front of the house of appellant's sister. The lane, where the houses are situated, is only six feet in width. The quarrel took place on a trivial matter and the appellant inflicted one Dhariya blow on the head of Bhagirath. There is no repetition of any injury and after infliction of the only injury, the accused ran away. The appellant is behind the bars for the last about four years and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C., I reduce the substantive sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and the sentence of fine is, also, reduced from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant will further undergo the sentence for fifteen days. 8. In the result, the appeal, filed by appellant Ratan Lal, is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- is, also, reduced to Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.Appeal partly allowed. *******