Judgment J. CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 31. 7. 1993 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 I. P. C. and has sentenced him to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that on 24. 10. 1991, at about 7. 00 p. m. , Makhanlal went to the Dhani of accused Naresh Kumar for hiring labourers and at about 9 p. m. , it is alleged that the younger brother of Naresh Kumar i. e. Rchitash came to the house of Makhanlal and informed P. W. 1 Maniram, his brother, P. W. 8 Mst. Gaura Devi, his mother and P. W. 7 Mst. Shanti, his wife that Naresh and Makhanlal fought with each other and in that process, Makhanlal has been injured and is lying in the Dhani of Naresh. On this, it is alleged that P. W. Maniram went to the Dhani of Naresh and found Makhanlal injured therein semi-conscious stage. He was lying facewards. He asked him as to who has beaten him, whereupon, it is alleged that Makhanlal told P. W. 1 Maniram that Naresh gave beating to him. Thereafter, Makhanlal became unconscious. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, P. W. I Maniram brought Makhanlal immediately to his house and then shifted him to Government Hospital at Jhunjunu. He was admitted in the Hospital as an indoorpatient. The Police was informed about this incident. After arrival of the Police, his injuries were examined and his injury report has been marked as Ex. P. 6. However, Makhanlal succumbed to the injuries received by him at about 1. 30 a. m. on 25. 10. 1991 and, therefore, the case under Sec. 302 IPC was registered against the accused Naresh on the written report Ex. P. 1 lodged by P. W. 1 Maniram. ( 4 ) THE Panchnama lash and the inquest report were prepared. The post-mortem examination was got conducted by the same Doctor, who examined his injuries. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex. P. 7. P. 1 lodged by P. W. 1 Maniram. ( 4 ) THE Panchnama lash and the inquest report were prepared. The post-mortem examination was got conducted by the same Doctor, who examined his injuries. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex. P. 7. While conducting the post-mortem examination of the body of deceased Makhanlal, it was found by the Doctor that the deceased had received three external injuries i. e. there was bleeding from his right ear; there was swelling on the left temporal-parietal region of scalp; and there was swelling on right temporal-parietal region of scalp. The post-mortem examination further revealed that there were fractures of the right temporal-parietal and right temporalbones. There was massive extra dural haemotoma on right and left temporal parietal region of brain and base of skull. Sub-dural haemotoma was also present along with extra dural haemotoma. As per the Doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. ( 5 ) AFTER usual investigation, the case against the accused was challenged in the Court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, from where, it was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. He did not examine any witness in support of his defence. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid and hence this appeal. ( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. S. R. Bajwa, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused appellant, Mr. P. Farooq, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S. S. Hunda, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 7 ) MR. Bajwa, the learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was accused Naresh who has inflicted these injuries on his head, which has resulted in his death but he, however, submits that this case does not travel beyond the provisions of Sec. 304 Part II, IPC. ( 7 ) MR. Bajwa, the learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was accused Naresh who has inflicted these injuries on his head, which has resulted in his death but he, however, submits that this case does not travel beyond the provisions of Sec. 304 Part II, IPC. He has further submitted that after infliction of these injuries, Makhanlal became unconscious or semiconscious and he was very much available to him for causing his death but instead of killing him, accused Naresh asked his mother to send his brother to the house of injured Makhanlal with the message that the injured is lying in their Guwadi. According to Mr. Bajwa, such a conduct could not have been possible for a person, who intended to kill. He has, therefore, submitted that this is very much clear from this conduct that the accused never intended to kill Makhanlal. ( 8 ) IT was further contended by Mr. Bajwa that in similar circumstances, their lord ships of the Supreme Court in W. Slaney v. State of M. P. have held that the case does not travel beyond the provisions of Sec. 304 Part II, IPC. He has particularly drawn our attention to Paras 70, 71, and 72 of the Judgment in W. Slaneys case (supra), which we shall deal with, a little later, Mr. Bajwa has further placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jayappa Duttu v. State of Maharashtra, wherein also it has been held that the offence which has been committed by the accused does not travel beyond the provisions of Sec. 304 Part II, IPC. ( 9 ) THESE submissions of Mr. Bajwa were stoutly opposed by Mr. P. Farooq, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. S. Hunda, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant. They have contended that on the facts and circumstances of this, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bharwadr Bhikiha v. State of Gujarat. ( 10 ) WE have critically gone through the authorities cited by learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In W. Slaneyts case (supra), the accused was aged about 22 years. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bharwadr Bhikiha v. State of Gujarat. ( 10 ) WE have critically gone through the authorities cited by learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In W. Slaneyts case (supra), the accused was aged about 22 years. In that case, although the accused struck a blow on the head of the injured but injured remained alive for 10 days and, thereafter, he died. On those facts, it was held that as the blows have been inflicted without premeditation in a sudden fight, the accused be held guilty of the offence under Sec. 304 Part II, I PC. ( 11 ) IN Jayappa Dattu v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the facts of the case were that the accused inflicted certain blows on the head and legs of the deceased, which resulted in the haematoma all over the brain over the frontal, temporal and occipital regions, and the death occurred on account of the sub-dural haematoma. It was, therefore, argued by Mr. Bajwa that this case is also similar to that case and, therefore, the accused-appellant Naresh should be convicted under Sec. 304 Part 11, IPC instead of Sec. 302 IPC. In Bharwad Bhike v. State of Gujarat (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that in a case where the injuries have been inflicted with great force, the case should be covered by clause three of Sec. 300 IPC. On the facts of that case, it was further observed that the High Court was wrong in convicting the accused under Sec. 304 Part II IPC. Actually, the accused should be convicted under Sec.-302 IPC. ( 12 ) MR. Bajwa also drew our attention to Exception 4 of Sec. 300 IPC, which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. ( 13 ) IN this case, it is not known, how the fight started. Makhanlal had gone to the Dhani of accused Naresh in order to hire labourers. ( 13 ) IN this case, it is not known, how the fight started. Makhanlal had gone to the Dhani of accused Naresh in order to hire labourers. What transpired between deceased Makhanlal and accused Naresh has not been disclosed because after telling his brother P. W. 1 Maniram that accused Naresh has injured him, injured Makhanlal became unconscious and thereafter, he did not regain consciousness and ultimately succumbed to the injuries received by him. How the occurrence started, an explanation could have been given by the accused but neither the witnesses nor the accused have stated about it and, therefore, we are unable to say as to how the occurrence started and whether the injured was responsible for this fight. P. W. 1 Maniram has reached the place of the occurrence after the injured became unconscious or semi conscious. Such an explanation could have been given by the accused. In this respect, we may place reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, wherein it has been observed that it often happens that only the culprit himself knows what moved him to a certain course of action. Thus, it was for the accused to have explained as to why he has inflicted certain blows with great force on the head of the accused but in this case, no such explanation has been offered by the accused and, therefore, the circumstances which make application to Exception 4 of Sec. 300 IPC could not be brought on record by the accused. However, in this case, this much is clear that the head which is a vital part of the body has been used for the infliction of the injuries and the blows have been inflicted with great force, resulting in the fractures of the right parietal and right temporal and left temporal parietal bones and base of the skull, they have been broken into pieces resulting in extra dural and sub-dural haematoma and, therefore, the accused appellant Naresh can safely be credited with an intention to cause such injuries which were likely to cause the death. It is not a case where the injured remained alive after receiving the injuries for about 10 days. The blows inflicted are not accidental but intentional. It is not a case where the injured remained alive after receiving the injuries for about 10 days. The blows inflicted are not accidental but intentional. In these circumstances, we are firmly of the opinion that this case is squarely covered by the provisions of Sec. 304 Part I, LP. C. In this respect, we may place reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Thakanda Lalaji v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1974 SC 1351 ) wherein also, the blows were inflicted without premeditalion in a sudden fight in the heat to passion without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner, but the head was availed for infliction of injuries with the Dhariya and, therefore, their Lordships felt that the case must be covered by the provisions of Sec. 304 Part I, IPC and not by Sec. 304 Part II, IPC. ( 14 ) KEEPING in view all these facts and circumstances of this case, we are firmly of the view that it is a case of intentional landing of blows on a vital organ of the body and, therefore, the accused must be held guilty of intentional infliction of injuries, which were likely to cause the death of Makhanlal. In this view of the matter, the accused appellant Naresh deserves to be convicted of the offence under Sec. 304 Part I, IPC instead of Sec. 302 IPC. ( 15 ) IN the result, this appeal partly succeeds. The conviction and sentence recorded against thee accused appellant Naresh for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC are set aside. However, the accused appellant Naresh is held guilty of the offence under Sec. 304 Part I IPC and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned lower Court forthwith and the result of this appeal be conveyed to the Jail authorities for compliance. Appeal allowed partly.