JUDGMENT 1. - The above mentioned appeal and criminal revision arise from the judgment and order dated, 27.1.1995 of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the appellant Kishore Kumar has been convicted Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo two months' simple imprisonment, and other accused have been acquitted of all the charges. The Appeal is by the convicted accused, while the Revision is by the complainant, seeking conviction of the accused persons. 2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated as under:- In house of No. 86, situate in Bordi-Ke-Kuwa-Ka-Rasta, Purani Basti, Jaipur, the deceased Girraj Prasad resided with him family members in half portion, which was owned by them. In the remaining half portion, the accused persons resided. The unfortunate incident occurred at 6.25 a.m. on 11.7.1993 where in the deceased was inflicted injuries wit a knife by the appellant Kishore Kumar. The immediate cause of the incident is stated to be an oral altercation which took place between the parties on the flow of water towards complainant's side from a drain of the accused. It is alleged that Smt. Chameli Devi, wife of the deceased, when asked co-accused Smt. Kamla to stop the flow of water towards their side, she started abusing her. Other accused also joined with Smt. Kamla in abusing Smt. Chameli Devi. The appellant-Kishore Kumar, then brought a knife from his room and after jumping over the dividing wall went towards the side of complainant's house and inflicted two knife blows on the chest of Girraj Agrawal. The charge against other accused was that they exhorted Kishore Kumar to inflict the injuries. After the incident. Girraj Agrawal was immediately shifted in emergency ward of S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur in a seriously injured condition, where he succumbed to his injuries soon after he reached there. A written report of the occurrence was made by PW 2, Deepak Agrawal, the son of the deceased who claimed to be an eye-witness of the instance, at Police Station, Neemri, at 7.30 a.m. on the same day i.e. within an hour or so of the incident. On this report, Crime No. 23/93 was registered Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code vide First Information Report (FIR) Ex. P/2. 3. On this report, Crime No. 23/93 was registered Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code vide First Information Report (FIR) Ex. P/2. 3. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by PW 9, Dr. P.C. Vyas, vide post-mortem report Ex. P/13. He found the following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased as described in post mortem report. 1. Stab wound 2 x 3 /4 cm x chest cavity deep with fresh clotted blood present traversly on left side front of chest middle l/3rd at sternal border where it is 9 cm. below and medial to left nipple. On further dissection, wound present traversly Lt. side 5th inter-coastal space near sternal border and reaching to chest cavity and causing punctured wound in left side pericardium superiorly and reaching to left atrium where the incised wound of size 11/4 x 1/4 cm x of heart artial cavity deep present. Pericardial cavity is full of blood. Blood about 100 cc also present in left side pleural cavity. 2. Stab wound 11/2 x 3/4 cm x chest cavity deep with fresh clotted blood placed obliquely on left side front of chest in mid clavicular line where it is 8 cm below left nipple. On further dissection, this wound piercing inter-costal muscles in Lt 6th inter-costal space reaching to chest cavity. Note:-Margins of above mentioned both injuries are clean cut, regular, well-defined and everted. PW 9 - Dr. P.C. Vyas, opined that both the injuries were ante-mortem and cause of death was syncope as a result of injuries to heart mentioned as injury No. 1 in the post-mortem report. This injury was opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 4. After completion of usual investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against all the four accused in the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, on 8.10.1993 Under Sections 302, 448, 114 & 120-B Indian Penal Code. As the offence Under section 302 Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and ultimately the accused were tried in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. As the offence Under section 302 Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and ultimately the accused were tried in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The appellant, Kishore Kumar was charged Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code while the remaining accused were charged under section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, in the alternative, Read With Section 109 Indian Penal Code. 5. At the trial, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied upon six eye-witnesses, namely PW 1 - Smt. Chameli, PW 2 - Deepak Agrawal, PW 3 - Girdhari Lal, PW 6 - Radha, PW 10 - Damodar Prasad Atal and PW 11 - Smt. Sharda. PW 9 is Doctor P.C. Vyas, who conducted post-mortem examination. PW 5 - Pradhuman Kumar is the Investigating Officer. The trial Court, placing reliance on the evidence of eye-witnesses namely, Smt. Chameli, Deepak, Girdhari Lal and Radha and other corroborative evidence in the shape of FIR and post-mortem report etc. convicted and sentenced the appellant Kishore Kumar Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as aforesaid. The remaining accused were given benefit of doubt. 6. Shri S.R. Bajwa, with his usual eloquence, assailing conviction of the appellant Kishore Kumar contended that testimony of the eye-witnesses is not reliable at all. Learned counsel contended that the eye-witnesses, being close relatives of the deceased are highly interested in success of the prosecution and their evidence suffers from serious contradictions improvements an disprobabilities. For PW 2 - Deepak Agrawal, it was contended that he was not an eye-witness of the main incident as per the statement of PW 3 - Girdhari Lal, and as such, his evidence should be discarded from consideration. In the light of submissions made by Shri Bajwa, we minutely examined the statements of eye-witnesses and other materials on record. No-doubt, PW 1 - Smt. Chameli, PW 2 - Deepak Agrawal, PW 3 - Girdhari Lal and PW 6 - Kumari Radha, the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence, are close relatives of the deceased. In the light of submissions made by Shri Bajwa, we minutely examined the statements of eye-witnesses and other materials on record. No-doubt, PW 1 - Smt. Chameli, PW 2 - Deepak Agrawal, PW 3 - Girdhari Lal and PW 6 - Kumari Radha, the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence, are close relatives of the deceased. It is also true that PW 10 - Damodar Prasad and his wife PW 11 - Smt. Sarda who were tenants in the house at the time of incident, have resiled from their police statements and did not support the prosecution case, however the striking features of the case make it difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Bajwa that evidence of Smt. Chameli, Kumari Radha, Deepak Agrawal and Girdhari Lal be discarded from being taken into consideration. The incident had taken place early in the morning at 6.25 a.m. in house No. 26 where members of both the parties were residing. The presence of the above witnesses in the house at the time of occurrence is quite normal and natural and this fact cannot be disputed. Normally, they should be the witnesses of the occurrence and their evidence cannot be discarded or disbelieved merely on the ground that they are close relatives of deceased. Ordinarily, a close relative will be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. Another significant aspect of the case is that report of the incident was immediately made at the Police Station at 7.30 a.m. on the same day. In the report, the appellant, Kishore Kumar alone is stated to be the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased and no attempt has been made to falsely implicate any other accused. The very fact that report of the incident was made with promptitude and no other person except the appellant Kishore Kumar has been implicated in the crime shows truthfulness of the prosecution version. Immediately after incident, injured Girraj was shifted in the emergency ward of S.M.S. Hospital in a precarious condition where he was declared dead. Thereafter, his son Deepak Agrawal went to the Police Station and made a written report. Deepak Agrawal was having no previous enmity or malice to falsely implicate the accused persons or invert a false story about the incident. Thereafter, his son Deepak Agrawal went to the Police Station and made a written report. Deepak Agrawal was having no previous enmity or malice to falsely implicate the accused persons or invert a false story about the incident. We are of the view that the version given in FIR is unadulterated and has a ring of truth. 7. A similar argument to discard the evidence of a close relative who was a natural witness, was rejected by the Apex Court of the country in Mst. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472 , observing as under : "Moreover, a close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is some how or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reasons. Such is not the case here." In Dilip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1954 SCR 145 , it has been laid down as under:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has caused such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilt, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2407 , and Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, 1995 Cr.L.R. (SC) 764 . 8. PW 1 - Smt. Chameli and PW 6 - Kumari Radha have given in detail the sequence of events about the origin and the manner in which the incident had taken place. They have categorically stated that when Smt. Chameli asked Smt. Kamla Pareek, an accused in the case, to stop the flow of water towards their side, she started abusing her instead of closing the drain. There upon, Accused Hari Kishan, Govind Pareek and the appellant - Kishore Kumar also joined her in hurling abuses to them. Kishore Kumar, then, brought a knife from his room and inflicted two knife blows on the chest of the deceased Girraj on second floor of their house. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined at length but nothing substantial could be brought out to shatter their evidence. We find their testimony quite natural, firm, straight forward and convincing. These witnesses also admitted that the incident took place all of a sudden. PW 2 - Deepak Agrawal has deposed to have witnessed the incident. It is true that PW 3 - Girdhari Lal has admitted in his cross-examination that Deepak was closed in his room and thereafter, knife blows were inflicted to his son Girraj Agrawal by the appellant, Kishore Kumar. However, from the statement of Deepak Agrawal, it transpires that in order to save his life, his mother had closed the doors of his room, but he opened the same after 10-15 seconds only. Even for arguments sake we accept the contention of Mr. Bajwa that Deepak Agrawal could not see the actual infliction of knife blows by the appellant Kishore Kumar Still his evidence is important and relevant as it corroborates the prosecution story on material parts. PW 3 - Girdhari Lal is unfortunate father of the deceased. Even for arguments sake we accept the contention of Mr. Bajwa that Deepak Agrawal could not see the actual infliction of knife blows by the appellant Kishore Kumar Still his evidence is important and relevant as it corroborates the prosecution story on material parts. PW 3 - Girdhari Lal is unfortunate father of the deceased. He has also supported the prosecution version and find it difficult to disbelieve him Thus, in our view, the trial Court committed no error in placing reliance on the evidence of PW 1 - Smt. Chameli, PW 2 - Deepak Agrawal, PW 3 - Girdhari Lal and PW 6 - Kumari Radha for holding that the appellant Kishore Kumar was the author of the knife injuries caused to the victim. 9. The next argument of Mr. Bajwa that ocular evidence should be rejected in view of the opinion expressed by Dr. P.C. Vyas that it was not possible for the victim to sustain two injuries at short distance as the injured would have changed his position, cannot be accepted on the mere probability expressed by the Doctor. The opinion of the doctor pointing to alternative possibility can never be accepted as a conclusive evidence, specially when ocular evidence is firm and convincing, and presence of the eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be disputed. Similarly, the contention of Mr. Bajwa that evidence of the eye-witnesses, having not been acted upon quo the acquitted accused, persons should be discarded quo the appellant Kishore Kumar, also has no merit. Against other accused the evidence was only of exhortation and were given benefit of doubt as this fact does not find place in FIR. On this score the evidence of the eye-witnesses quo the appellant Kishore Kumar does not become tainted or unreliable. Then their evidence stands corroborated by medical evidence and corroboration can also be sought from the FIR to the testimony of its maker Deepak Agrawal. In our considered view, the learned trial Court committed no error in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant Kishore Kumar inflicted both the injuries on the chest of the deceased Girraj. 10. In our considered view, the learned trial Court committed no error in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant Kishore Kumar inflicted both the injuries on the chest of the deceased Girraj. 10. The sequence of the events about the occurrence in the instant case, which stands proved from the materials and evidence on record, it that the incident originated in initial stage on a trivial dispute about the flow of water towards complainant's side from the drain of the accused, but it soon took a serious turn when the appellant Kishore Kumar brought a knife from his room and after jumping over the dividing wall came to the complainant's house and inflicted two blows with the knife on the chest of the deceased in quick succession shouting that he would finish all of them. The deceased fell down and died soon thereafter, even before he could reach to the emergency ward in S.M.S. Hospital. It is important to note that there was no fight between the deceased and the accused except hurling of abuses by the accused persons. The words uttered by the appellant - Kishore Kumar, followed by stabbing with a knife on the chest of the deceased and the fact of bringing a knife from his room and then going towards complainant's side after jumping over the dividing wall, clearly indicate that he intended to cause the injuries which were objectively found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case it can also be inferred that he intended to cause the death of the victim. The present case is, therefore, squarely covered by clauses first and third of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. 11. In Virra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 , while dealing with clause third of Section 300, Vivian Bose J. has lucidly explained as to how the intention to be inferred even in a case of single injury. It states : "The question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict a serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present. If he can show that he did not or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an inference, then, of course, the intent that the section requires is not proved. If he can show that he did not or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an inference, then, of course, the intent that the section requires is not proved. But if there is nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whether he knew of its seriousness, or intended serious consequences, is neither here nor there. The question, so far as the intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness, but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. But whether the intention is there or not is one of fact and not one of law. Whether the wound is serious or otherwise and if serious, how serious is a totally separate and distinct question and has nothing to do with the question whether the prisoner intended to inflict the injury in question." 12. In Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana, 1981 (3) see 616 , the Apex Court of the country following the ratio laid down in Virsa Singh's case against reiterated as under:- "There is no justification for the assertion that the giving of a solitary blow on a vital part of the body resulting the death must always necessarily reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable Under section 304 Part II of the Code. If a man deliberately strikes another on the head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod or even a lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull, he must, in the absence of any circumstances negativing the presumption, be deemed to have intended to cause the death of the victim or such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death. The whole thing depends upon the intention to cause death, and the case may be covered by either clause Firstly or clause Thirdly. The nature of intention must be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon the death." 13. Apprehending the above situation, another limb of the argument of Mr. The nature of intention must be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon the death." 13. Apprehending the above situation, another limb of the argument of Mr. Bajwa was that the case is covered by Exception-4 of Section 300 as the appellant Kishore Kumar was mentally agitated and provoked by the remarks uttered by Smt. Chameli wife of the deceased that he used to stare towards her daughter and daughter-in-law. He also made a feeble attempt to argue that the appellant Kishore Kumar acted in exercise of right of private defence of person. The second contention with regard to right of private defence of person can be rejected outright by stating that neither there is any material on record to show that the appellant Kishore Kumar acted in exercise of such right nor the facts and circumstances bring the case to the remotest nearness to such right. 14. For the application of Exception-4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code all the four conditions enumerated therein must be satisfied, namely, (i) the act must be committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion (ii) upon a sudden quarrel, (iii) without the offender having taken undue advantage, (iv) and the accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, there must be a mutual combat of exchanging blows on each other. In Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 (2) Crimes 487 : 1993 Cr.L.R. (SC) 406 the application of Exception-4 was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and it was observed as under : "The occasion for sudden quarrel must not only be sudden but the party assaulted must be on an equal footing in point of defence, at least at the onset. This is specially so where the attack is made with dangerous weapons. Where the deceased was unarmed and did not cause any injury to the accused even following a sudden quarrel if the accused has inflicted fatal blows on the deceased, exception 4 is not attracted and commission must be one of murder punishable Under section 302. Equally for attracting exception 4 it is necessary that blows should be exchanged even if they do not all find their target. Equally for attracting exception 4 it is necessary that blows should be exchanged even if they do not all find their target. Even if the fight is unpremeditated and sudden, yet if the instrument or manner of retaliation be greatly cruel and dangerous in its nature, the accused cannot be protected under exception 4. In Pandurang Naryan Jawalekar v. State of Maharashtra the facts proved were that the appellant gave a blow on the head of the deceased old man who was advising him not to quarrel. The injury caused to the brain from one end to the other resulted in fracture as could appear from the evidence of the doctor. It would show that the accused must have struck the blow on the head of the deceased with an iron bar with very great force. Accordingly it was held that exception 4 does not apply though there was sudden quarrel and that the fight was not premediated to cause death. It must be shown that the injury caused is not a cruel one. The conviction for offence Under Section 302 by the High Court reversing the acquittal by trial Court was upheld." 15. Thus, in our considered view, none of the arguments urged by Mr. Bajwa has any substance. From the above discussion, there is, then no escape from the conclusion that the offence committed by the appellant Kishore Kumar was murder punishable Under section 302 Indian Penal Code and it is not scaled down by any of the Exceptions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court committed no error in convicting and sentencing him Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. His appeal, therefore, fails and it is hereby dismissed. 16. The Criminal Revision filed by the complainant Deepak Agrawal has also no substance. The trial Court has considered the case of acquitted accused persons in point No. 4 formulated by him for determination. The charge against the acquitted persons, namely, Hari Kishan, Kamla Pareek and Govind Pareek was that they instigated the appellant Kishore Kumar to inflict knife blows to the deceased Girraj Agrawal. The report of the incident was made by the complainant Deepak Agrawal himself and in that report, this important fact is completely missing of which no explanation has come on record. The report of the incident was made by the complainant Deepak Agrawal himself and in that report, this important fact is completely missing of which no explanation has come on record. The allegation of `Lalkara' or exhortation is usually added in order to implicate other persons and we do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is also important to note that the State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal and sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that revisional jurisdiction shall not authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Hence, the Revision Petition also deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal and Revision Dismissed. *******