ORDER : M.M. Punchhi, J. 1. The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code by the Court of Session. The High Court, however, on appeal by the State reversed the verdict and convicted the appellant for the offence charged sentencing him to life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story was that on 21-12-1974 at about 10.00 a.m., the complainant PW 1, Saukhi was sitting at his shop whereas his father, Churauwa, the deceased, was sitting close by talking to some people. At that time, the appellant armed with his licensed gun came to the shop and asked Saukhi to give him 200 gm of supari. When price was demanded from the appellant, he refused to meet it stating that the complainant owed him some money. When the supari was withdrawn from being handed over to the appellant he hurled abuses at the complainant. At that juncture, Churauwa-deceased asked the respondent not to abuse and further told the appellant that if he wanted supari, he should bring money. Infuriated, the appellant pointed out his licensed gun towards Churauwa-deceased insulting him with the words "you are asking for money and here it is readily" firing at Churauwa-deceased as a result of which the latter fell down. The appellant then went away from the scene of occurrence taking his licensed gun away. The injured deceased was taken towards the police station but he breathed his last on the way. Saukhi, PW 1, had to cover a distance of seven miles to get to the police station whereat he got recorded first information report written by the Head Constable-in-charge. The dead body which had already been taken to the police station was taken care of by the police and was subjected to post-mortem examination. The same revealed that the deceased had two gunshot injuries on his person, one being of entry and the other of exit, showing that the shot had pierced through and through the pelvic region and some metallic pellets left en route were recovered from the pelvic cavity. 3. The Court of Session acquitted the appellant on the ground that the manner in which the first information report was recorded was suspicious inasmuch as the sheet on which it was written did not bear any fold and further that the witnesses were unreliable. 3. The Court of Session acquitted the appellant on the ground that the manner in which the first information report was recorded was suspicious inasmuch as the sheet on which it was written did not bear any fold and further that the witnesses were unreliable. This had particular reference to the evidence of PW 1 Saukhi on account of his being a relation of the deceased and the other two witnesses, PW 2 and PW 3, who claimed to have seen the occurrence were doubted as to their presence on the spot. The High Court on reversing the judgment of the Court of Session did not interfere with his view vis-?-vis PWs 2 and 3 but chose to rely on the statement of PW 1, Saukhi, to record order of conviction. The only point for consideration is whether Saukhi, PW 1, is a reliable witness. 4. It stands undisputed that the shop was being run by father and son, i.e., Saukhi and Churauwa-deceased and that at one point or the other, one out of the two, and sometimes the two of them together used to be present at the shop. The occurrence is of the morning and the first information report was recorded at the police station at 2.00 p.m. which was at a distance of seven miles from the place of occurrence. PW 1 had left for the police station along with his injured father who expired on the way and when they reached the police station, the dead body was with him. According to the High Court, PW 1 had reacted normally and unless he was present at the scene of the occurrence, he could not be so prompt so as to take his father to the police station as also to possibly get some medical help, but in vain. We see no reason why the High Court could not have believed the evidence of PW 1 alone to convict the appellant, when on going through his testimony we find that he has given a consistent and cogent version and the first information report is corroborated thereof. We, therefore, affirm the view of the High Court in that respect. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant claimed that it was a case for invoking Exception 4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code inasmuch as there was no premeditation and everything had sprung up all of a sudden. We, therefore, affirm the view of the High Court in that respect. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant claimed that it was a case for invoking Exception 4 of Section 300 Indian Penal Code inasmuch as there was no premeditation and everything had sprung up all of a sudden. The argument loses sight of the important factor that unless there be a fight, Exception (4) was not attracted. Here there was no fight at all. The deceased had put up no fight to which the appellant could claim an advantage. The argument as such is not well based and so worth rejection, which we hereby do. And so nothing further survives to be urged. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The appellant who is on bail should surrender to his bail bonds forthwith.