JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat. J. - In this appeal from Jail, Mangati Komaruni (hereinafter referred to as "the accused"), calls in question judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore convicting the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.') and awarding sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. She stood trial on the allegation of having committed murder of Durjan Nadkami (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") 2. The scenario as unfolded by prosecution during trial essentially lies within a narrow compass. On 7.1.1991, in the afternoon, Arjuna Kumar (P.W.6) husband of the accused came to his nephew, the deceased and intimated about obnoxious behaviour of the accused. He told the deceased that the accused had picked-up a quarrel with him and did not supply him food. Oil hearing this, deceased went to the house of Arjun followed by his wife Kamala Nadkami (P.W. 5) and asked the accused who was the second wife of Arjun, as to why she quarrelled with her husband and was not giving him food. At this the accused got enraged and assaulted him by various weapons like crow-bar, and finally by a knife resulting in bleeding injuries and instantaneous death of the deceased, Kamala Nadkami (P W. 5) wife of the deceased, who witnessed the said incident, narrated the same before her co-villagers, and elder brothers of her husband including Sukra Nadkami (P.W. 9) the informant. A Panchayat meeting was convened on the next day morning Accused confessed in the Panchayat to have killed the deceased. Information was lodged at Muniguda out-post and a written report was submitted. Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof, chargesheet was filed. 3. In order to further its case, prosecution relied on the version of 11 witnesses PW. 9 as indicated above, was the informant and P.W. 9 claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence. Placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.5 and with reference to the evidence of the doctor P.W. 3 conviction was recorded. 4. Mr. R.C. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that relying on the sole testimony of P.W. 5 the wife of the deceased, conviction should not have been made. It was alternatively urged that the course of Sudden quarrel, without premeditation, the assault are stated to have been given and therefore, Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. is applicable. 5. R.C. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that relying on the sole testimony of P.W. 5 the wife of the deceased, conviction should not have been made. It was alternatively urged that the course of Sudden quarrel, without premeditation, the assault are stated to have been given and therefore, Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. is applicable. 5. Mr. S.C. Satpathy, learned counsel for State supported the judgment of conviction and sentence. According to him, the evidence of P.W. 5 who happens to be the wife of the deceased does not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency and inherent improbability. A relative in normal course is expected to point the accusing finger at the real assailant. Reasons have to be shown as to why the witness, who is a relative of the deceased would implicate an innocent person, thereby shielding the actual assailant. 6. Persons related to the deceased or injured are natural and competent witnesses and their evidence deserves credence. There is no reason to discard their evidence merely on the ground that they are relations of the deceased or injured. As a matter of caution, evidence of such witnesses have to be examined carefully before the same is accented. If it is found credible or cogent, it has to be acted upon. In the case at hand, evidence of P.W. 5 has been elaborately analysed and in spite of incisive and searching cross-examination. No infirmity has been brought on record. Learned trial Judge was therefore, justified in relying on her evidence. 7. It is urged that conviction should not have been recorded on the basis of testimony of sole witnesses. It is to be borne in mind that evidence is to be weighed and number of witness is not to be counted. No particular number of witnesses are required to establish a case. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a pointer in this regard. 8. The next plea of the learned counsel for the accused is that Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C is applicable to the facts of the case. In order to bring in application of the said Exception, it has to be established that without pre-meditation and on a sudden fight in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel the offender having not taken undue advantage committed the offence. 9. In order to bring in application of the said Exception, it has to be established that without pre-meditation and on a sudden fight in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel the offender having not taken undue advantage committed the offence. 9. The Fourth Exception of Section 300 I.P.C covers acts done in a sudden fight. The next Exception deals with a case not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded upon the same principle for in both there is absence of pre-meditation, but while in the case of Exception I there is total deprivation of self-control. In case of Exception 4 there is only that heat of passion which clouds man's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4, in Exception 1, but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact, Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilty upon equal footing. A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct, it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused; (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all ingredients mentioned in it must be found. To bring a case within Exception 4 all ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the expression 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 302, I.P.C. is not defined in the I.P.C. It takes two or more to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passion to cool down and in this case the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons, whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no,premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression' undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'. 10. The said provision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The manner in which the assaults were made as described graphically by P.W. 5 leaves not even a shadow of doubt that the accused had acted with gruesome cruelty. The deceased had gone to the house of Arjun to find out the basis for quarrel between him and the accused, which ultimately led to loss of his life. The inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has established its case beyond shadow of doubt, and the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. The appeal is without any merit, and is dismissed. A. Deb, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed