JUDGMENT 1. - This D.B. Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 56/81 "State v. Sua Lai " whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00W-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. In short, the facts of the prosecution case are that one Shri Kalyan Meena (PW 2) lodged a verbal report on 9.7.1981 at Police Station, Dei, that his minor son Ram Kishan aged 12 years informed him that today at about 12 O'clock in the noon Sua Lal had struck a blow with a 'Prani' on the neck of deceased (Jagdish) in his field, as a result of which Jagdish died at the spot and his dead body has been taken in a bullock cart by his wife to their own house. On this, Kalyan went to the house of Jagdish where he saw Sua Lal-accused sitting outside the house and on enquiring him as to what had happened. he replied that whatever was destined had happened " tks gksugkj Fkh] oks gks xbZA ". At that time Sheoji, Raju and Panchu were also sitting at the house of the deceased. On the basis of this report a case was registered through a formal FIR 72/81 against the accused-appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Panchayatnama and site plan were prepared. Post-mortem was conducted by the Medical Officer. Accused was arrested. At his instance 'Prani' was recovered. After completing investigation, charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC was filed in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to Sessions Judge, Bundi. 3. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant framed charge under section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses namely; PW 1 Mst. 3. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant framed charge under section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses namely; PW 1 Mst. Kamla wife of deceased, eye-witness of the incident; PW 2 Kalyan who lodged the FIR; PW 3 Narayani mother of deceased as well as accused; PW 4 Sheoji and PW 5 are the witnesses before whom accused confessed that he has killed Jagdish; PW 6 Ramnarain is a motbir in whose presence site plan and other memoes were prepared; PW 7 is Dr. Salauddin Khilji who conducted post-mortem; PW 9 Mahavir Prasad and PW 10 Ashy ini Kumar are the Investigating Officers and connected with the investigation ofthe case. The statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused had stated in his statement that when for easing he went in the Khet (field) adjoining the field of Badawala Kua, Jagdish-deceased having suspected that he was demolishing the 'Med' he attacked him with a 'Prani. aiming at his neck. On this, apprehending to his life and in the exercise of right of private defence of his person he (accused) gave one Parani blow to Jagdish which struck on his neck. He also examined DW I Hemraj in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge after careful scrutiny of the evidence held that PW I Kamla who is an eye-witness of the alleged incident, her statement is reliable and extra-judicial confession made by the accused has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Right of self defence was not available to the accused because no injury was inflicted by the deceased and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him as stated earlier. 4. It is an admitted position that deceased-Jagdish and accused-Sua Lal were real brothers. PW 1 Kamla is wife of deceased-Jagdish. PW 3 Narayani is the mother of accused as well as deceased-Jagdish. 5. The learned counsel has not challenged the finding of the trial Court about the incidence. His only submission is that deceased and accused-appellant were real brothers. There was no previous enmity. The quarrel took place suddenly when both were in their fields. It is a case of single injury. Therefore, the case does not travel beyond Section 304-11 IPC. He has also submitted that the incident is of 1981. His only submission is that deceased and accused-appellant were real brothers. There was no previous enmity. The quarrel took place suddenly when both were in their fields. It is a case of single injury. Therefore, the case does not travel beyond Section 304-11 IPC. He has also submitted that the incident is of 1981. A lenient view he taken in the matter. 6. After having gone through the entire evidence on record and the judgment of the trial Court, we agree with the finding of trial Court which is based upon proper scrutiny of the evidence that accused-appellant inflicted the injury by lathi, which proved fatal. We are also of the opinion that there is nothing on the record to show that there was any dispute before the present incident. There was no premeditation. Suddenly this incident had taken place. PW 7 Dr. Salauddin Khilji who conducted the post-mortem has stated that "In my opinion the cause of death is due to asphyxia and anoxia resulting from medullary injury caused by fracture of servile vertebra No. 1, 2 & 3 and dislocation of Atalanta occipital joints. There is complete compression of medulla oblengata at C. 1, C.2 & C.3 level caused by blunt object. Thus there is spinal injuries." The bruise was around the lacerated wound, so it was a case of single injury. Looking to lacerated the blow was not heavy but as thereAppeal partly allowed. *******