JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd February, 94 passed by the Sessions Judge, Banswara convicting the appellant Gautam for offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment to further undergon three months' R.I. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that in village Panasi under the Drought Relief Scheme, a road was being constructed. On 15.6.92 at about 9 a.m. Menga @ Mangilal was giving instructions to the labourers. At that time, appellant Gautam arrived at the spot and objected the construction of the road in his field. He expressed that he will not permit the construction of the road beyond the mark put by him. He took Gainti" from the hand of one labour named Laxman and put mark in the field. Menga said that the directions are to construct 20 ft. wide road and therefore, he will have to give some more land. On saying so, the accused raised the `gainti' and struck on the head of Menga. Menga fell down and died on the spot. The information of this incident was lodged by P.W. 1 Ramlal at Police Station. Gadi. On this information, police registered a case for offence under section 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under section 302 IPC. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 7 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellant in his statement Ws 313 Cr.PC. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. In defence, he examined D.W. 1 Mst. Sharda. Analysing the evidence, the learned Judge held the appellant guilty of the murder of Menga. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced as noticed above. 4. We have heard Mr. Mahendra Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have scanned the evidence on record. 5. P.W. 5 Dr. Purushottam Lal has stated that he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Menga @ Mangi Lal on 15.6.92 and found the following injuries on his body- (i) Lacerated wound Rt. fronto parietal region one and three fourth inch x one and half inch x half inch (ante mortem in nature). (ii) Fracture Rt. 5. P.W. 5 Dr. Purushottam Lal has stated that he conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Menga @ Mangi Lal on 15.6.92 and found the following injuries on his body- (i) Lacerated wound Rt. fronto parietal region one and three fourth inch x one and half inch x half inch (ante mortem in nature). (ii) Fracture Rt. parietal bone, right frontal bone up to the Rt. orbit absent 15 cm. long and 1.2 cm wide. (iii) Extra cramol haemetoma Rt. frontal rigor 3'' x 2". He has proved the post-mortem Report Ex.P/6. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was compression of brain resulting from the fracture of skull and contusion of brain. Thus, the prosecution has established of that Menga died of homocidal death. 6. P.W. 1 Ramlal has stated that a link road was being constructed for the school in village Panasi connecting a road from Gopinath Ka Gada to Aamja Talwara. P.W. 2 Shantilal and deceased Mangilal were working as supervisor. Deceased Menga was giving instructions. At that time accused Gautam arrived and objected the construction of road through his field. Menga told him that as per the Government instructions, they are to construct 20 ft. wide road. Appellant Gautam took up the iron Gainti and struck on the head of Menga. There was pref use bleeding. Menga fell down and died on the spot. He has proved the various police memos including the FIR. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. 7. P.W. 2 Shanti Lal, P.W. 3 Sukh Lal and P.W. 4 Punja have given their statements almost in the line of PW. 1 Ramlal. 8. P.W. 8 Sultan Bux is the Investigating Officer. He has given all the details of the investigation. 9. P.W. 7 Kailash Chand has partly investigated the case. He was given details with respect to the recovery of weapon of offence etc.There is a consistent evidence of P.W. 1 Ram Lal, P.W. 2 Shanti Lal, P.W. 3 Sukh Lal and P.W. 4 Unjha that the accused appellant Gautam struck a `Gainti' blow on the head of deceased Menga. Their statements stand ito corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Purushottam Lal. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the injury on the head of deceased Menga was caused by the appellant Gautam. 10. Their statements stand ito corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Purushottam Lal. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the injury on the head of deceased Menga was caused by the appellant Gautam. 10. Turning to the question of nature of offence, the evidence of the eye witnesses clearly shows that the incident took place all of sudden and the appellant inflicted a `Gainti' blow in the heat of passion. He has given only one blow, but it cannot be said that it was acted in a cruel or unusual manner.In view of this, the instant case falls in Exception (4) of Section 300 IPC and thus it is a case of culpable homicide punishable under Exception (2) of Section 300 IPC. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is converted in Section 304(11) IPC. The appellant is in jail for last more than 8 years. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if he is not required to any other case.Appeal Partly allowed. *******