JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, by which he convicted the accused appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to five years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months S.I. and he further convicted the accused appellant under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- On 11.6.1998, PW 5 Smt. Shatu Bai gave a parcha bayan Ex.P/7 to PW 14 stating that at about 8.00 AM in the morning accused Mohanlal beat her son Narayan, PW 2 and thereafter, her father-in-law Ramlal (hereinafter to be referred as deceased) went to accused Mohanlal for talks and asked him why he has beaten PW 2 Narayan. Upon this, accused Mohanlal gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased and thereafter, deceased became unconscious and died on the same day. On the said parchaya bayan Ex.P/7, police registered the case and FIR Ex.P/16 was chalked out by PW 12 Gyarsi Lal. After that, it appears that deceased was got examined medically on 11.6.1998 at 9.50 AM and his injury report is Ex.P/19. PW 2 Narayan was also got medically examined and his injury report is Ex.P/18. The accused was also got medically examine and his injury report is Ex.P/12. The post-mortem report of the deceased is Ex.P/20. After usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused appellant for the offence under Secs. 302 and 323 IPC. The charges were framed against the accused appellant for the offence under Secs. 302 and 323 IPC on 30.11.1998. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial as many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and many document were got exhibited and, thereafter, statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and one witness was produced in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 vide his judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1999 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Secs. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 vide his judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1999 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Secs. 304-II and 323 IPC and sentenced as stated above. 3. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 22nd October, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, the accused appellant has filed this appeal. 4. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has made the following submissions : 1. That deceased was aggressor and accused Mohanlal also had one head injury and, therefore, whatever injury has been caused by accused Mohanlal, is caused in the right of self defence and, thus, he should be acquitted on this ground. 2. That in this case, there is no eye witness except the grand-son of the deceased i.e. PW 2 Narayan and he is the interest witness and, therefore, his evidence is not reliable. 3. That in case Court comes to the conclusion that offence under Section 304 Part II is proved against the accused appellant, lenient view be taken in awarding sentence to the accused appellant. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 7. First let us take up the medical evidence in the present case. 8. The statement of PW 13 Dr. Sunil in this respect may be referred to. He states that on 11.6.1998 at about 9.50 AM he examined deceased and found a lacerated wound on parietal region 4"X 1"X1/2" on left side and he has further stated that the patient was semi-unconscious. He has proved his injury report Ex.P/19. On the same day at about 3.30 PM he conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased and found injury on the head of the deceased, which is mentioned in the injury report Ex.P/19. He has opined that deceased died because of the head injury and he has proved his post-mortem report Ex.P/20. He has further stated that the said head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Note: From the statement of PW 13 Dr. He has opined that deceased died because of the head injury and he has proved his post-mortem report Ex.P/20. He has further stated that the said head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Note: From the statement of PW 13 Dr. Sunil, it appears that the deceased had one head injury and on the same day, he died because of that head injury, therefore, the death of the deceased was homicidal. 9. PW 13 Dr. Sunil also examined PW 2 Narayan on 11.6.1998 and found three simple injuries on his body and he had proved his injury report Ex.P/18. Thus, from the statement of PW 13 Dr. Sunil, it appears that PW 2 Narayan also received simple injuries on his body. 10. Before proceeding further, the injury sustained by the accused appellant may also be mentioned here. 11. PW 10 Dr. Satish Kumar has been produced on behalf of the prosecution, who states that on 12.6.1998 at 8.00 PM, he examined accused appellant Mohanlal and found one lacerated wound on his head, which was simple in nature. He has proved his injury report Ex.P/12. Thus, it can be said that on the date of incident, accused Mohanlal also had one injury, though simple in nature. 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned judgment has found that the injury which was caused on the head of the deceased, was caused by accused Mohanlal and for that injury, he came to the conclusion that no case of culpable homicide amounting to murder is made out, but a case of 304 Part-II IPC is made out and thus, he convicted accused Mohanlal accordingly. 13. in this case, the sole eye witness is PW 2 Narayan, who is grand son of the deceased and whose name is also found in the parcha bayan Ex.P/7. He has clearly stated in his statement that he was beaten by accused Mohanlal and when deceased intervened in the matter, accused Mohanlal also gave lathi blow on the head of deceased and thereafter deceased fell down on the earth and subsequently succumbed to the injury. He was been cross examined and there is nothing on record to show that he is telling-lie. His statement is straightforward and correct and thus liable to be accepted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly accepted his statement. He was been cross examined and there is nothing on record to show that he is telling-lie. His statement is straightforward and correct and thus liable to be accepted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly accepted his statement. The argument that he is the sole eye witness and the interest witness, therefore, his statement should not be believed, is not correct. It may be stated that his statement is further corroborated by the medical evidence as is found in the statement of Dr. Sunil, PW 13. 14. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki and other ( AIR 1981 SC 1390 ) , the Honble Supreme Court on the interested witnesses has stated : "'Related' is not equivalent to interested. A witness may be called interested only when he or She derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness, who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested." 15. Thus, PW 2 Narayan, who is the only possible eye witnesses in the present case, cannot be said to be an interested witness or simply because he is relative of deceased, his statement cannot be discarded. Therefore, his evidence is reliable one and rightly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 16. The argument that a case of self defence is made out, is not appreciable at all. There is no doubt that accused appellant also received head injury of simple nature, but from this simple injure, it cannot be said that any right of private defence has occurred to the accused appellant. There is no hard and fast rule that simply because prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries on the person of the accused, their evidence should be discarded. It may be stated here that the guilt of the accused is to be judged on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, the injury found on the person of the accused is not a serious one and since the injury is a simple one, it would not affect the case of the prosecution and no right of private defence would be available to the accused appellant in the present case. 17. 17. In this respect, it may be stated here that if the prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries on the persons of accused and if the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy, it is not the rule of law that non-explanation of injuries would mean that prosecution , has suppressed the truth. Therefore, in the present case, the injury of the accused would not create any doubt on the prosecution story. In this respect, Hare Krishna Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1988 SC 863 ) may be seen. 18. Another point, which is to be considered, is whether a case under Section 304 Part-II IPC is made out against the accused appellant as held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or a case under Section 325 IPC is made out against the accused appellant or not. 19. The facts, as enumerated above, clearly go to show that the accused appellant gave one lathi blow on the head of the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased on the same day and the size of the head injury of deceased has been mentioned above. 20. In Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1982 SC 55 ) , the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Penal Code (45 of 1860) Secs. 300 Clauses (1), (3), 302 and 304 Part II - Murder - Only one injury - Accused a young college going boy-some altercation between his father and deceased - Held, in the circumstances that the accused committed offence under Section 304 Part-II - Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II." 21. In Jawahar Lal and anr. v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 284 ) , the Honble Supreme Court observed as under - "Penal Code (1860), Secs. 300 Para 3, 302, 304 Part II - Murder - Intention - Solitary blow of knife by accused, following trivial quarrel - Deceased not party to quarrel - No attempt to inflict second blow - Blow on chest proving fatal - Intention to cause that particular injury cannot be attributed to accused - Conviction under Section 302 converted into one under Section 304 part II." 22. In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 463 ) , the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Penal Code (45 of 1860) Secs. In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 463 ) , the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- "Penal Code (45 of 1860) Secs. 300, 304 Part II Murder and culpable homicide-Sudden quarrel on spur of moment arising out of trivial reason on chance meeting of parties - No pre-meditation or malice - Young man causing single blow by knife on chest of Victim causing his death - Intention to cause death or causing particular injury could not be imputed to him - Knowledge that he was likely to cause injury which was likely to cause death could, however, be inferred - Offence fall under Section 304, Part II and not under Para 1 or 2 of Section 300." 23. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions in Hari Ram v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1983 SC 185 ) , Raju Ram v. State (1988 Cr.LR 322) and Gotam Lal v. State (1992(1) WLN 601) . 24. The above rulings clearly go to show that when there is only one injury, the case of the accused would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 325 IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC. Therefore, the argument that the case of the accused appellant would be covered under Section 325 IPC is not tenable and the same is rejected. 25. So far as the argument that lenient view be taken in awarding sentence is concerned, it may be stated here that awarding of sentence is a matter of discretion of Court and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines by the lower Court, an appellate Court should not interfere except in cases where strong reasons persist. In the present case, awarding of sentence of five years R.l. in a case under Section 304 Part II is neither severe nor excessive, but appears to be reasonable and proper sentence. Therefore, this Court would not like to interfere in the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant in Mani Ram & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1997 Cr.LR (Raj.) 780) , Kesra Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1999 Cr.LR Raj. 180) and Jassa Singh & Anr. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant in Mani Ram & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan (1997 Cr.LR (Raj.) 780) , Kesra Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1999 Cr.LR Raj. 180) and Jassa Singh & Anr. v. State (1999 Cr.LR (Raj.) 503) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the accused appellant is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. *******