JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment dated 22.6.1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Ajmer (Kekri Camp) in Sessions Case No. 6/97, whereby appellant was convicted under section. 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default, further 6 months' simple imprisonment) apart from conviction under section. 323 with sentence to undergo six months' SI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default, further one month's SI). 2. Brief facts are that a report (Ex.P/6) was lodged on 26.3.1997 by Hemraj Giri brother of deceased-Jagdish) alleging therein that on 26.3.1997 at about 5-6 O'clock in the evening when his brother Jagdish was standing outside their house, one Chhotugiri (accused-appellant) duly armed with club (lathi) came there and started squalling as to the squabble having taken place in day hours in between ladies but while squalling the accused forcibly inflicted lathi blows on his head, to which his sister in-law (brother's wife) tried to rescue him (her husband) but he was also beaten and at that time village people assembled to save otherwise his brother would have been killed at the spot itself and since he was serious, he had first been admitted in the hospital then he has came to lodge the report. On such a report, a crime was registered for offences under sections. 307, 451 & 323 IPC at Police Station Sarwar under FIR No. 54/97 (Ex.P/7). As injured Jagdish Giri died in the hospital, the case was converted into offence under section. 302 Indian Penal Code. After usual investigation, challan was filed and after committal proceedings, the trial Court charged the appellant for offence under section. 302 & 323 IPC, to which he denied and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and got exhibited 19 documents. The accused-appellant was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. after trial the learned lower Court by its impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 3. Sarva Shri S.K. Saxena and D.D. Khandelwal appearing for the accused-appellant contended that Amra (PW-1) and Ladu (PW-2) did not support the prosecution because Amra (PW-1) has turned hostile while Ladu (PW-2) is formal witness as to having taken injured (since deceased) to the hospital. Hence this appeal. 3. Sarva Shri S.K. Saxena and D.D. Khandelwal appearing for the accused-appellant contended that Amra (PW-1) and Ladu (PW-2) did not support the prosecution because Amra (PW-1) has turned hostile while Ladu (PW-2) is formal witness as to having taken injured (since deceased) to the hospital. As regards other eye-witnesses, Shri Saxena contended that Bhuralal (PW-3) denied Smt. Lada (PW-4)'s presence so also as per his version, he was inside Sahkar Bhawan to which nothing could have been seen to the place of incident, inasmuch as he reached the spot upon hearing hue and cry; that apart as he admitted in cross-examination, the club (heavy stick) was brought out of Chhotu's house by the police and this according to Shri Saxena, makes the recovery of club as doubtful being not proved. 4. Next contention urged by Shri Saxena is that as per version of Hemraj (PW-5), his sister in-law (Bhabhi) Lada (PW-4) was not at the scene of occurrence while he denied presence of Bhura (PW-3) so he was not eye-witness. In these circumstances Shri Saxena contended that Lada (PW-4) was a made up witness specially when she denied presence of any one and admitted to have reached the spot after the incident, as she was fetching water from a hand pump, inasmuch as once she admitted to have gone inside her house for putting water when Chhotu had administered blow to Jagdish, which means as to how could she have seen the incident from inside-the house, and that apart her statement is full of contradictions as whatever she stated in her statement did not find place either in the FIR or in her statement under section. 161 Cr.P.C. 5. Shri Saxena then contended that according to the alleged ocular evidence a single lathi blow was inflicted but two injuries are found by the doctor (PW-10) during autopsy on the body of the deceased and only one injury No. 1 of lacerated wound on the head was stated to be fatal, thus, as per Shri Saxena, it is not clear from the prosecution evidence as to which of injuries out of two were caused by the accused and that apart failure to produce X-ray report makes the prosecution case doubtful specially when there are contradictions as to the consciousness of the deceased, in the versions given out by the doctor and investigation officer. 6. 6. Shri Saxena also contended that once the witnesses to the inquest did not name the appellant while describing cause of death in the inquest report then such a fact is sufficient to doubt their presence at the spot during incident, that apart the trial Court did not consider impact of Section 27 of the Evidence Act while there is no independent witness to the recovery of not only weapon of offence (club heavy stick) and such a piece of evidence cannot be acted upon merely on the statement of investigating officer or other motbir witnesses of the police officials. He placed reliance upon decisions in Suresh Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SCW 2305 and Gulab v. State of Rajasthan . 7. Lastly relying upon the decisions in State of U.P. v. Indrajeet, AIR 2000 SCW 3414 , Masumsha v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 431 , Prandas v. State, 1954 Cr.L.J. (SC) 331 , Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, 1981 Cr.L.J. 30 , K. Rama Krishna v. State of Kerala, 1999 Cr.L.J. 2101 and Ram Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 8 , Shri Saxena contended that in the case at hand there is absence of proof of motive so also intention to cause death with lack of knowledge inasmuch as at the worst it is a case of single blow in a sudden quarrel or altercation, the appellant could be convicted under section. 304(11) Indian Penal Code and the impugned conviction by reason of the offence having fallen only under section. 304(11) and not under section. 302 Indian Penal Code deserves to be altered with imposition of lesser term of sentence. 8. Contraire, learned Public Prosecutor refuting the contentions on behalf of the appellant, has supported the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court as they are based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with reference to the rival contentions and the impugned conclusions reached by the trial Court. 10. Let us have a resume of medical evidence consisting of post-mortem/injury report (Ex.P/18 & P/10) and doctor's (PW-6 & PW-10) statements. In the autopsy report, on the person of deceased-Jagdish Giri, following internal and external injuries were found:- Internal Injuries 1. Scalp : There is external injury as described below. 10. Let us have a resume of medical evidence consisting of post-mortem/injury report (Ex.P/18 & P/10) and doctor's (PW-6 & PW-10) statements. In the autopsy report, on the person of deceased-Jagdish Giri, following internal and external injuries were found:- Internal Injuries 1. Scalp : There is external injury as described below. On incising and reflecting the flaps of scalp, there is contusion diffusely placed in the area of external injury within the layers of scalp. There is a fuse haemotoma underneath the scalp (aponsmatic) all over the vertex cap, more as middle and Rt. Side. There is haemotoma in subcutaneous plane on Rt. temporal maxillary area, leading to puffyness as explained in external injury No. 1. 2. Skull: There is depressed communited fracture of Lt. side frontal line,extending to Lt. Parietal bone, beyond coroneal suture 19 x 13.5 cm in size with sutural separation 16.5 cm in size on Rt. side of coroneal suture. Two triangular to oval depressed pieces Lt. side of frontal bone - each piece 4 x 3 cm in size. 3. Duameter : Congested. There are tiny punctures in dural sinus. A extra dural haemotoma 10 x 8 cm in size, uncapsulated and clotted is present on Rt. parietal and Lt. parietal medial side. Maximum thickness 0.5 cm. 4. Brain : Congested and Oedematus. There is thin layer subdural haemorrhage (jelly like) on both cerebral hemisphere. On c/s multiple pin point to pin head sized haemorrhage spots present in infracranial substance. 5.Base: NAD External Injuries on body 1. Stitched Wound : 6.5 cm long vertically situated in Lt. front to parietal area, with diffuse swelling and contused margins, on vertex (scalp). The upper eye lid of Lt. eye is, blackened (Ecolopic Bruise) due to wound on scalp. The Rt. side forehead and temporal maxillary area on Rt. cheek is puffy. 2. Abrasion : I x 1 cm on Rt. shoulder superior part, near acriomins process. OPINION 1. Cause of death is coma, due to ante-mortem head injury, caused by blunt weapon, within 24 hours before death. 2. External injury No. 1 is fatal in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 11. Dr. cheek is puffy. 2. Abrasion : I x 1 cm on Rt. shoulder superior part, near acriomins process. OPINION 1. Cause of death is coma, due to ante-mortem head injury, caused by blunt weapon, within 24 hours before death. 2. External injury No. 1 is fatal in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 11. Dr. P.K. Saraswat (PW-10) proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P/18), as per his opinion which he reiterated not only in the autopsy report but also in his examination in chief, cause of death of deceased Jagdish was coma, due to ante-mortem head injury caused by blunt weapon within 24 hours before death and external injury No. 1 was fatal and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 12. Amra (PW-1) though turned hostile but in chief examination deposed that Jagdish had returned to his home on motor cycle in the evening when his wife Lada (PW-4) though was at the field but upon hearing noise of her motor cycle, did also come back home and then both (Jagdish and his wife Lada) had gone with lathi to the place of Chhotugiri. Thereafter he (PW-1) did not support the prosecution as he deposed that Jagdish fell on the stone slab at the verandah in front of Chhotu's home, so he was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he admitted as to the police interrogation, and denied to have given out versions marked A to B, C to D and E to F of his police statement (Ex.P/1) but admitted that at the time of beating, Jagdish's mother so also wife were present. However he (PW-1) deposed that he knew Bhura Teli, who was not present there but was at some distance. Thus, despite having turned hostile Amra (PW-1) proved the presence of Lada (PW-4) w/o Jagdish (deceased) at the place of occurrence and' Bhura Teli (PW-3) near the incident. Even Bhura (PW-3) in his chief examination admitted to have been present at the scene of incident but at a distance of 5-7 paces only. He (PW-3) specifically deposed that Jagdish (deceased was in front of Chhotu (accused) who inflicted lathi blow on the head of Jagdish, thereby Jagdish fell down there with no movements. He (PW-3) further deposed that Ladu (PW-2) and Amr. (PW-1) had followed him to the place of incident. He (PW-3) specifically deposed that Jagdish (deceased was in front of Chhotu (accused) who inflicted lathi blow on the head of Jagdish, thereby Jagdish fell down there with no movements. He (PW-3) further deposed that Ladu (PW-2) and Amr. (PW-1) had followed him to the place of incident. He also deposed that Chhotu gave beating to Jagdish's wife Lada also, as he had seen injuries on her person. He (PW-3) proved the recovery of lathi (Ex.P/5) from the house of Chhotu, controlled soil and blood stained earth from the place of incident in his presence vide memoes (Ex.P/3 & 4) and also proved site plan as motbir witness. 13. He then deposed that lathi recovered vide Ex.P/5 was not known but he had seen it having sufficient breadtheness. In cross-examination, he (PW-3) deposed that lathi was recovered by the police from the house of Chhotu; that Jagdish was lying in between the houses of accused and deceased, and during squalling Lada (PW-4) was standing at the back of Jagdish. He (PW-3) in cross-examination albeit deposed that the house of accused-Chhotu could not have been seen from inside of Sahkar Bhawan but he clarified that he then reached the place of incident upon having heard squalling in between Jagdish and Chhotu. Thus, in this view of evidence on record, we do not find that Bhuralal (PW-3) denied Lada (PW-4)'s presence or that his presence so also that of Ladu at the scene of incident was doubtful or that Bhura could not have seen/heard the squalling in between Jagdish and Chhotu (accused) on the fateful day or that merely because he deposed that the club (heavy stick) was brought by the police out of Chhotu's house, recovery of lathi was not proved. Even as per his own version, Hemraj (PW-5) himself reached the place of incident after beating and quarrel upon having heard that his brother Jagdish was being beaten naturally at that time of his arrival there, his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) (PW-4) was inside her house. As per his version Hemraj (PW-5) when reached his brother's house found Jagdish lying on a cot being wrapped with a towel on his head and at that time his Bhabhi was not at the site but inside her house. As per his version Hemraj (PW-5) when reached his brother's house found Jagdish lying on a cot being wrapped with a towel on his head and at that time his Bhabhi was not at the site but inside her house. Therefore, on the basis of version extracted in the evidence of PW-2, 3 or PW-5, it cannot be held that Lada (PW-4) was not eye-witness or was made up witness. He (PW-5) proved (Ex.P/6 & FIR Ex.P/7) besides other memoes, site plan (Ex.P/2). Inquest report (Ex.P/8), Seizure Memo (Ex.P/9) as motbir witness. In fact he (PW-5) was not eye-witness to the actual beating given to Jagdish (deceased). 14. Another eye-witness (injured also) Lada (PW-4) deposed in her chief examination that her husband (deceased) when returned home from service on the evening at about 5-6 O'clock was told that mother of Satyanarain and his daughter had abused her then Jagdish told to complain but in the meantime Chhotugiri duly armed with lathi came there and started quarrelling and inflicting lathi blow on his head thereby her husband then and there fell dowry the ground to which she tried to intervene but she was also beaten by Chhotugiri and thereafter Bhuradada (PW-3) had also come to rescue them. She also deposed that her husband died by virtue of infliction of lathi blow on his head at the instance of Chhotugiri and she was also beaten by kick and fists blows by him, who even continued to threat her of dire consequences after the incident. Upon careful look at cross-examination, we find that she was fetching water from hand pump while Jagdish was complaining of. Hand pump was not situated at long distance but was nearer to the place of incident just in front of Jagdish's house as is evident from site plan (Ex.P/2). In cross-examination, she clarified that when she was on return after fetching water from hand pump and Jagdish was complaining of day's incident with her then Chhotu went inside his own house and came with lathi and started inflicting lathi blow firstly on his head before he could complete the complaint and in the meanwhile Amra (PW-1), Bhura (PW-3) and her brother in law (PW- 5) Hemraj rushed there till then Jagdish had fallen down. In cross- examination she denied the suggestion of having inflicted lathi blow by her to Chhotugiri which could have caused to her husband. In cross- examination she denied the suggestion of having inflicted lathi blow by her to Chhotugiri which could have caused to her husband. In fact, in the instant case, once the eye-witnesses proved their presence at the time of the incident at the spot and as to having seen the actual beating, by narrating circumstances with ocular account during squalling, in their testimony before the Court, and despite their searching cross-examination, nothing could have been brought in the evidence to impeach their credit, we do not find that their ocular testimony could be thrown out of the board. In our considered view the credit of a witness can be impeached by proof of any statement which is alleged to be inconsistent with any part of his evidence in Court, as delineated in Section 153(3) of the Evidence Act and thereby compliance of Section 145 of the Evidence Act is an essentiality so as to vitiate the testimony of a witness. Here both the eye-witnesses albeit were cross-examined but not to their previous statements which were not shown to them inasmuch as with a view to contradict them or contradict their versions, allegedly being inconsistent to any part of their Court statements, their attention though was (before earlier statement can be proved) required to be called for the purposes of contradicting them. This having not been done, and failure to do so for contradicting these witnesses, their testimonies in Court on that score, as ferret out by defence counsel, cannot be held vitiated. 15. Similarly, in the instant case, right from the inception in the written report (Ex.P/6) of Hemraj (PW-5), name of assailant (accused) was disclosed as Chhotugiri and the witnesses to the inquest being also one of eye-witnesses have disclosed and named the accused as assailant of having inflicted lathi blow to Jagdish and beating to Lada (injured/PW-4) during quarrel. Hence the decision cited by the defence counsel in Suresh Rai v. State of Bihar (supra) does not help the defence in any manner. Contrarire it seems misconception on the part of the defence to reply thereon in view of following observations : "15. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Hence the decision cited by the defence counsel in Suresh Rai v. State of Bihar (supra) does not help the defence in any manner. Contrarire it seems misconception on the part of the defence to reply thereon in view of following observations : "15. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. U.R. Lalit, contended that the presence of three eye-witnesses, namely, Sheo Deo Rai (PW-10), Shatrughan Rai (PW-16) and Ram Narain Rai (PW-17), at the spot, is doubtful for the reason also that though two of them, namely, Shatrughan Rai (PW-16) and Ramnarain Rai (PW-17), are the witnesses of inquest, they did not state the names of the assail- ants while describing the cause of death in the inquest report. This argument cannot be accepted. Under Section 174 r/w Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inquest report is prepared by the Investigating Officer to find out prima facie the nature of injuries and the possible weapon used in causing those injuries as also the possible cause of death ....." 16. However we may further observe making it crystal clear that statements contained in an inquest report to the extent they relate to what the investigating officer saw and found are admissible but any statement made therein on the basis of what he (IO) heard from others, would be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C., obviously because sole purpose of preparing an inquest report under section. 174(1) Criminal .Penal .Code. is to investigate into and draw up a report of apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as found on the person of the deceased and stating in what manner or by what weapon or instrument, if any, such wounds appear to have been inflicted. However, for holding the inquest it is neither necessary nor obligatory on the part of the investigating officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the persons responsible for the death. As expounded in Pedda Naraina v. State of A.P., (1975) 4 SCC 153 the object of proceedings under section. 174 Criminal .Penal .Code. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and if so, what was it apparent cause and the question as to the details how the deceased was assaulted and in what circumstance is foreign to the ambit and scope of such proceedings. 174 Criminal .Penal .Code. is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and if so, what was it apparent cause and the question as to the details how the deceased was assaulted and in what circumstance is foreign to the ambit and scope of such proceedings. Hence the omissions by non disclosure by eye-witness (who has also been attesting or motbir witness to the inquest) as to the name of the appellant or assailant in the presence inquest report were not sufficient to put the prosecution case out of Court, as laid down in afore cited decision in Pedda Naraina's case etc. 17. In Gulab v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RCC 802 cited by Shri Saxena, two motbirs to recovery memo had deposed that no such recoveries were made before them at the instance of accused, whereas in the instant case, Bhura (PW-3) motbir witness categorically in chief examination deposed that the police recovered lathi and prepared its memo which bears his signature. In cross-examination he (PW-3) deposed that lathi was brought by the police, out of Chhotu's house. Thus motbir witness Bhura (PW-3) clearly supported the prosecution, whereas in the cited case (supra) motbir witnesses have turned hostile. Hence ratio decidendi in Gulab v. State (supra) does not help the defence herein. Further the recovery of lathi (club by Ex.P/5) at the instance of Chhotu upon his disclosure (Ex.P/17) made under section. 27 of the Evidence Act can be utilised by the prosecution against the accused inasmuch as disclosure of the accused (Ex.P/17) was voluntary, as has come on record in prosecution evidence, so also not otherwise disputed by the defence. 18. As regards motive, no doubt it is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eye-witnesses or circumstantial evidence. However, if the prosecution proves the existence of a motive, it is well and good for it, particularly in a case of circumstantial evidence, what required is for the prosecution to succeed in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused to the victim but the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire had or would have swelled up in the mind of the accused to such a degree impelling to commit the offence, cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. We lent support from the decision in State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370 followed in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram, (2000) 4 SCC 515 . The present is not a case of complete dearth of motive. Thus we do not find any absence of proof of either motive or intention to cause death with lack of knowledge. Further once it is established that accused was the miscreant the proof of motive pales into insignificance. 19. Further merely because infliction of single lathi blow resulting into death of deceased-Jagdish, that will not take the offence out of purview of Section 302 IPC, as other factors have also to be taken into account. The requirements of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC are (a) without premeditation in a sudden fight; (b) in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; (c) the offender has either not taken undue advantage or not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Thus, where these requirements are satisfied, culpable homicide would not be a murder. The nature of the injury whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted, all are relevant factors so as to determine the requisite intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him. Our view is fortified by the decision in Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P., (2000) 1 SCC 319 . 20. On the facts of the case at hand, it cannot be said that fatal injury (on head) was inflicted without premeditation. Lathi blow was inflicted on the head of deceased with force by Chhotu Giri (accused). As is evident from the autopsy report (Ex.P/18 proved by Dr. P.K. Saraswat (PW-10), there was depressed communited fracture of left frontal line extending to left parietal bone beyond coroneal suture 19 x 13.5 cm in size with sutural separation 16.5 cm in size on right coroneal suture. Two triangular to oval depressed pieces of left frontal bone each of 4 x 3 cm were found. Even the impact of infliction of single lathi blow was so disastrous that there were tiny punctures in dural sinus with-extra dural haemoatoma 10 x 8 cm on right and left parietal medial side; brain was congested and oedematous. Two triangular to oval depressed pieces of left frontal bone each of 4 x 3 cm were found. Even the impact of infliction of single lathi blow was so disastrous that there were tiny punctures in dural sinus with-extra dural haemoatoma 10 x 8 cm on right and left parietal medial side; brain was congested and oedematous. Scalp was incising reflecting the flaps with contusion diffusely placed in the area of external injury. Both the eye-witnesses proved that the impact of infliction of lathi blow was such that after having sustained head injury with single Lathi (club) blow the deceased immediately fell down and resulted into his unconsciousness. Thus keeping in view these facts including internal and external injuries on scalp, skull, brain, clearly establish that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. In any event, the can safely be attributed the knowledge that the lathi blow inflicted by him forcibly was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In our view also, exception 4 has therefore no application on the facts of this case. A perusal of the decisions cited by Shri Saxena in support of the defence shows that these are instances of application of aforesaid principles. We do not also consider it necessary to refer to them in detail. Therefore, the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced under sections. 302 & 323 Indian Penal Code by the trial Court. 21. Resultantly, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant who is in jail be detained to serve out the impugned sentence duly upheld by this Court. He be informed.Appeal dismissed.