Judgment N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-8-1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 2-7-1995 at about 6. 4. 5 AM. PW-1 Mal Singh lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Matilirathan stating inter alia that on the preceding day i. e. on 1-7-1995 in the afternoon at about 3. 00 PM appellant Jawand Singh visited his house and persuaded his son Angrej Singh to accompany him. In the night at about 11. 00 PM PW-2 Makhan Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh brought Angrej Singh at the house in a tractor trolley. PW 2 Makhan Singh reported that appellant Jawand Singh dealt with kassi blow on the head of Angrej Singh on account of which he became unconscious. He alongwith Baiwinder Singh and Jaganandan Singh proceeded to take the injured to the hospital at Kesrisinghpur but he succumbed to the injuries on the way. It was also stated that appellant Jawand Singh had demanded money for liquor but deceased Angrej Singh refused to oblige him and for that reason appellant gave a kassit blow on his head. On this information, police registered a case. Police visited the spot prepared the site plan, inquest report and send the dead body for post-mortem. After usual investigation, police laid chargesheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined eight witnesses. In statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. appellant denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. The trial court mainly relying on the testimony of two eye witnesses namely PW-2 Makhan Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh corroborated by the recovery of kassi and medical evidence found the charges levelled against the appellant proved. Accordingly the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner noticed above. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. M. L. Garg. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Indu Shekhar Pareek, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record carefully. Accordingly the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner noticed above. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. M. L. Garg. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Indu Shekhar Pareek, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record carefully. The homicidal death of Angrej Singh has not been disputed by the appellant. PW 5 Dr. Om Prakash stated that on 22-7-1995, he conducted the autopsy of the dead body of deceased Angrej Singh and found following injuries on his person:1. Lacerated wound 1-1/2 x 1/2 x bone deep above right eye brow laterally. 2. Lacerated wound itt x 1/4 x scalp deep near left parental eminet. 3. Lacerated wound 2 x 1/4 x muscle deep right arm 1/3 medially. 4. Lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/4 x muscle deep right arm meddle 1/3t1 Laterally. He has proved the Post-Mortem Report Exhibitp-10. He has stated that injury Nos. 1 to 5 were caused by a blunt object. In his opinion the deceased died because 01 head injury. ( 5 ) PW 1 Bhan Singh father of the deceased Angrej Singh has stated that in the afternoon while he was sitting with his son Angrej Singh at his house, appellant Jawand Singh arrived and called his son and took with him. In the night at about 11. 00 PM, Makhan Singh and Balwinder Singh brought Angrej Singh to the house in injured condition. It was disclosed that Jawand Singh gave 2-3 kassi blows to Angrej Singh. At that time his another son Jagnandan Singh was also present. He alongwith Makhan Singh, Balwinder Singh and Jagnandan Singh proceeded to Kesarisinghpur hospital for treatment of Angrej Singh but he succumbed to the injuries on the way. They returned to the house with dead body. In the morning he went to Police Station for lodging First Information Report. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that dead body of his son Angrej Singh was found unattended in the field and this fact was disclosed by the villagers to him. ( 6 ) PW 2 Makhan Singh and PW 3 Balwinder Singh are two eye witnesses. The first witness PW 2 Makhan Singh has narrated the incident. According to him he alongwith Balwinder Singh had gone to the field at about 7. 00 PM as it was their turn for supply of water to the field. At about 4. ( 6 ) PW 2 Makhan Singh and PW 3 Balwinder Singh are two eye witnesses. The first witness PW 2 Makhan Singh has narrated the incident. According to him he alongwith Balwinder Singh had gone to the field at about 7. 00 PM as it was their turn for supply of water to the field. At about 4. 00 PM he had seen appellant Jawand Singh and deceased Angrej Singh towards the field of Jawand Singh. At about 8. 00 PM while he was giving water to the field near killa No. 10 and PW 3 Balwinder Singh was standing in his field at killa No. 1 appellant Jawand Singh and deceased Angrej Singh were at a distance of 10 to 15 pawandas. He also stated that there was a cabin for tubewell on the field in killa No. 1. Appellant Jawand Singh and deceased Angrej Singh were standing at a distance of 10 to 15 pawandas from the tubewell cabin. He also stated that appellant Jawand Singh picked up a kassi lying outside the cabin abused and then dealt with a kassi blow on the head of Angrej Singh. He pleaded ignorance as to which side of the kassi blow was dealt with. ( 7 ) THERE was bleeding from the head of Angrej Singh which drenched his cloths as well. The turban of Angrej Singh was in his hand. He tied the turban on the head covering the injury. He became unconscious. Appellant ran away towards the village. Angrej Singh was brought to the house in a tractor trolley. He also stated that from the house of Angrej Singh he was taken to the hospital at Kesrisinghpur in tractor trolley. He succumbed to the injury on the way. In the morning, First Information Report was lodged. A lengthy cross examination was conducted but nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. ( 8 ) PW 3 Balwinder Singh has stated almost in the line of PW 2 Makhan Singh. Nothing has been elicited from this witness as well to discredit his testimony. ( 9 ) PW 4 Bal Karan. PW 7 Shankar Lal and PW 8 Ramawatar are formal witnesses. PW 6 Abdul Aziz, S. H. O. Police Station Purani Abadi, Ganganagar has given the details of investigation. Nothing has been elicited from this witness as well to discredit his testimony. ( 9 ) PW 4 Bal Karan. PW 7 Shankar Lal and PW 8 Ramawatar are formal witnesses. PW 6 Abdul Aziz, S. H. O. Police Station Purani Abadi, Ganganagar has given the details of investigation. The appellant was arrested by PW-6 on 3-7-1995 vide Exhibit P-li and on the same day in pursuance of the disclosure memo Exhibit P-12 blood stained shirt and kassi were recovered vide Exhibit P 8. Shirt and kassi were sent to the forensic science laboratory for chemical examination. The prosecution has produced the link evidence to show that shirt and kassi remained intact till they reached to the laboratory. The appellant has not challenged this aspect of the case and as such it is not necessary to discuss the evidence in this regard. The recovered kassi and shirt of the accused have been found to be stained with human blood as per the F. S. L. report Exhibit p 16. The appellant has not given any explanation as to the presence of blood on his shirt. ( 10 ) THUS, on the basis of the statement of two eye witnesses PW 2 Makhan Singh and PW 3 Balwinder Singh corroborated by the prompt F. I. R. , medical evidence and recovery of blood stained shirt and kassi the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge of murder against the appellant beyond doubt. ( 11 ) IT is argued by Mr. M. L. Garg that appellant alleged to have dealt with single blow by the blunt side of the kassi in a sudden quarrel and as such no intention to cause death can be attributed to him. Thus, it is submitted that offence against the appellant does not travel beyond Section 304 Part- II I. P. C. On the other hand it is contended by the Public Prosecutor that there are five injuries on the person of the deceased. Impact of fatal injury was such that deceased became unconscious on the spot and ultimately died. Thus, according to the learned Public Prosecutor the case falls under the Clause (3) of Section 300, I. P. C. We have considered the rival contentions carefully on the question of nature of offence. Impact of fatal injury was such that deceased became unconscious on the spot and ultimately died. Thus, according to the learned Public Prosecutor the case falls under the Clause (3) of Section 300, I. P. C. We have considered the rival contentions carefully on the question of nature of offence. Both the eye witnesses namely PW-2 Makhan Singh and PW 3 Balwinder Singh have stated that the appellant picked up the kassilying near the pump cabin and dealt with a blow on the head of deceased. This clearly shows that the incident took place all of a sudden. The appellant dealt with a single blow by the Tblunt side of the kassi. This shows that he had no intention to cause death otherwise he could have used the kassi from the sharp edged side. He did not repeat for, blow as such it cannot be said that he had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Hence, offence will be one of culpable homicidal punishment under Section 304 Part II I. P. C. as the appellant was with the knowledge that death could be likely to cause by his act. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 304. I. P. C. and sentence of imprisonment of life thereunder instead we convict him, under Section 304 Part II I. P. C. The appellant is in jail since July. 1995. Thus, he had undergone a sentence of about six years. Accordingly. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed partly. .