JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant was indicted before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 315/1994 for having committed murder of Devi Singh. He was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC vide its judgment dated January 31, 1996 to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- . In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial relates to the incident occurred on October 8, 1994 around 7.00 p.m. A written report (Ex.P1) was instituted by Gangaram PW1 with the Police Station, Dug, Distt. Jhalawar around 8.00 p.m. according to which appellant and his father Devi Singh (Now deceased) were proceeding towards their houses by the side of the boundary of their field. Devi Singh was ahead while Kalu Singh who was armed with Dantli (An instrument used for cutting the crops), was behind him. They had some altercation and suddenly the appellant inflicted one Dantli blow on the back side of the neck of Devi Singh, who fall down and appellant fled away. While Devi Singh was taken to the Hospital in a bullock cart, he succumbed to the injuries. Police Station, Dug, registered FIR bearing No. 114/1994 under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Inquest report was drawn, site was inspected, dead body of Devi Singh was subjected to post-mortem and the statements of the witnesses under Sec. on 161 Cr.RC. were recorded. The appellant was arrested and at his instance Dantli was recovered. Bandi, Safa, blood stained soil and Dantli were sent to FSL. On conclusion of investigation, charge- sheet was Laid. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. Charge under Section 302 IPC was read over to the appellant who denied charge and Claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case, thereafter, the appellant was asked to give explanation under section 313 Cr.PC. The appellant Claimed innocence. No defence witness was examined. 4. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here in above. 5. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case, thereafter, the appellant was asked to give explanation under section 313 Cr.PC. The appellant Claimed innocence. No defence witness was examined. 4. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here in above. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae at the outside, submitted that the case of the appellant does not travel beyond Section 304 Part (II) of the Indian Penal Code Our attention was invited to the written report (Ex.R1) and the statements of witnesses as well as to the post-mortem report of the deceased. 6. A look at the post-mortem report (Ex. R9) demonstrates that the deceased sustained only one incised wound measuring a 5" x 1" x 1" on a right media lateral side of the neck on the level 2- 3 survical vertebra in upper column of the neck and the cause of his death was the shock caused by the said injury and loss of blood. 7. It appears from the perusal of the written report (Ex.R1) that the appellant and the deceased had some altercation before the incident. They were going together to their houses from the filed and after some altercation, the appellant inflicted Dantli blow on the neck of the deceased which proved fatal. The blow was not repeated. Dantli is an instrument which is used for cutting the Crops and it was quite natural that appellant was armed with the said weapon at the time of the incident Arjun Singh (PW6) deposed that the appellant and the deceased after cutting the Soyabin Crop were proceeding to their houses and suddenly the appellant inflicted dantli blow on the neck of the deceased. It is thus, established that the incident occurred on a spur of moment and there was no ill will between the appellant and the deceased. There was some altercation before the incident and the appellant did not take undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant and it was a sudden fight. It appears that in a head of passion a single blow with dantli was inflicted which proved fatal. There was some altercation before the incident and the appellant did not take undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant and it was a sudden fight. It appears that in a head of passion a single blow with dantli was inflicted which proved fatal. In our considered opinion, the case of the appellant is covered of exception (4) appended to Section 300 IPC and the appellant is found guilty under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code 8. Consequently, we allow the appeal in part. While modifying the judgment dated January 31, 1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 315/1994 we convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 Indian Penal Code The appellant has already undergone detention for more than seven years and the ends of justice would be met in sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone by him under detention. The appellant who is in custody shall be released forthwith, if not, required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******