JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant in this appeal is aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Session Case No. 57/2000 dated 30.7.2001. In the judgment impugned, the appellant has been convicted under sections 302 Indian Penal Code and 447 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to serve out fifteen days additional imprisonment for offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and under section 447 Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been sentenced to one months ' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 31.7.2000 at 5.15 P.M. complainant Jaichand lodged a written report at Police Station Bhadra stating inter alia that he and his uncle's son Krishan have lands in village Rohi Bhadi. The brothers have common bundaries of the field. For last three years, there is a dispute persisting regarding the boundary. On the fateful day, the complainant's father and his mother had left the house at about 9.00 A.M. for field to clean the catchment area of water reservoir. At about 12 Noon, the lady returned and informed that her husband has been done to death by Krishan, Mohar Singh, Bajrang sons of Prabhu Ram. They entered into the field and started abusing on account of boundary dispute Krishna had axe, Mohar Singh and Bajrang exhorted him to give axe blow on deceased. Then, Krishan gave an axe blow on the neck of her husband resulting into cutting of neck, on which she made hue and cry. She informed that there had been excessive bleeding and her husband is lying unconscious under the 'Janti' tree. On this, the complainant alongwith his uncle Nanu Ram, Sita Ram went to the field and saw that his father was lying dead. His father was done to death by Krishan by giving axe blow on his neck. 3. On the basis of his report, Police Station Bhadra registered a case under sections 447, 504, 302 Indian Penal Code Indian Penal Code Section 34 Indian Penal Code and a formal FIR being FIR being FIR No. 285/2000 was registed and investigation started. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused Krishan under sections 302 & 447 Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, the case was committed and, made over to the trial Court. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused Krishan under sections 302 & 447 Indian Penal Code. Ultimately, the case was committed and, made over to the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges under sections 302 & 447 Indian Penal Code against the accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code No defence witnesses were produced, however, two documents were exhibited as defence documents. The trial Court after considering the case of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that there is eye-witness account of the occurrence in the shape of PW 1 Ompati. Her testimony is, corroborated by the recovery of axe which has been found to be stained with blood of human origin of Group B. The same blood group was found on the apparel of the deceased. Thus, eye-witness account was found to be corroborated. The trial Court also found that eye-witness account is corroborated from the medical and circumstantial evidence as well. The trial Court ultimately convicted the accused appellant under sections 302 Indian Penal Code and 447 Indian Penal Code as aforesaid. 4. Assailing the findings of the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the prosecution is based on eye-witness account. The only eye-witness is the interested witness and she has not correctly deposed the story as it has happened, so much so, that in her police statement Ex.D/1, she has stated that Hardeva Ram, Bajrang and Mohar Singh had handled her husband and Bajrang had exhorted Krishan to give axe injury to her husband. This statement has not been given by her in the Court. Thus she has resiled from her police statement. She being the only witness required to be of sterling worth. That being the position, the Court has to see that when she has resiled from part of her important statement to police, therefore, she cannot be stated to be a witness of sterling worth. The independent witnesses having not been proved, the prosecution has with held important part of the prosecution. That being the position, the Court has to see that when she has resiled from part of her important statement to police, therefore, she cannot be stated to be a witness of sterling worth. The independent witnesses having not been proved, the prosecution has with held important part of the prosecution. Thus, learned counsel urged that the only eye-witness was asked leading questions and such leading questions cannot be permitted to be asked by the Public Prosecutor as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 2010 . 5. Learned counsel further stressed that the eye-witness has charged her version to suit the medical evidence and therefore, the eye-witness is not liable to be believed. Ultimately, the counsel submitted that in any case, offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be made out because there is only one injury inflicted by the accused, that too on the spur of the moment. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor urged that the only eye-witness is a natural witness as her presence on the scene of occurrence is natural. She speaks to be with her husband. In agricultural operations, wife and husband naturally go to the field and assist each other and in this fashion, her presence on the scene of occurrence cannot be said to be unnatural. She has stuck to her basic story. As far as her story regarding inflicting injury to her husband is concerned, there is no deviation from her police statement. If any deviation is seen, then that is on such an insignificant part of the prosecution story that it cannot dilute the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused. The accused has assaulted without any provocation. The accused have gone to the field of the victim, picked up a quarrel without provocation and then inflicted blow. It cannot be said that it was on the spur of the moment and the case of the accused is not covered under any of exceptions under section 300 Indian Penal Code. There is no question of the lesser offence being made under section 304 Indian Penal Code and therefore, the trial Court has rightly held the case of the accused under section 302 Indian Penal Code. 7. There is no question of the lesser offence being made under section 304 Indian Penal Code and therefore, the trial Court has rightly held the case of the accused under section 302 Indian Penal Code. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and have perused the record. We find that the only eye-witness Ompati in her statement regarding the basic case of the prosecution states that the accused came to the field, picked up quarrel by abusing her.husband and then inflicted a blow on the neck of her husband resulting into death. Her statement inspires confidence. It is not a case where the victim had participated in the incident in any manner. It was a case where initiation and culmination of incident both are at the instance of the accused. If the accused picks up the fight and causes such harm which resulted into death, then the case is covered under clause thirdly of Section 300 Indian Penal Code and there is no question of the case being covered by any of the exceptions delineated in Section 340 Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the following cases. None of the below mentioned cases on facts cover the case of the appellant. (i) AIR 1978 SC 59 , Krishan Kumar v. State (ii) 2004 Cri.L.J. 828, Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana (iii) 2001 Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 352, Mohan Singh v. State of Raj. (iv) 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 440, Maksood @ Kaku v. State of Raj. (v) 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 736, State of U.P. v. Indrajeet @ Sukhatha (vi) 1999 Cri.L.J. 4430, Janid v. State of Raj. (vii) 1994 Cri.L.J. 144, Madhusudan Satpathy & Ors. v. State of Orissa (viii) 1994 Cri.L.J. 623, Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab 8. Learned counsel has not been able to bring the case of the accused under the scope of any of the exceptions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code. The eye-witness account of the case being corroborated by medical evidence and with that of recovery of axe which has been found to be blood stained of human origin of group B which is of same blood group on the apparel of the deceased, the case of the prosecution stands proved as has been held by the trial Court. 9. The eye-witness account of the case being corroborated by medical evidence and with that of recovery of axe which has been found to be blood stained of human origin of group B which is of same blood group on the apparel of the deceased, the case of the prosecution stands proved as has been held by the trial Court. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for defence that a leading question was put to the only eye-witness is not of such a substance that it can dilute the effect of the eye-witness's account. It was in relation to the side on which the injury was inflicted. The witness is consistent that there was only one injury inflicted on neck which reads as under: "An incised wound 3" x 13/4" x bone deep on right middle lateral neck cutting skin; muscles, blood vessels and bone." 10. The injury was inflicted on which side, becomes insignificant, as the defence has not tried to cross-examine the witness on this aspect of the matter. 11. The witness has been further sought to be discredited on the ground that she has deviated from her police statement, is also not of great value. She has only ignored the insignificant part of exhortation. This kind of omission only goes to the level of embroidery or embellishment. Therefore, on this count also, the testimony of the only eye-witness cannot be discarded. 12. We are not persuaded that the case is diluted in any manner and thus, we do not find that any interference is called for in this appeal. The appeal having no force is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******