Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. Bhim Singh, the sole appellant herein, faced trail under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing death of Kuldip Singh and has since been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months vide order of conviction and sentence dated 16/17.10.1996 recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. 2. Occurrence leading to death of Kuldip Singh, as per prosecution version, took place on 4.4.1994 at 2/2.30 P.M. in village Jhajjar near Jahazgarh crossing, stated to be 1/2 km. away from the Police Station. FIR, Ex. PF/2, was recorded on 5.4.1994 at 1.00 P.M. on the statement of Rajinder Singh, PW- 7, father of the deceased, and was recorded by SI/SHO Shamsher Singh, PW-11. Special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate, Jhajjar, at 2.00 P.M. on the same date. 3. While unfolding the prosecution version, Rajinder Singh, first informant and father of the victim, stated that his son Kuldip Singh, aged 26/27 years, was running a shop of second hand parts of tractor near Jahazgarh crossing at Jhajjar. The appellant was employed with him as a servant. On 4.4.1994 at 2/2.30 P.M., he was present in his house. He got telephonic message that his servant Bhim Singh had inflicted injuries to his son Kuldip Singh on his head with an iron rod at his shop. He and his wife Damyanti reached Jhajjar from where, his son was already taken to MCH Rohtak for treatment. He reached MCH Rohtak, where he remained busy in the treatment of his son. His son succumbed to his injuries at night. He came to know that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and his son over the bet of tea during the course of playing cards. Satpal and other shopkeepers in the vicinity had witnessed the occurrence. 4. The prosecution examined Dr. Baljit Sangwan, MO, CHC, Jhajjar, as PW-1, who stated that on 4.4.1995, Kuldip Singh was brought in Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. His condition was serious. He was referred to MCH Rohtak and he sent intimation to the police in this aspect vide Ex. PA. Patient was unconscious. 4. The prosecution examined Dr. Baljit Sangwan, MO, CHC, Jhajjar, as PW-1, who stated that on 4.4.1995, Kuldip Singh was brought in Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. His condition was serious. He was referred to MCH Rohtak and he sent intimation to the police in this aspect vide Ex. PA. Patient was unconscious. He further stated that he had mentioned in Ex. PA that injuries were accidentally received in the workshop as it was so told to him by the person, who had brought him. He had not mentioned the name of the person, who had brought the patient nor did make any enquiry. The patient had not told him anything. Dr. S.P. Chug, who was examined as PW-5, stated that on 4.4.1994, he conducted medico-legal examination of Kuldip Singh. He was unconscious. He found following injuries on his person :- "1. There was a lacerated wound 4 x 0.5 cm. x bone deep over the left side of fore head, 4 cms. from mid line. Bleeding was present. Advised Surgeons opinion. 2. Lacerated wound 3.5 x 0.5 cms. x bone deep over the right parietal region, 2 cms. from mid line. 3. A lacerated wound 4 x 0.5 cms. x bone deep over the left parietal region. Advised X-ray skull and Surgeons opinion." 5. All the injuries were kept under observation and were caused by blunt weapon. Duration of injuries was within 13 hours. He sent intimation, Ex. PK, to the police regarding admission of Kuldip Singh and when the police came, he opined that Kuldip Singh was unfit to make statement. He stated in his cross- examination that the person, who had brought the patient, had told him that it was a case of physical assault due to fall from steel pipes etc. He further stated that the injuries were possible if some iron rod fell upon the head of patient from above. Dr. Manju Arora, MO, Civil Hospital, Rohtak, who was examined as PW-6, stated that on 5.4.1994, she had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kuldip Singh and found following injuries on his dead body :- "1. There was a stitched wound of the size 4 cms. on the left side of forehead bearing three stitches. The wound was 4 cms on the left of mid line. 2. There was stitched wound of the size 4 cms. There was a stitched wound of the size 4 cms. on the left side of forehead bearing three stitches. The wound was 4 cms on the left of mid line. 2. There was stitched wound of the size 4 cms. on the right side of parietal region bearing three stitches. The wound was 12 cms above the right ear. 3. There was a stitched wound of the size 9 cms. on the left side of parietal region. It was 8 cms away from left eye-brow. The wound was bearing six stitches. 4. There was a lacerated wound of the size 2 cms. just on the right side of mid line in right parietal region. Wound was bone deep. 5. There were multiple abrasions in front of left knee." 6. Cause of death, in the opinion of the Doctor, was due to coma as a result of the injuries, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Rajinder Singh, father of the deceased, appearing as PW-7, deposed in tune with the FIR lodged by him. Satpal and Mool Chand, who were examined as PW-8 and PW-9, provided eye-witness account of the occurrence. Satpal, PW-8, stated that on 4.4.1994, he had gone to the shop of Kuldip Singh. Bhim Singh, appellant, who was employed with him, was causing injuries with an iron rod on his head and Kuldip Singh became unconscious within his sight. Mool Chand, PW-9 also gave narration of the events leading to the death of Kuldip Singh likewise. There is no need to make further reference of prosecution evidence, as nothing, based upon the same, has been urged by learned counsel representing either of the side during the course of arguments. Suffice it, however, to mention that the appellant, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, besides denying the incriminating material put to him, further stated that he was called from his house on 6.4.1994 and his arrest was shown lateron and that Satpal had not witnessed the occurrence and further that he had been falsely implicated in this case and he was innocent. He examined Sunder Pal, Record Keeper, MCH, Rohtak, in his defence. 7. Mr. Munish Jolly, learned counsel representing the appellant, has raised two fold contentions in support of the present appeal. He examined Sunder Pal, Record Keeper, MCH, Rohtak, in his defence. 7. Mr. Munish Jolly, learned counsel representing the appellant, has raised two fold contentions in support of the present appeal. He first contends that Kuldip Singh had died because of an accident as would be clearly made out from the depositions made by Dr. Baljit Sangwan and Dr. S.P. Chug, PW-1 and PW-5, respectively, and that, in any case, since the occurrence had taken place on a sudden quarrel, the offence committed by the appellant would not go beyond Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. 8. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the contentions raised by learned counsel, as noted above, but, in the facts and circumstances of this case, whereas, we find no merit whatsoever in the first contention of learned counsel, we find merit in the second contention but only to the extent that the offence committed by the appellant in the present case can be covered under Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code. 9. It is no doubt true that Dr. Baljit Sangwan stated in his examination-in- chief itself that the injuries were accidentally received in workshop, as told to him by the person, who had brought the patient but he had not mentioned name of the person, who had brought him to the hospital nor is it proved that the person, who had brought Kuldip Singh to the hospital, was an eye-witness. Insofar as statement made by Dr. S.P. Chug, PW-5, is concerned, same would not help the appellant as the person, who had brought the patient to him, has stated that it was a case of physical assault due to fall from steel pipes etc. This Doctor also stated that these injuries were possible if some iron rod fell upon the head of patient from above. The two Doctors were informed, in the manner, as mentioned above, by the persons, who had brought Kuldip Singh to the hospital and who were not the eye-witnesses. Available on record are the statements of two eye-witnesses, who categorically stated that the appellant alone had caused injuries with iron rod to Kuldip Singh in their presence. These witnesses are absolutely independent. Available on record are the statements of two eye-witnesses, who categorically stated that the appellant alone had caused injuries with iron rod to Kuldip Singh in their presence. These witnesses are absolutely independent. Whereas, Satpal, PW-8, may be a chance witness, having gone to the shop of the deceased, insofar as, Mool Chand, PW-9, is concerned, his shop was situated close to the shop of the deceased. His presence, in any case, cannot be doubted. Nothing at all was put to him in the cross-examination that may even otherwise detract from his sole testimony. Once, an eye-witness account of the incident is available, no reliance at all can be placed upon the depositions made by the two Doctors, who were told the cause of death of Kuldip Singh by those who were not the eye-witnesses. The appellant also took no effort in producing the persons, who might have got Kuldip Singh admitted in the hospital. 10. The occurrence, as narrated by the father of the victim, as told to him by Satpal, eye-witness and others, had taken place when there was a quarrel between the appellant and his son over a bet of tea while playing cards. Surely, there was no pre-planning and Kuldip Singh suffered injuries at the hands of the appellant in the course of playing cards over a bet of tea. In the facts, as mentioned above, it has to be held to be a sudden affair, following exchange of hot words between the appellant and deceased, who was losing or winning the bet depending upon winning or losing the cards. It is too well settled that where the injuries might have been caused by assailant and preceding such causing of injuries there was a sudden quarrel, the case would be covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code. To invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, as held by the Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1989(2) RCR(Crl.) 140 (SC) : AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1094, four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. It has further been held that cause of quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The facts of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarhs case (supra) reveal that PW-2 and his deceased brother had a heated argument with the appellant and his brother Amrit Lal in regard to return of the kitchen. In the course of this heated exchange, PW-2 is alleged to have showered filthy abuses. Although PW-2 denied this fact, PW-4 has admitted the same. PW-2 also threatened to throw out the utensils and lock the kitchen. Since PW-2 was uttering filthy abuses in the presence of appellants sister and Nitya Nand did not restrain him, the appellant got enraged, went into the kitchen and returned with a knife with which, he inflicted one blow on the neck of PW-2, causing a bleeding injury. In the melee, the appellant inflicted three knife blows to Nitya Nand; one on the shoulder, the other on the elbow and the third on the chest, as a result whereof, Nitya Nand collapsed to the floor and later died while on the way to the hospital. Despite the fact that it was a case of repeated blows given by a knife, some of which, were on the vital part of the deceased, the Supreme Court held that the case of the accused would be covered under Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case as well, we are of the view that present case would be covered under Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code. Reference may be made to the statements made by Dr. S.P. Chug, PW-5, and Dr. Manju Arora, PW-6. Whereas, Dr. S.P. Chug gave nature of injuries, which were on forehead, Dr. Manju Arora, PW-6, besides giving nature of injuries, also stated that cause of death was due to coma as a result of the injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Manju Arora, PW-6. Whereas, Dr. S.P. Chug gave nature of injuries, which were on forehead, Dr. Manju Arora, PW-6, besides giving nature of injuries, also stated that cause of death was due to coma as a result of the injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On exploration of the injuries, Dr. Manju Arora found that there was a big hemotoma below scalp layer and yet on further examination, the Doctor found fractures on right front parietal region. The kind of injuries sustained by the deceased were such that the case of the appellant cannot be covered under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. 12. Upshot of the discussion made above is that the appeal is partly allowed. Order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, holding the appellant guilty and sentencing him to life imprisonment is set aside. The appellant is held guilty under Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years. Appeal partly allowed.