Judgment Pritam Pal, J. 1. Appellant-Arun Kumar alias Nitu has filed this appeal against judgment of conviction dated 1-4-2002 and order of sentence dated 3-4-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Prosecution story, as described and established at the trial, is like this : On 15-7-1997, at about 6.30 p.m. Khazan Singh, complainant (P.W. 9) along with his wife Darshna Devi (P.W. 10) and his son Pardeep Kumar (since deceased) was sitting in the courtyard of his house situated in Village Garhi Ballabh, District Rohtak. At that time, they were talking inter se. In the meantime, Pardeep Kumar (22 years), son of the complainant, went towards the street for urinating. In the meantime, an altercation took place between Pardeep Kumar and Arun Kumar alias Nitu. On hearing their noise, the complainant went towards them to intervene and ultimately, Pardeep Kumar was brought back by his father (complainant). Then, Arun Kumar, appellant left for his house saying that he would teach him (Pardeep Kumar) a lesson. Pardeep Kumar kept standing at the gate of his house. In the meantime. Arun Kumar, appellant reached there with a ballam (a pointed weapon) and gave a blow of ballam from its sharp side which hit left side of the chest of Pardeep Kumar and then fled away. As a result of the injury, Pardeep Kumar fell-down in the street. Thereafter, Khazan Singh (P.W. 9) and Darshna Devi (P.W. 10) shifted their injured son to P.G.I., Rohtak after arranging a vehicle. On examination by Dr. R.P. Verma, (P.W. 1) at P.G.I. Rohtak, Pardeep Kumar was declared dead at 7.25 p.m. on 15-7-1997. Thereafter, a V. T. message regarding the death of Pardeep Kumar was received by (P.W. 2) H. C. Sukhbir Singh from the Police Post of PGI, Rohtak. Thereupon, (P.W. 12) S.I. Guljar Singh, who was initially the Investigating Officer in this case, rushed to the Casualty Ward of the hospital and there, he met Khazan Singh (P.W. 9) (complainant) at the gate. He then recorded the statement Ex. PQ of Khazan Singh, father of the deceased, at 9.30 p.m. and then made his endorsement Ex. Thereupon, (P.W. 12) S.I. Guljar Singh, who was initially the Investigating Officer in this case, rushed to the Casualty Ward of the hospital and there, he met Khazan Singh (P.W. 9) (complainant) at the gate. He then recorded the statement Ex. PQ of Khazan Singh, father of the deceased, at 9.30 p.m. and then made his endorsement Ex. PQ/1, whereupon formal FIR Ex. PQ/2 was recorded at 11.00 p.m. by Sukhbir Singh, MHC in Police Station, Kalanaur. P.W. 12 Guljar Singh, the then SI/SHO Police Station, Kalanaur, prepared the inquest report, Ex. PJ and then sent the dead-body for post-mortem examination. After that the Investigating Officer along with other police officials and the complainant reached the place of occurrence in the morning of 16-7-1997. There, he prepared the rough site plan (Ex. PV) with correct marginal notes in his hand. From the spot, he lifted blood-stained earth and converted the same into a sealed parcel. Then, the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PR. He also recorded the statements of HC Om Parkash, Khazan Singh (P.W. 9), complainant and Smt. Darshna Devi (P.W. 10) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then, on receipt of the information regarding the admission of accused-appellant Arun Kumar in the P.G.I., Rohtak, he (Investigating Officer) went there and collected ruqa and MLR (Ex. PO) of accused-appellant Arun Kumar. Arun Kumar was discharged from the hospital in the next morning. 3. On 16-7-1997, investigation of this case was handed over to Gian Singh, (P.W. 13), the then Inspector/SHO Police Station City Rohtak. He then made search for the accused-appellant. On 17-7-1997, appellant was arrested from near the turning point of Sat Jinda College at Kahanaur. The appellant was then interrogated, whereupon he made a disclosure statement (Ex. PS), in pursuance of which, he got recovered the weapon of offence (ballam) (Ex. P/3) from his cattle-shed, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PU). On return to the police station, P.W. 13, Gian Singh, who partly investigated the case, deposited the case property with the MHC. 4. After completion of the formal investigation of the case and receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and Chemical Examiner, the appellant was challaned for commission of offence, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completion of the formal investigation of the case and receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and Chemical Examiner, the appellant was challaned for commission of offence, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was charge-sheeted vide order dated 6-11-1997, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. Prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as 13 witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Dr. R. P. Verma, he sent ruqa (Ex. PA) after declaring Pardeep Kumar dead at 7.25 p.m. on 15-7-1997; P.W. 2 HC Sukhbir Singh, he had recorded the formal FIR and also placed on the file his affidavit Ex. PB to prove the link evidence; P.W. 3 Const. Ved Parkash; P.W. 4 Const. Lekh Ram, they tendered into evidence their respective affidavits, Exs. PC and PD; P.W. 5 Const. Jagdish Chander, P.W. 6 Const. Raju, they proved affidavit Ex. PE and scale site plan Ex. PF respectively. P.W. 7 Dr. Rama Shukla, he conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Pardeep Kumar, vide his report Ex. PG; P.W. 8 Dr. Anil Rahija, he medico-legally examined appellant Arun Kumar at 11.45 p.m. on 15-7-1997 vide MLR Ex. PO; P.W. 9 Khazan Singh, complainant, he is an eye-witness to the occurrence; P.W. 10, Darshana Devi, mother of the deceased. She is also an eye-witness to the occurrence; P.W. 11 Satbir Singh, he is a witness to the disclosure statement and recovery memo of weapon of offence; P.W. 12 Gulzar Singh, he investigated this case at the earliest stage; P.W. 13 Inspector Gian Singh (since retired), he also partly investigated this case at a later stage. 6. After examination of the aforesaid witnesses, learned Public Prosecutor vide his statement dated 18-3-2002 also tendered into evidence reports of the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban as Ex. PZ and PZ/1 and that of Assistant Chemical Examiner, Ex. PZ/2 and PZ/3 and then closed the prosecution evidence. 7. When the appellant was examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and at the same time, in answer to question No. 18, he stated that in fact, on the given date and time of the occurrence of this case, he was urinating in his plot which is adjoining to the house of Pardeep Kumar (deceased). There, he (deceased) had come with a ballam and gave a blow on his head and when he (appellant) tried to save himself, a blow of ballam was given on his head. During struggle, when he tried to snatch the ballam from the hands of the deceased, he (Pardeep Kumar) suffered the injury. He further stated that thus, he was not at fault. When the appellant was called upon to enter on his defence, he examined his wife, namely, Pavita as D.W. 1. She also supported the aforesaid stand taken by the appellant in answer to question No. 18 of his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and hearing learned Counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how, feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. 9. Shri Gorakh Nath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, at the very outset of his arguments, fairly admitted the occurrence at the given place and time. But, at the same time, he vehemently argued to support the aforesaid version of the appellant taken in his statement, recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. While arguing, he contended that it was Pardeep Kumar, who in fact, was armed with a ballam and had first caused injury on the person of the appellant and in this respect, he made reference to the Medico-Legal Report of the appellant (Ex. PO) showing the injuries on his person. At the second place, he submitted that in this case, the prosecution at the time of lodging of the FIR, Ex. PQ/2, had suppressed the factum of injuries sustained by the appellant during the occurrence of this case. However, on the next day, i.e. on 16-7-1997, a supplementary statement of complainant Khazan Singh was recorded wherein, he stated that his son Pardeep Kumar had also given danda blows on the person of the appellant. PQ/2, had suppressed the factum of injuries sustained by the appellant during the occurrence of this case. However, on the next day, i.e. on 16-7-1997, a supplementary statement of complainant Khazan Singh was recorded wherein, he stated that his son Pardeep Kumar had also given danda blows on the person of the appellant. After putting-forth the aforesaid points of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment in the case of Lakshmi Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1976 Cri LJ 1736, wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that in such a situation, for non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused by the prosecution, an adverse inference could be drawn regarding the genesis and the origin of occurrence. At the fag end of his arguments, the main thrust of learned Counsel for the appellant was that in this case, there was no previous enmity or any motive behind this occurrence and at the same time, it was also submitted that a single blow of ballam was caused and there was no repetition of the same on any other part of the body of the deceased. The appellant and the deceased were neighbour and there was no premeditated design to kill Pardeep. After raising these points of arguments, Mr. Gorakh Nath contended that at the most, the appellant could be convicted and sentenced under Section 304, Part I or Part II of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his arguments, he also relied upon Raj Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 1993 Cri LJ 2939 (P & H) and Har Vansh Singh V/s. State of U. P., 1993 Cri LJ 3059 (All). 10. On the other hand, Shri S. K. Garg, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana repelled the aforesaid points of arguments put-forward on behalf of the appellant and then submitted that in fact, he (appellant) had a clear-cut intention to cause the death of Pardeep Kumar. In that regard, he referred to the statements of P.W. 9 Khazan Singh and P.W. 10 Darshna Devi, wherein they stated that the appellant had first given a warning to the deceased for teaching him a lesson and thereafter, he picked up a ballam (a pointed weapon) and then, hit on the left side of his chest. In that regard, he referred to the statements of P.W. 9 Khazan Singh and P.W. 10 Darshna Devi, wherein they stated that the appellant had first given a warning to the deceased for teaching him a lesson and thereafter, he picked up a ballam (a pointed weapon) and then, hit on the left side of his chest. The injury was so grave and serious that the same ultimately proved to be fatal. He then also argued that in such a case of murder, where eye-witnesses account is throughout consistent, motive becomes irrelevant. At the last leg of his arguments, he made a reference to the statements of P.W. 9 Khazan Singh, complainant, P.W. 10 Darshna Devi and P.W. 7 Dr. Rama Shukla and then contended that in this case, ocular version and medical evidence are consistent to each other. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file carefully. 12. To cut-short, in the instant case, the occurrence at the given place and time is an admitted fact. According to the star witnesses, namely, P.W. 9 Khazan Singh, complainant and P.W. 10 Darshna Devi, who are parents of the deceased, at the time of occurrence, the appellant was armed with a ballam and within their sight, he gave a blow of ballam which hit on the left side of the chest of their son Pardeep Kumar. As a result of the said injury, he had fallen down in the street and after causing the said single blow, the appellant had fled away from the spot along with the said ballam. The appellant was arrested in this case on 17-7-1997. During interrogation, he made a disclosure statement, Ex. P.S. in the presence of P.W. 11 Satbir Singh. In pursuance of his said statement, the appellant got recovered the weapon of offence, Ex. P3 from the cattle-shed of his house. The said weapon of offence was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PU. All these documents go a long way to link-up the appellant with the commission of crime of this case. 13. Now, adverting to the medical evidence, consisted in the statement of P.W. 7 Dr. Rama Shukla, who found the following injuries on the person of deceased Pardeep Kumar, while preparing post-mortem report Ex. PU. All these documents go a long way to link-up the appellant with the commission of crime of this case. 13. Now, adverting to the medical evidence, consisted in the statement of P.W. 7 Dr. Rama Shukla, who found the following injuries on the person of deceased Pardeep Kumar, while preparing post-mortem report Ex. PG : "Injuries : There was an incised wound of size 8 cm x 4 cm over anterior upper part of left chest, six cm from midline, 5.5 cm above left nipple and 7 cm below mid of left clavical. Depth of wound from anterior to posterior side was 18 cm. The exit wound present on back was 3 x 1 cm incised, seven cm from midline, 14 cm. from lower limit of left scapula and 8 cm to mid of left clavical. The direction of wound was upwards, backwards and slightly laterally." 14. In his opinion, the cause of death in the instant case was "shock and haemorrhage" caused by the aforementioned injury. According to him, the injury was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the normal course of life. He further opined that the aforesaid injury on the left side of the chest could have been possibly caused by the said weapon (Ex. P3), which was shown to him at the time of his deposition in the Court. 15. In this view of our foregoing discussion, ocular version consisted in the statements of P.W. 9 Khazan Singh and P.W. 10 Darshna Devi also finds corroboration from medical evidence as well as other link evidence brought on the file by the prosecution. Thus, we are of the confirmed view that in this case, death of Pardeep Kumar had taken place due to the injury caused by the appellant at the given place and time. 16. Now, adverting to the last point of arguments regarding altering the conviction and sentence of the appellant from under Section 302 to under Section 304, Part I or Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, in this regard, it is an established fact on the file that at the time of lodging the FIR (Ex. PQ/2), the factum of receiving the injuries by the appellant at the hands of Pardeep Kumar, deceased, was not mentioned. PQ/2), the factum of receiving the injuries by the appellant at the hands of Pardeep Kumar, deceased, was not mentioned. Further it is also well proved that the appellant had received the following injuries on his person, when he was examined at 11.45 p.m. on the day of occurrence itself, vide MLR Ex. PQ, proved by P.W. 8 Dr. Anil Raheja : 1. 8 x 1 cm lacerated wound on frontal part of skull, extending on to temporal region right side. Fresh bleeding was present. 2. 4 x 1 cm lacerated wound present on occipital region right side fresh bleeding was present. 3. Pain, swelling and tenderness on right forearm under third (sic). 17. A perusal of the above injuries shows that the appellant had also sustained injuries on the frontal part of his skull, extending to his temporal region. The second injury is also on the occipital region and fresh bleeding was there in the aforesaid two injuries. Further, according to the opinion of the doctor (P.W. 8), the above injuries were caused by a blunt weapon, within a period of 24 hours. Keeping in view the medical evidence and the admitted fact of occurrence at the given place and time, it cannot be said that the prosecution, in this case, has not proved the genesis and origin of the occurrence. However, it is apparent that while lodging the FIR, the complainant, (P.W. 9) had not presented the true picture with regard to the receiving of injuries on the person of the appellant at the hands of the deceased. But, because of this only omission and laxity on the part of the complainant and the Investigating Officer, the entire story put forward by the prosecution, cannot be doubted. 18. In Lakshmi Singhs case (1976 Cri LJ 1736) (supra), the other factors of the occurrence and eye-witness account were also found doubtful whereas, in the instant case, as discussed above, the prosecution has fully proved that it was none other than the appellant, who had caused the fatal injury to the deceased. 19. 18. In Lakshmi Singhs case (1976 Cri LJ 1736) (supra), the other factors of the occurrence and eye-witness account were also found doubtful whereas, in the instant case, as discussed above, the prosecution has fully proved that it was none other than the appellant, who had caused the fatal injury to the deceased. 19. Now, adverting to the other cited rulings in Raj Singhs case (1993 Cri LJ 2939) and Har Vansh Singhs case (1993 Cri LJ 3059) (supra), wherein their Lordships converted the conviction and sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I and Part-II, respectively, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when there was an unpremeditated light between the two resulting in the death of one person. Further, both sides were found to have sustained injuries and there was also no sufficient motive to make sudden attack on the deceased. 20. Here, in the instant case before us, admittedly, there was no enmity or any sufficient motive behind the altercation, which had taken place immediately before causing single blow of Ballam by the appellant on the person of Pardeep Kumar (deceased). In the given facts and circumstances, it can be safely inferred that there was an unpremeditated fight between the deceased and the appellant. 21. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we find it difficult to uphold the conviction of the appellant for culpable homicide amounting to murder. In our considered opinion, the case of Arun Kumar, appellant would be covered by Exception IV to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. We accordingly partly accept this appeal, alter the conviction of the appellant from the one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to that of under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal code and reduce his sentence from "life" to "Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years" and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.