JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6/9.2.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Further appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellant was also burdened with a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to be awarded to the legal heirs of Krishan deceased. 2. The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that on 22.2.1997 Gulab Singh and his nephew Bijender Singh had gone to irrigate their fields which are situated within the revenue estate of village Khewra. At about 9.00 P.M., one tractor was seen coming from Palri side, which was going towards Bahalgarh attached with a trolly loaded with sand. As soon as that tractor reached near their field, bearing of trolly went out of order. On that account, tractor stopped which was driven by Satbir son of Bhoop Singh, resident of Rohna. Satbir went to Gulab Singh and Bijender Singh, took water and then requested for help. Gulab Singh (PW-5) and Bijender accompanied him and went at the place where tractor had stopped. Gulab Singh stood on the road to take precaution of the traffic, while Bijender and Satbir both were fixing jack to the trolly. In the meantime, another tractor appeared from Bahalgarh side. Tractor was being driven by Satish accused. One scooter had been following the tractor of Satish. Scooter was being driven by Krishan Kumar, while Nafe Singh was pillion rider. Accused Satish immediately applied breaks to the tractor without giving any signal. In that process, the driver of the scooter also applied breaks with great force and succeeded in stopping the same. Thereafter, Krishan and Nafe Singh went to satish and lodged a protest that why he had stopped the tractor without giving any signal and there was exchange hot words. Accused Satish lost temper and took out lift rod of tractor and hit Krishan and Nafe Singh on their heads. Thereafter, Krishan and Nafe Singh went to satish and lodged a protest that why he had stopped the tractor without giving any signal and there was exchange hot words. Accused Satish lost temper and took out lift rod of tractor and hit Krishan and Nafe Singh on their heads. On receipt of those injuries, Krishan and Nafe both fell down and went unconscious. Gulab Singh tried to over-power Satish, but he escaped. In the meantime, one Tata Summo appeared at the spot, which was got stopped. Both the injured were put in that TATA Summo and were taken to Civil Hospital, Sonipat. When doctor examined Krishan and Nafe, he declared Krishan as dead, while Nafe was admitted in the Ward in unconscious condition. Intimation was sent to Police. Sub Inspector Sajjan Kumar, Station House Officer, Police Station Rai, reached in Civil Hospital and recorded statement, Ex. PG, of Gulab Singh and made his endorsement, Ex. PG/1, and then dispatched the same to the Police Station on the basis of which, formal FIR, Ex. PG/2, was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh. Thereafter, he moved an application, Ex. PC, for obtaining opinion about the condition of Nafe Singh and the doctor opined that Nafe Singh was unfit to make a statement. Then Sub Inspector Sajjan Kumar conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of Krishan, which is Ex. PF, recorded statements of the witnesses and moved application, Ex. PE/1 for getting the post mortem examination of dead body of Krishan done. Tractor and scooter were taken into possession. He also lifted blood stained earth from the place where Nafe Singh and Krishan had fallen. The same were sealed with seal SKG and was handed over to Bijender after use. He prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes Ex. PS. After completion of necessary formalities, accused was sent up for trial. 3. Accused was charge sheeted under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fourteen witnesses, namely, Dr. V.K.Gupta (PW-1), Constable Inderpal (PW-2), Dr. Rakesh Girdhar (PW-3), Mahender Singh, ASI (PW-4), Gulab Singh (PW-5), Nafe Singh (PW-6), Udey Singh (PW-7), Dhanpat Rai (PW-8), Raj Singh, ASI (PW-9), Baljit Singh, Constable (PW-10), Om Parkash, Constable (PW-11), Sajjan Kumar, SI (PW-12), Dr. Lt. 4. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fourteen witnesses, namely, Dr. V.K.Gupta (PW-1), Constable Inderpal (PW-2), Dr. Rakesh Girdhar (PW-3), Mahender Singh, ASI (PW-4), Gulab Singh (PW-5), Nafe Singh (PW-6), Udey Singh (PW-7), Dhanpat Rai (PW-8), Raj Singh, ASI (PW-9), Baljit Singh, Constable (PW-10), Om Parkash, Constable (PW-11), Sajjan Kumar, SI (PW-12), Dr. Lt. Col.P.Joshi (PW-13) Prem Singh, Inspector (PW-14) and after tendering into evidence report of FSL, Exs. PV and PV/1, closed its evidence. 5. In his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 7. Learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that motive in this case is missing; it was a sudden fight; there was no intention to commit the murder of Krishan and since no motive has been provided, the case of the appellant is liable to be acquitted on this short ground alone. Learned counsel further submitted that in fact, it is a case of accident and no assault was opened by Satish. While advancing his arguments, the learned defence counsel further submitted that Satish was going on a tractor. Krishan was coming from front side. Satish stopped the tractor on seeing the tractor of Satbir stranded. Krishan appeared and hit in the tractor of the deceased and sustained injuries by means of fall on a pucca metaled road. In order to lend support to his contention, he referred to the statement of Dr. V.K.Gupta (PW-1), wherein he has admitted during the course of cross-examination that the possibility of the injuries on the person of Nafe Singh could be due to head on collision with the tractor and by a fall on road, if injured was a pillion on a scooter. 8. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned defence counsel, but they do not cut ice with us for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 9. Dealing with the point of motive, we are of the view that motive is state of mind of the culprit and this element exclusively remains hidden in it and specially when it sprouts for the commission of offence that could be judged precisely. 9. Dealing with the point of motive, we are of the view that motive is state of mind of the culprit and this element exclusively remains hidden in it and specially when it sprouts for the commission of offence that could be judged precisely. It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive, but if it can provide to the court for appreciating the evidence, this would be additional circumstance to prove the chain of the version. Most heinous offences are committed for petty matters and some time for no motive but the Court cannot sit idle and shift its responsibility to arrive at a particular conclusion as to who is responsible for the commission of the offence. In order to conclude with regard to the motive in this case we would finally like to observe that motive is not deciding factor in a criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused where direct evidence against the accused is overwhelming. Record spells out that direct evidence is available through the mouth of Nafe Singh (PW-6), who is an independent witness of the occurrence. Moreover, the doctor has given possibility of this accident, but he has not said with certainty. The opinion of the doctor loses its importance since Gulab Singh (PW-5) and Nafe Singh (PW-6) have given the ocular account of the occurrence. Sub Inspector Sajjan Kumar (PW-12) has disclosed that when he received a telephonic message that Krishan and Nafe Singh residents of Khewra being injured in accident have been admitted in Civil Hospital, Sonipat, he reached the hospital and found Gulab Singh present there. He recorded the statement of Gulab Singh, who categorically deposed that there were exchange of hot words between Satish and Krishan and Nafe. Satish accused out of anger picked up an iron rod and caused injuries to Krishan and as well as Nafe Singh. Injury on the head of Krishan proved fatal. During the course of cross-examination, Sub Inspector Sajjan Kumar (PW-12) deposed that initially, he had come to know that it was an accident, but after coming at the spot, it was confirmed that it was a murder and not an accident. Moreover, Dr. Lt. Injury on the head of Krishan proved fatal. During the course of cross-examination, Sub Inspector Sajjan Kumar (PW-12) deposed that initially, he had come to know that it was an accident, but after coming at the spot, it was confirmed that it was a murder and not an accident. Moreover, Dr. Lt. Colonel P.Joshi (PW-13) has narrated that the version of the accident was given to her, but she never deposed that it was not a murder. Prem Singh, Inspector (PW- 14) verified his investigation and he also found that it was a case of murder. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel that it was a case of accident is not liable to be accepted in view of the direct evidence available through the mouth of Gulab Singh (PW-5), who is an independent and eye witness to the occurrence and Nafe Singh (PW-6), is himself injured in the occurrence. 10. Learned defence counsel further argued that in the case in hand tractor lift rod made of iron was recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Satish. He submitted that such a statement is a confession and not a disclosure statement. Therefore, this statement cannot be taken into consideration, but this contention of the learned defence counsel is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. Record clearly spells out that accused satish was produced by Lillu at Bus Stop. He was not pressurised by Investigating Officer in any manner and was interrogated in the presence of PW Udey Singh and Ramesh, where he suffered voluntary statement that he had kept concealed a tractor lift rod made of iron in a heap of parali and could lead to recovery. Disclosure statement was recorded and in pursuance of the same, accused led the police party and the rod was recovered. Learned defence counsel could not show as to how it was a confessional statement before a police officer. The record clearly spells out that recovery of the iron rod was made on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the accused in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses. The statement of Udey Singh (PW-7) further corroborated the recovery of the iron rod and his testimony could not be shattered even during the course of cross-examination. 11. The record clearly spells out that recovery of the iron rod was made on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the accused in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses. The statement of Udey Singh (PW-7) further corroborated the recovery of the iron rod and his testimony could not be shattered even during the course of cross-examination. 11. Gulab Singh (PW-5) has categorically deposed that on 22.2.1997 he and his nephew Bijender Singh had gone to irrigate their fields, which are situated in the revenue estate of village Khewra opposite to Government School Khewra. At about 9.00 P.M. one tractor came from Palri side which was going towards Bahalgarh, which had been carrying a trolly loaded with sand. As soon as that tractor reached near their field, barring of trolly went out of order and on account of this, tractor stopped. Tractor driver disclosed his name Satbir son of Bhup Singh, resident of Rohna. He came to them. First of all, he took water and then requested for help. He and Bijender accompanied him near the tractor for his help. He stood on the road to take precaution of the traffic while Bijender and Satbir both were fixing jack to the trolly. In the meantime, another tractor came from Bahalgarh side. Tractor was being driven by Satish accused, who was present in the trial Court. One scooter was trollying Satish’s tractor. Scooter was being driven by Krishan Kumar, while Nafe Singh was pillion rider. Accused Satish immediately applied breaks to the tractor without giving any signal. Scooterist applied brakes with great force and then succeeded in stopping the same. Thereafter Krishan and Nafe Singh came to Satish to lodge protest. Satish came down from the steering and retorted that he had correctly applied brakes. Satish accused out of anger took out rod of the lift of the tractor and one rod blow was hit by Satish to Kishan on the back side of his head. As soon as Nafe advanced towards Satish he inflicted another lift rod blow on the head of Nafe. Krishan and Nafe fell down on Appeal No. 119-DB of 1998 8 receipt of injuries. As soon as he tried to over power Satish, he escaped. As soon as Nafe advanced towards Satish he inflicted another lift rod blow on the head of Nafe. Krishan and Nafe fell down on Appeal No. 119-DB of 1998 8 receipt of injuries. As soon as he tried to over power Satish, he escaped. In the meantime, one TATA Summo of white colour was going towards Bahalgarh, which was got stopped and both the injured were taken in that TATA Summo to Civil Hospital, Sonipat. When doctor attended Krishan, he was declared dead and Nafe Singh was admitted. Police reached Civil Hospital and recorded his statement, Ex. PB, which bears his signatures. He also identified rod Ex. P-1 with which the accused hit Krishan and Nafe. Nafe Singh (PW- 6) has also deposed in a similar fashion and they have corroborated the statements of each other. They were cross-examined, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence and both of them stuck to their stand with regard to altercation between Satish and injured Nafe Singh and deceased Krishan and inflicting injuries upon Krishan and Nafe Singh by an iron rod. He has also identified the rod, Ex. P-1 by virtue of which accused Satish inflicted injuries to Nafe Singh and Krishan deceased. 12. Udhey Singh (PW-7) categorically deposed that he was present at the Bus Stop of Khewra. Many villagers were also present including Ramesh. Police came there. Satish accused present in the Court was with the police. Police interrogated him in his presence. Satish disclosed that he had kept concealed tractor lift iron rod in a heap of Parali behind the school and could get it recovered. His disclosure statement, Ex. PH, was recorded, which bears his signature. Thereafter, accused took the police party behind the school and he removed parali bundle and led recovery of lift iron rod Ex. P-1, which was packed and sealed and was taken into possession vide Ex. PJ, which bears his attestation. His statement was recorded by the police. Evidence discussed above clearly spells out that the occurrence took place on account of altercation between Satish, Nafe Singh and Krishan deceased and during the course of that altercation in a heat of anger, accused Satish inflicted injuries to both of them, which proved fatal in the case of deceased Krishan, whereas Nafe Singh suffered injuries on his head. 13. Evidence discussed above clearly spells out that the occurrence took place on account of altercation between Satish, Nafe Singh and Krishan deceased and during the course of that altercation in a heat of anger, accused Satish inflicted injuries to both of them, which proved fatal in the case of deceased Krishan, whereas Nafe Singh suffered injuries on his head. 13. As per the evidence discussed above, prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Gulab Singh (PW-5) is a natural witness and is not related to the complainant party and is not inimical towards the accused. He has given truthful version. There is nothing to disbelieve him. Similarly, Nafe Singh (PW- 6) is a stamped witness and his testimony also goes unimpeached. There is an eye version account of the occurrence that Satish caused iron lift rod blow on the head of Krishan fully knowing that such a blow could prove fatal and he also inflicted injury to Nafe Singh, but luckily he was saved. Medical evidence given by Dr. V.K.Gupta (PW-1) and Dr. Rakesh Girdhar (PW-3) fully corroborates the ocular version given by Gulab Singh (PW-5) The opinion of the doctor that possibility of such injuries with an accident in head on collision, does not prove the case of the defence that it was a case of accident. Accused could not afford to enter the defence nor did they lodge a protest before the higher authorities that they have been falsely implicated in a murder case. Both these witnesses, namely, Gulab Singh (PW-5) and Nafe Singh (PW-6) have supported the prosecution story at the trial and one of them is an injured witness and their presence at the place of occurrence could not be doubted and further their presence at the scene of the occurrence was highly probable and their evidence is reliable, which inspires confidence. Nafe Singh (PW-6), who suffered injury during the course of occurrence and undoubtedly, ocular version provided by him would indicate great value to the prosecution. We find that the evidence of these two witnesses is surrounded by ring of truth and such evidence could be relied upon without corroboration and in the instant case, both these witnesses lend corroboration to each other. We are further of this opinion that the statements of these witnesses, namely, Gulab Singh (PW-5) and Nafe Singh (PW-6) are consistent throughout. We find that the evidence of these two witnesses is surrounded by ring of truth and such evidence could be relied upon without corroboration and in the instant case, both these witnesses lend corroboration to each other. We are further of this opinion that the statements of these witnesses, namely, Gulab Singh (PW-5) and Nafe Singh (PW-6) are consistent throughout. However, certain discrepancies cropped up due to lapse of time since the occurrence took place in the year 1997 and these witnesses were examined after a lapse of more than seven months, but they have faithfully and truthfully given the account of occurrence before the Court and the discrepancies pointed out by the learned defence counsel do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is true that there are some improvements in the statements of the witnesses, but it is no ground to reject the entire testimony of these prosecution witnesses. It must not be forgotten that Nafe Singh (PW-6) was victim of the assault, but fortunately, he survived and he can be considered as best eye witness. The testimony of these witnesses are fully corroborated by medical evidence, as discussed above. 14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the question would arise as to what offence has been committed by the accused. A murder is merely a particular form of culpable homicide. What distinguishes culpable homicide from murder is the presence of special mens rea which consists of four mental attitudes stated in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Unless the offence can be said to involve at least one such mental attitude it cannot be murder. When the injury is intentional and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and death follows, the offence is of murder. Where the intention of the accused was not to kill the deceased outright, but to inflict injuries on his person so as to disable him from coming forward and assaulting, but the accused had the knowledge that the injuries would be likely to cause death of the deceased, the accused can escape the rigor of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In such a situation, he could be convicted under section 304(I) or 304 (II) depending upon the circumstances of the case. 15. In such a situation, he could be convicted under section 304(I) or 304 (II) depending upon the circumstances of the case. 15. In order to arrive at a correct conclusion as to under which provision of the Code, the case of the appellant would fall, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it stands established that when both Krishan (since deceased) and Nafe Singh went to Satish to lodge a protest as to why he applied brakes all of a sudden since both of them were coming on a scooter following the tractor trolly from behind, though they were succeeded in stopping the scooter and on account of that appellant, in a heat of anger, took out a rod and inflicted injury on the head of Krishan, resulting in his death and another blow of rod was given to Nafe Singh, who later on survived by providing timely medical treatment to him. Admittedly, injury was inflicted on the head of the deceased and if that be the position, then the case would either fall within the four corners of Section 304 (I) or (II) of the Code. The distinction between Part I and II of this provision is that the first paragraph of Section applies to the offences of culpable homicide not amounting to the murder of the act by which the death is caused, is done:- a) with the intention of causing death; or b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. A case under sub-clause (a) will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder only if it falls within any of the exceptions to Section 300; for otherwise, it would fall under the first clause of Section 300 and would amount to murder. The second paragraph of the Section which may be referred to as Part II applies to acts which are done without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as to likely to cause death, but which are done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death. The second paragraph of the Section which may be referred to as Part II applies to acts which are done without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as to likely to cause death, but which are done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death. The question whether the accused had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death is, as in the case of intention a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of the particular case, the weapon used, the part of the body on which the injury was inflicted, the number of injuries caused, the deliberateness of the act and other allied circumstances. 16. On these admitted facts at the most, offence would fall within the four corners of Section 304 Part (I) of the Code. In the Instant case, accused did not intend to cause death, but he, in a heat of anger, gave one stroke with an iron rod on the head of the deceased Krishan with the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Moreover, the dispute between the parties was that the scooter struck against the tractor trolly and the fight was not pre-meditated nor pre-planned and the accused in an anger, gave a blow with an iron rod, the weapon used in the commission of crime, on the head of the deceased with such a force that he must have known that such a blow would prove fatal resulting in his death. Therefore, in such like circumstances, the case of the appellant, to our mind, will squarely fall within the provisions of Section 304 Part I and not under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and as such conviction against the appellant already awarded by the learned trial Court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is modified and he is convicted under section 304 Part (I) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default thereof, he is directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Appellant, who is on bail, is directed to be taken into custody to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence awarded by this Court. However, it is made clear that the sentence of imprisonment already served out by the appellant shall be set off out of the sentence awarded by this Court. With the above observations and directions, appeal is partly allowed. ——————————