JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated November 26, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s. 324 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is the prosecution case that on March 28, 1996 at 6.30 AM Ganpat Singh ASI Police Station Hindaun City recorded parcha bayan of Smt. Ram Hari (Pw.1) wherein she stated that in the preceding night after asking meal she and her husband Ratan Lal (since deceased) had gone to the field for keeping watch on mustard-crop. In the mid-night on hearing noise she suddenly woke up and found Shankar and Radhey removing mustard crop. She and her husband when made attempt to intervene Radhey inflicted sword-blow on the head of her husband. When she tried to save her husband, Shankar gave Dharia blows on her right arm and neck. On that parcha bayan Police Station Todabhim registered a case under sections 511, 323, 307, 379 and 34 IPC and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation injured Ratan succumbed to his injuries and section 302 IPC was added. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course he case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City District Karauli. Charges under sections 324, 307, 302 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 15 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Prior to his death injury received by Ratan was examined vide injury report (Ex.P-11), which reads as under: 1. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Prior to his death injury received by Ratan was examined vide injury report (Ex.P-11), which reads as under: 1. Oblique incised wound of 11cm x 3.5cm on right side of fronto parietal region of head cutting skin, sub cutaneous tissues, muscles bone and brain matter coming out from wound bleeding. On death autopsy was conducted vide Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-17) and in the opinion of Dr. Y.N. Verma (Pw.15) the cause of death was coma as a result of to brain and skull. 4. The injuries received by Smt. Ram Hari (Pw.1) were examined vide injury report (Ex.P-12), which reads as under: 1. Incised wound of 4cm x 1.5cm x bone deep on Rt. parieto occipital region of Head obliquely. 2. Incised wound 2.5cm x 1cm x skin, muscle deep on At. side of neck posteriorly. 3. Incised wound 6cm x 2.5cm x bone deep on right scapular region of back. 4. Incised wound 6.5 x 2cm x bone deep on right upper arm outer side. 5. Having closely scanned the testimony of injured Ram Hari (Pw.1) we find that she is not a witness of sterling worth. In the written report she had only named Radhey and Shankar as assailants but in her testimony at the trial she deposed that Radhey, Hazari, Bhawani and Raju came and attacked on her and her husband. She did not name Shanker at all. She attributed injures on her person as well. as on the person of her husband to the i appellant Radhey. In her cross examination she stated thus: " ;g lgh gS fd esjs ifr ds flj esa ihNs dh vksj jk/ks us ,d gh pksV ekjh FkhA jk/ks us nwljh pksV esjs ifr ds flj esa ugha ekjhA jk/ks us esjs ,d pksV dqYgkM+h dh ihB esa ekjhA " On analysing the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution it appears to us that origin and genesis of the incident has been withheld. There is nothing on record to show that there was any premeditation on the part of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that there was any premeditation on the part of the appellant. The act of inflicting injuries appears to have been done in a heat of passion, in a sudden fight and the appellant had not taken any undue advantage. The appellant did inflict only one injury and did not repeat the same. 6. In the facts of the instant case though there was absence of 1 premeditation and it was a case of sudden fight, at best the case can be one where appellant might be said to have caused a bodily injury as is likely to cause death, with an intention to cause death, he can be convicted under section 304 Part I. Therefore, there is every justification to alter the conviction 5 recorded under section 302 into one Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellant was rightly convicted under section 324 IPC to cause injuries on the person of Ram Hari. 7. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of section 302 IPC, we convict the appellant under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal 10 Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of As. 1000/- in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. We however maintain conviction and sentence awarded to appellant under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge stands modified as 15 indicated hereinabove.Appeal Allowed in Part. *******