JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant and Vasdev were close friends. They used to drink liquor together. On the fateful night, while they were consuming liquor Vasdev gave a slap on the face of appellant and the appellant squeezed the neck of Vasdev as a result of which he died. The appellant was put to trial for having s committed murder of Vasdev before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Dholpur, who vide judgment dated February 27, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. It is the prosecution case that on September 7, 2001 informant Munna (PW. 5) submitted a written report (Ex. P-3) at Police Station Rajakhera to the effect that on the preceding day around 10.30 PM on hearing shrieks when the informant and other persons rushed to the field he found Kali Charan sitting on the chest of Vasdev and tyeing his neck with scarf. Seeing them coming Kali Charan fled away. On that report a case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Dholpur. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 CrPC, 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. Death of Vasdev was homicidal in nature. Vide Post Mortem Report (Ex. P-15) following ante mortem injury were found 1. Ligature mark is transverse, completely encircling the neck, low down in the neck below thyroid cartilage. Base is soft reddish. Width of ligature mark is 11/2 cm. Knot of ligature marks is present lc) anterior below thyroid cartilage. Abrasion formed by knot is 31/2 cm x 2cm in diameter. 2. Face is swollen congested. Tongue protruded between teeth. Bleeding present from mouth, ears and nostrils. In the opinion of Dr. Base is soft reddish. Width of ligature mark is 11/2 cm. Knot of ligature marks is present lc) anterior below thyroid cartilage. Abrasion formed by knot is 31/2 cm x 2cm in diameter. 2. Face is swollen congested. Tongue protruded between teeth. Bleeding present from mouth, ears and nostrils. In the opinion of Dr. Ram Prakash Gupta (Pw.14) the cause of death was asphyxia consequent to strangulation. 4. Coming to the prosecution evidence we find Kamla (Pw. 3), the wife of deceased, in her cross examination admitted that the appellant had no enmity with the deceased and the appellant used to consume liquor with her husband " ;g esjs ifr ds lkFk 'kjkc ihrk jgrk FkkA lHkh yksx ifjokj ds 'kjkc ihrs FksA igys dh dksbZ jaft'k ugha Fkh 10&15 o"kZ ls gh 'kjkc ihrs FksA " 5. Informant Munna (Pw. 5) in his cross examination deposed that Vasdev and Kalicharan had a quarrel while they were consuming liquor " esjs HkkbZ us dkyhpj.k ds xkyh nsus ij blds ,d FkIiM+ ekj fn;k tks nk: ihrs gq, >xM+k gqvk FkkA dkyhpj.k o oklnso esa >xM+k esjs lkeus gqvk FkkA " 6. Fact situation that emerges from the testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution may be summarised as under (i) There was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased and the occurrence was sudden affair. (ii) Something which has not been completely unravelled might have sparked off the incident. (iii) There was a dispute when the deceased and appellant were consuming liquor. (iv) The deceased gave a slap on the face of appellant and both of them grappled each other and appellant squeezed the neck of deceased. 7. Since the occurrence was a sudden affair and there was no premeditation and the appellant did not act in a cruel or unusual manner, the case against appellant clearly fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 I PC. 8. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of section 302 we convict him under section 304 part II IPC. Looking to the fact that the appellant has already undergone confinement for a period of more than six years and two months, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him to 45 the period already undergone by him in confinement. Looking to the fact that the appellant has already undergone confinement for a period of more than six years and two months, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him to 45 the period already undergone by him in confinement. Appellant Kali Charan, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case.The impugned judgment of learned trial court stands modified as indicated above.Appeal Partly Allowed and Sentence Modified. *******