Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dt. 15.07.2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced as under: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000 in default to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 3/25 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on 03.09.2000. Informant Prahlad (PW.8) submitted a written report (Ex.P-13) at Police Station Kaithoon to the effect that on the said day around 7.30 PM the informant along with his elder brother Dev Kishan was going to his house from the side of the culvert. Dev Kishan was going ahead and the informant was following him. As soon as they reached in front of their house they found appellant Ghanshyam standing there, with whom a land dispute of informant was going on. In the back ground of said dispute Ghanshyam told Dev Kishan that he would not allow them to take their tractor through his fields. Dev Kishan retorted by saying that he would see when the tractor has to be taken from there. The appellant then started hurling abuses to which Dev Kishan objected. The appellant thereafter went running to his house and brought out a Desi Katta (country made pistol) and fired at Dev Kishan. At that time Sita Ram (brother of appellant) was also standing therewith a stick, who had also dealt a blow on the head of Dev Kishan, who died on the spot. The whole incident was witnessed by Pushp Chand. Ramveer Singh, Satya Narain and his father. On that report a case under Secs. 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant as also co-accused Sita Ram. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Kota. Charges under Secs. 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in defence was examined. Charges under Secs. 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in defence was examined. On hearing final submissions learned trial Judge while acquitting co-accused Sita Ram, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3-4. The main contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant did not have entertained any previous vengeance towards the deceased. The incident developed stage by stage and finally ended up in the wanton act of shooting. According to learned counsel the offence did not travel beyond section 304 Part-I IPC. Reliance is placed on Umrao Singh vs. State of UP, (2002) 9 SCC 215 . 5. In order to appreciate the contention of learned Senior Counsel when we looked at the record we noticed that deceased Dev Kishan as per Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-8) sustained following ante mortem injury: Gun shot wound of 3/4 inch dia meter, oval with surrounding area of 1-1/2 inch dia meter of charring & tattooing present, wound located left side of upper part of abdomen just below left costal margin, 2 inch away from mid-line & 6 inch below left nipple. The cause of death according to Dr. M.M. Sharma (PW.3), who conducted autopsy on the dead body, was syncope as a result of injury to heart & lung caused by gun shot wound. 6. We also noticed that the incident occurred at the door steps of appellant’s house. In the site plan (Ex.P-1) the steps have been shown by mark ‘A’. 7. Informant Prahlad (PW.8) is the star witness of the prosecution. 6. We also noticed that the incident occurred at the door steps of appellant’s house. In the site plan (Ex.P-1) the steps have been shown by mark ‘A’. 7. Informant Prahlad (PW.8) is the star witness of the prosecution. In his deposition Prahlad stated thus: ßge nksuksa HkkbZ eqfYte ?kuÓ;ke o lhrkjke ds edku ds lkeus igqaps rks os nksuksa vius ?kj ds lkeus [kM+s FksÞ ß?kuÓ;ke us gedks dgk fd og vius [ksr ls VsªDVj ugha fudkyus nsxkA esjs HkkbZ nsofdÓku us mlls dgk fd og VsªDVj fudkysxk rd ns[kk tk;sxkA rc ?kuÓ;ke tksj&tksj ls xkyh nsus o fpYykus yxk—Þ ßesjs HkkbZ us xkfy;k¡ nsus ls euk fd;k rc ?kuÓ;ke cksyk fd vHkh lkjh ckr dks [kRe djrk gwaA ?kuÓ;ke vius ?kj ds vUnj x;k nsÓkh dêk tkus D;k pht ysdj vk;k vkSj esjs HkkbZ nso fdÓku ds lhus ls vM+k dj xksyh ekj nhAÞ In the cross examination Prahlad deposed that: ß;g lgh gS fd nksuksa eqfYteku esjs lxs rkÅ ds yM+ds gSaAÞ ßtgk¡ ge [kM+s Fks ogk¡ ls ?kuÓ;ke ds edku dk njoktk pkj&ik¡p dne nwj FkkAÞ 8. It is discerned from the statement of Prahlad that the appellant and the deceased were near relatives and they were neighbours. Since the incident occurred at the door steps of the house of appellant after hot exchanges, we have to find out as to whether Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC is attracted? As already noticed the incident developed stage by stage and finally ended up in the wanton act of shooting. While the appellant was standing outside of his house the deceased came to him. Appellant then told the deceased that he would not allow him (deceased) to take his tractor through his (appellant’s) fields. The deceased then retorted by saying that he would see when the tractor has to be taken. The appellant then started hurling abuses to which deceased objected. The appellant thereafter went running to his house and brought out Desi Katta and fired at the deceased. In Rajvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1982 SC 1052 ) it was indicated that to come within the four corners of the Exception I to Section 300 IPC it has to be shown not only that the provocation was sudden but that it was also grave and thus gravity is measured by the deprivation of self control in which it must have resulted. A mere exchange of unsavoury language without more is not what Exception I envisages as grave and sudden provocation thus reducing an offence of capital nature to merely a minor one. 9. To invoke the provision of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC two essentials are necessary to be established. Firstly, it must be proved that the culpable homicide was committed without premeditation in sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Secondly, it must be established that the offenders did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. In Suresh Chandra vs. State of U.P., 2005(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 180: AIR 2005 SC 3120 their Lordships of the Supreme Court explained the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 and indicated as under: (Para 7) “Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident had happened without any premeditation or prior concert, upon a sudden quarrel and the resultant attack on the victims was unintentional and, therefore, the offence would appropriately fall under Exception 4 punishable under Sec. 304 Part I or II. We find it difficult to countenance this argument. Though there was absence of premeditation and it was a case of sudden fight, that is not sufficient to bring the offence committed by the accused within the purview of Exception 4 that the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner should be satisfied. The very fact that the accused appellant used the fire arms in the course of a frivolous quarrel triggered off by the sarcastic remarks of Ravindra Singh would demonstrate beyond doubt that the appellants acted in a cruel manner and it would further demonstrate the intention to cause death or at any rate, to cause a bodily injury of the nature mentioned in clause thirdly of Section 300. Such intention is writ large on the acts done by the accused. Thus, it is a case in which clauses I to III of Section 300 IPC are attracted and, as already observed. Exception 4 would not come to the rescue of the appellants for the reason that they have acted in a cruel and unusual manner by shooting at unarmed victims who merely indulged in a verbal duel with them. Thus, it is a case in which clauses I to III of Section 300 IPC are attracted and, as already observed. Exception 4 would not come to the rescue of the appellants for the reason that they have acted in a cruel and unusual manner by shooting at unarmed victims who merely indulged in a verbal duel with them. The fact that the other two accused who were said to have exhorted the three appellants to attack the members of the other party were acquitted has no materials bearing on the question whether the appellants could be given the benefit of Exception 4, Thus, the argument in regard to the nature of offence cannot be sustained. On the facts of this case, it is only Section 3021PC that is attracted.” 10. In the facts of the instant case though there was absence of premeditation and it was a case of sudden fight, the very fact that the appellant after hot exchanges went inside his house, brought out fire arm and shot the deceased, demonstrates that the appellant acted in a cruel manner. Ratio indicated in Umrao Singh vs. State of U.P. (supra) is distinguishable, in that case common object of the assembly was not to murder the victims. The incident in that case occurred between members of the Provincial Armed Constabulary and the State Administration. The situation reached a saturation point when 12 members of PAC died. None of the assailants had entertained any previous vengeance towards anyone of the persons killed in the action. 11. Learned Senior Counsel also canvassed that failure of the prosecution to send the pellets for examination by a ballistic expert was fatal to the prosecution case. We also do not agree with this contention. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Mast Ram, 2004(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 694 : AIR 2004 SC 5056 the Apex Court observed thus : (para 7) “Thirdly, the High Court was of the view that during the course of post-mortem examination conducted by PW-2 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mahajan, two pellets were recovered-one each from the right and left lung of the deceased, which were handed over to the police. However, the pellets recovered were never sent for examination to a ballistic expert in order to find out if such pellets were fired from the gun (Ex.P-11) or not. Sanjay Kumar Mahajan, two pellets were recovered-one each from the right and left lung of the deceased, which were handed over to the police. However, the pellets recovered were never sent for examination to a ballistic expert in order to find out if such pellets were fired from the gun (Ex.P-11) or not. According to the High Court, failure of the prosecution to send the pellets for examination by a ballistic expert will draw an interference against the credibility of the prosecution story. This finding in our view, is utterly perverse. It is not the requirement of law that pellets recovered from the body be sent to ballistic expert to determine as to whether the pellets were fired from the exhibited gun or not. On the contrary, the recovery of pellets from the body clearly establishes the prosecution case that the deceased died of gun shot injuries.” 12. In the conclusion we may note that there is overwhelming evidence to establish charges under Sec. 302 IPC and 3/27 Arms Act against the appellant. Viewed from any angle we find no ground for interference with the judgment of learned trial Court. 13. For these reasons the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.