JUDGMENT Saksena J. -- 1. Appellant Vijay Gupta has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-, for causing the murder of his wife Lalitabai, by the impugned judgment dated 30.11.1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 122/1997 by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. 2. According to the prosecution case, on 23.6.1996 at 3.10 a.m., PW 1 Batsiya Bai, mother of appellant, lodged the report at Police Station Hanuman Tal that for last three days an altercation over some domestic matters was going on between her son Vijay and daughter-in-law Lalitabai. A day before the incident, quarrel was pacified. In the night intervening between 22nd and 23rd June, 1996 at about 2:00 a.m., again a hot altercation between them erupted and suddenly, Vijay dealt a blow by hammer on the head of Lalitabai. Lalitabai started squirming and became unconscious. Blood was oozing out from her head, ear and nose. Vijay then ran away from the house. On her raising hue and cry, neighbours Subhash Gupta, Madan Gupta and other persons came to her house to whom she narrated the occurrence. Lalitabai was lying unconscious in the house. 3. On the aforesaid report, Station Officer Girish Bohre (PW 13) reached at the house of Batsiya Bai (PW 1) and sent Lalitabai to the Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur, where she succumbed to injuries. Her dead body was then sent for post mortem examination to the Medical College, Jabalpur. Dr. A.K. Yadu performed the post mortem examination. He found haematoma on the right parieto temporal region of her scalp, measuring 4 x 3 1/2 x 1 inches and a swelling red and blue around the eye. On internal examination, he also found bood below the scalp in the right parieto temporal scalp region. There was depressed fracture of lower part of the parietal bone. Size of the fracture was 3 x 1/2 x 1/2 inches and bones were in four small irregular pieces. A fracture on the right middle cranial fossa transverse measuring four inch long, was also found. There was subdural haematoma all around the right half of the brain. Brain inside the right temporal region was depressed for one inch below the fracture. A fracture on the right middle cranial fossa transverse measuring four inch long, was also found. There was subdural haematoma all around the right half of the brain. Brain inside the right temporal region was depressed for one inch below the fracture. In his opinion, the injuries were antemortem in nature and were caused by the hard and blunt object and death was caused by head injuries, which were homicidal and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 4. During the trial, prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined Batsiya Bai (PW 1), Rakhi (PW 4) and Bablu (PW 10). For corroboration of evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, prosecution further examined Subhash Gupta (PW 2) and Madan Gupta (PW 9), who allegedly reached at the house of appellant soon after the" occurrence. Defence of the appellant was that of false implication due to family feud. Halfheartedly it was also suggested by the defence that Lalitabai had died by the accidental fall of the rafter of the thatched roof. Two witnesses Guddan Singh (DW 1) and Kishanlal (DW 2) were also examined in defence. However, relying upon the evidence of Bablu (PW 10), Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW 6) and Girish Bohre (PW 13) Investigating Officer, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 5. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirlwn v. State of Maharashtra [ (2006) 10 SCC 681 ] has again approved the well settled principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In this case the Supreme Court has also held that where a husband is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the husband also normally resided and if the husband does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it was a strong circumstance pointing that he alone was responsible for the commission of crime. 6. 6. In the present case, the appellant has not disputed that the deceased was his wife and they were living together in the same house. He, however, took a defence that he was falsely implicated because of the family feud. He also led the evidence in defence to the effect that in the night of 22nd June, 1996 there had been a programme of "Kirtan" at the house of Guddan Singh (DW 1) and he was present there right from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. of 23rd June, 1996 and that somebody had informed them that the roof of "Machan" had fallen on Lalitabai who was sleeping underneath. They all had gone to the house of appellant and had taken out Lalitabai from there. She had suffered injuries on her head. Though these suggestions were given to Bablu (PW 10) in cross-examination, however, no question was put to the Investigating Officer Girish Bohre (PW 13) who had prepared the spot map and had carried out the inquest proceedings. Girish Bohre (PW 13), on the other hand, testified that when he reached at the spot, he found a bloodstained hammer on the spot. He seized a pillow, a towel and a quilt, which were stained with blood. Dr. A.K. Yadu (PW 6) who performed the post mortem examination of the dead body of Lalitabai categorically stated that the injuries found on her body were possible by the hammer which was sent to him by the police for examination. He had given his report (Exhibit p-10) in this regard. He also deposed that the injuries were homicidal in nature. In view of the above evidence, we are of the opinion that the explanation given by the appellant is false, especially when he did not give the aforesaid explanation in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The fact that the appellant was present in his house at the time of occurrence and had caused the death of Lalitabai has been established by the evidence of Bablu (PW 10) who has testified that he was present in the house of Lalitabai who was his sister. According to him, in the fateful night the appellant had dealt a blow with a hammer on the head of his sister, whereupon she had cried "mar dala, mar dala". Thereafter, the appellant had run away. According to him, in the fateful night the appellant had dealt a blow with a hammer on the head of his sister, whereupon she had cried "mar dala, mar dala". Thereafter, the appellant had run away. Though this witness happened to be young boy of about 12 years of age, but he stood the test of cross-examination without being deviated in any manner. On careful scanning of his evidence, we are satisfied that his testimony is trustworthy. None of the prosecution witness has deposed that in the night of occurrence this witness was not in the house. 8. Rakhi (PW 4), the daughter of the appellant, did not support the prosecution case. She was declared hostile. However, in cross-examination, in the context of presence of appellant in the night, she admitted that her father had gone out of the house in perplexity. Subhash Gupta (PW 2), though did not support the prosecution at the trial, yet admitted that his house is adjacent to the house of appellant and in the night of incident, he had heard cries "mar diya, mar diya" from the house of appellant. He and several other neighbours had reached at the house of appellant. In these circumstances, we are convinced that the appellant, at the time of occurrence, was present in his house and that Lalitabai had met with a homicidal death in the house. It has been clearly established that it was the appellant only who had caused her death. 9. Though Batsiya Bai (PW 1), mother of appellant, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, however, she happened to be the first person who went to police and lodged the first information report (Exhibit P-l) soon after the incident. On perusal of the first information report, it emerges that on the night of occurrence there had occurred a sudden quarrel between Lalitabai and appellant, in the course of which on the spur of the moment and in the heat of passion, without premeditation the appellant suddenly dealt one blow of the hammer on the head of Lalitabai, which resulted into her death. 10. In Muthu v. State [ AIR 2008 SC 1 ] the apex Court observed that, no doubt, even in the heat of the moment or fit of anger one should not attack somebody since human beings are different from animals inasmuch as they have the power of self-control. 10. In Muthu v. State [ AIR 2008 SC 1 ] the apex Court observed that, no doubt, even in the heat of the moment or fit of anger one should not attack somebody since human beings are different from animals inasmuch as they have the power of self-control. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the heat of the moment and in a fit of anger people some times do acts which may not have been done after premeditation. Hence the law provides that while those who commit acts in the heat of the moment or fit of anger should also be punished, their punishment should be lesser than that of premeditated offences. It is for this reason that Exceptions 1 and 4 have been inserted in section 300, IPC. 11. In our opinion, Exception 4 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly attracted in the circumstances of the present case and the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, since, the appellant dealt the blow by the hammer on the head of Lalitabai with such a force that bones of her skull were broken into several pieces, we are of the opinion that the appellant had assaulted Lalitabai with an intention of causing her death or at least causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause her death, making him liable to be punished under Part I of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. For the reasons given above, conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and his sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- is substituted by the sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. The period of incarceration in jail which the appellant had already undergone, shall be adjusted in the aforesaid sentence of 10 years. If the appellant has undergone the full sentence of 10 years, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The judgment of the Court below is modified accordingly. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.