JUDGMENT By Court.-The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to life imprisonment by the impugned judgment passed in S.T. No. 66 of 2001. 2. The prosecution was initiated on the fardbeyan of Punam Devi, P.W. 3 who happens to be the elder sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant Kunj Bihari Singh @ Langra had quarrel over a 'Gulel' (a kind of toy used for pelting stone sometime for hunting small birds). The allegation is that the deceased possessed the said gulel, whereas the accused-appellant claimed that it was his gulel. After the quarrel, when the deceased did not handover gulel to him, the appellant defied him to come to. his home and on that provocation the deceased and his brother went to the house of accused-appellant. Then accused-appellant brought farsa from his house and assaulted the deceased with farsa on his neck from behind. The deceased sustained serious cut injury on his neck, as a result, Banarasi Singh fell down. The informant rushed there and served water, thereafter Banarasi Singh died. Some villagers assembled and tried to chase the accused-appellant, but, they could not succeed. 4. On the basis of said fardbeyan formal F.I.R. was drawn. The case was investigated and on completion, charge-sheet was submitted. On that cognizance was taken by the learned C.J.M. 5. Charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. He was put on trial. 6. Prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused-appellant, altogether examined 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Lalmani Singh is a villager. He was produced as a witness, but declared hostile. P.W. 2-Ram Sewak Singh is also a villager. He has formally proved the seizure list (Ext.-1 and Ext.-1/A). P.W. 3-Punam Devi is the informant. P.W. 4-Joginder Singh is the younger brother of deceased who had been produced as eye witness. P.W. 5-Upendra Singh and P.W. 6Gangeshwar Singh are also co-villagers who were produced by the prosecution,' but they turned hostile. P.W. 7-Kamlapati Singh and P.W. 8-Binay Singh are the co villagers. They had gone to the place of occurrence just after the occurrence, P.W. 9-Girbar Singh is a seizure list witness. P.W. 5-Upendra Singh and P.W. 6Gangeshwar Singh are also co-villagers who were produced by the prosecution,' but they turned hostile. P.W. 7-Kamlapati Singh and P.W. 8-Binay Singh are the co villagers. They had gone to the place of occurrence just after the occurrence, P.W. 9-Girbar Singh is a seizure list witness. P.W. 10-Doctor Dilip Kumar had proved the post mortem report prepared by the Doctor Surendra Kumar Singh, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body, but. he could not come to court, as he had been taking treatment in Delhi for the injury sustained by him in a road accident. One Maheshwar Paswan has also been examined as prosecution witness and he has been also numbered as P .W. 10. He has formally proved fardbeyan Ext.-4. 7. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied to have committed any offence and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to enmity. 8. Learned trial court do conclusion of the trial held the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of material on. record. Trial Court relied on the depositions of P.W. 3, (Informant) and P.W. 4 Joginder Singh (eye witness) coupled with the medical evidence for which reliance has been placed on the post mortem report (Ext.-3). He found that P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 have also proved a part of occurrence which served as corroboration to the prosecution case. Learned court below on the basis of said evidence has held the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of court below and submitted that there is no sufficient evidence on record to legally support the judgment and conviction of the appellant. Investigating Officer had not been examined which has caused serious prejudice to the defence. In absence of Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence, inquest report and other contradictions could not be ascertained. The defence could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer on such vital points. The Doctor who conducted post mortem has also not been examined and in his absence, the post mortem report cannot be said to be legally proved. Same is not reliable evidence to corroborate the ocular evidences. The defence could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer on such vital points. The Doctor who conducted post mortem has also not been examined and in his absence, the post mortem report cannot be said to be legally proved. Same is not reliable evidence to corroborate the ocular evidences. Learned counsel submitted that it has come in the prosecution evidence that appellant is a disabled person. He is lame, whereas the deceased was fully grown healthy boy. He was said to accompany with his brother P.W. 4 and it is wholly unbelievable that the appellant will be able to inflict such a grievous injury causing death of Banarasi Singh. P.W. 3-Punam Devi and P.W. 4-Joginder Singh are the Bhabhi and brother of the deceased respectively, are highly interested witnesses and their testimonies are not reliable. There is absence of any corroboration by the independent witnesses. The villagers who are named as independent witness were either declared hostile or are hearsay witness. There is no independent evidence on record to support the prosecution version. learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise it is manifest from . the prosecution case that there was no pre-plan and intention to commit murder of the deceased. If the prosecution case is taken as true, his version gives a picture that there was sudden quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and both of them are of same age group (above 14 years). After the quarrel the accused-appellant entered into his house. The deceased followed him and the accused-appellant said to have given single farsa blow. learned counsel submitted that there is complete absence of mens rea in causing homicide of the deceased. In that view, the case at best falls within Exception 4 of Section 300 which does not amount to murder. The appellant is adolescent and he has remained in custody for about 9 years and he has been sufficiently punished. 10. learned APP on the other .hand submitted that there is clear case of causing death by the appellant. The case has been fully proved by the two eye witnesses P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. It is admitted fact that there was no enmity between the parties and as such there is no substance in the submission of other side that the evidence of P.W. 3and P.W. 4 are worth-less, as they are interested witness. The case has been fully proved by the two eye witnesses P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. It is admitted fact that there was no enmity between the parties and as such there is no substance in the submission of other side that the evidence of P.W. 3and P.W. 4 are worth-less, as they are interested witness. There is no reason for false implication of the accused-appellant by the informant or P.W. 4. They are wholly reliable witness and their testimonies are clear and fully supported by the medical evidence. He further submitted that there is no dispute on question of the place of occurrence. On the inquest report, no prejudice has been caused in absence of Investigating Officer in view of the cogent evidence regarding the same. The Doctor who held post mortem was admitted in Delhi for treatment as such there is sufficient reason on record to show his absence. P.W. 10 is also competent Doctor who had come to prove the post mortem report and fully supported the prosecution case and sufficiently corroborated the oral testimonies of prosecution witness. Learned trial court has thoroughly discussed the evidence on record and has found the appellant guilty of causing homicide of Banarasi Singh. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order of learned trial court. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP, we have thoroughly examined the evidence on record. It is true that some of the villagers such as P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. who have been produced as prosecution witness, turned hostile. We find sufficient evidence in support of the prosecution case from the depositions of P.W. 3-Punam Devi and P.W. 4-Jogindar Singh coupled with post mortem report Ext.-3. We also find that P.W. 2, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have also proved and corroborated the manner of the occurrence and the prosecution case. P.W. 9 Giribar Singh has also supported the prosecution case to the some extent and has also proved his signature on seizure list which was marked as Ext.-1/A. On going through the said evidences on record, we are in agreement with finding of learned trial court. There are sufficient evidences to prove that the death was caused by injuries inflicted by accused-appellant with farsa on the neck of deceased Banarasi Singh. There are sufficient evidences to prove that the death was caused by injuries inflicted by accused-appellant with farsa on the neck of deceased Banarasi Singh. The prosecution has thus been able to prove the culpable homicide of the deceased Banarasi Singh caused by the appellant. However, looking to the other aspect of the appellant which emerged from the admitted position on record and without going into the details of the prosecution evidence, which in our 'opinion, is sufficient to prove the part of homicide caused by the appellant, We find that occurrence took place on sudden quarrel between the two boys of the same age without any pre-meditation or pre-plan. Though the dispute was on a very trifling controversy regarding the possession of gulel (which is a kind of hunting toy generally found in the country side) the incident on such a small thing is unfortunate which resulted in taking away life of Banarasi Singh. We find that the case attracts Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the absence of mens rea and the allegation/evidence of giving single farsa blow by the accused-appellant to Banarasi Singh. Considering the said admitted fact and circumstances, we find that the learned trial court has improperly convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. without taking into consideration the said vital aspect. We are of the considered view that this is a fit case which attracts Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused-appellant is liable for conviction under Section 304 Part-I. 12. We modify the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellant and hold the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I of Indian Penal Code. The appellant, admittedly served imprisonment for about 9 years. His sentence is modified to the extent of period already undergone by the appellant. 13. In the result, we dismiss this s appeal but with the said modification in the conviction and sentence of the appellant. As a consequence the appellant namely Kunj Bihari Singh @ Langra is to be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.