Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 285 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-13

JORA SINGH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2010
Judgment SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Appellant Vijay Kumar was tried by Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on the charge under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his real brother Sukhdev Singh and causing injury to his nephew Raju, and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.8.2001, which are under appeal. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec.302 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo RI for six months. He was further convicted under Sec.324 IPC and sentenced to undergo ri for two years. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. As per the prosecution version, the occurrence had taken place at 12.00 midnight on 8/9.10.1997 in the court-yard of the house of deceased Sukhdev Singh, which was situated in front of the house of the accused. In this case, the FIR was registered on 9.10.1997 at 11.10/11.50 am on the basis of the statement of injured Raju (PW8) made to ASI Satish chander in the hospital at 10.30 a. m. In his statement (Ex. PO), he had stated that they were three brothers and one sister. During the night of 8/9.10.1997, they along with their mother Asha Rani and father Sukhdev Singh were sleeping in their house. At about 12 midnight, something struck against the door of their house with force. Due to the sound created by the door, all of them woke up. His father opened the door. They saw that his uncle Vijay Kumar, who was residing in front of their house, was standing in front of the door holding a dattar in his hands. He was saying that he would teach a lesson to them for playing Black Art (Jadoo Tona) and started abusing them. When his father asked vijay Kumar not to utter abuses and said to him to go to his house, then Vijay kumar gave a Dattar blow on the person of his father. When his father raised his right hand to ward-off the blow, the Dattar hit on the right hand of his father. Then Vijay Kumar gave another Dattar blow on the person of his father which hit on the left side of his head. When his father raised his right hand to ward-off the blow, the Dattar hit on the right hand of his father. Then Vijay Kumar gave another Dattar blow on the person of his father which hit on the left side of his head. Thereupon, he and his other family members raised alarm, and when he stepped forward to save his father, then vijay Kumar gave a Dattar blow on his person which hit on the left side of his forehead above the eyebrow. They raised alarm mar ditta, Mar ditta. On hearing their voice, many people gathered there. His uncle Vijay Kumar ran away from the spot along with Dattar. Thereafter, they arranged the conveyance and carried their father to Civil Hospital, Pathankot where doctor medically examined them. On the basis of the said statement, FIR No.44 of 1997 was registered under Sections 326 and 324 IPC. 2. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 9.10.1997 at about 1.55 AM, Dr. Satinder Singh Bedi, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, pathankot medico legally examined Sukhdev Singh and Raju. On the body of sukhdev Singh, he found the following two injuries:- "1. An incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep with fracture of the underlying bone, on left side of the skull, with brain matter coming out of the wound. Injury was kept under surgical opinion. 2. Incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm with underlying vessels and tendons cut on the right hand. " On the body of Raju son of Sukhdev Singh, who was medico legally examined on the same date at 2.00 am, the following one injury was found:- "an incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm on the left side of the forehead, just above the left eye brow. Fresh bleeding was present. " 3. Doctor sent VT message to the police with regard to admission of the aforesaid two injured in the hospital. On receiving the said message, satish Chander ASI reached the hospital. He was handed over two medico legal reports of Sukhdev Singh (Ex. PA) and Raju (Ex. PD ). Thereafter, he moved applications Ex. PW and Ex. PX to get the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Sukhdev Singh was declared unfit to make the statement vide opinion Ex. PW/1 while Raju was declared fit to make statement vide Ex. PX/1. PA) and Raju (Ex. PD ). Thereafter, he moved applications Ex. PW and Ex. PX to get the opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Sukhdev Singh was declared unfit to make the statement vide opinion Ex. PW/1 while Raju was declared fit to make statement vide Ex. PX/1. Thereafter, the aforesaid statement of Raju (Ex. PT) was recorded, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. Blood stained clothes of the injured and deceased were taken into possession by the police. 4. Initially the case was registered under Sections 326 and 324 ipc. Subsequently, on the basis of the opinion of the doctor that injury No.1 on the body of the deceased was dangerous to life, the offence under Sec.307 IPC was added on 10.10.1997. On 12.10.1997, sukhdev Singh had died in the hospital due to the injuries suffered by him. Thereupon, the offence under Sec.302 IPC was added. After preparing the inquest report, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. PW2-Dr. Jaspal Kaur conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of sukhdev Singh on 13.10.1997. She found the following two injuries on the dead body of Sukhdev Singh:- "1. On opening of the stiches, cut quite deep. Underlying bone was cut. Brain matter damaged. Blood was present. 2.10 cm x 1 cm on palmer aspect extending between index and middle finger. On opening its stiches, underlying vessels and tendons were cut. Rigor mortis was present. " 5. In her opinion, the cause of death was injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On the request of the police, she opined that injury No.1 could possibly be caused with sharp edged weapon like datar. 6. During investigation, on 27.10.1997, the accused was arrested by SI yash Pal (PW13 ). On his disclosure statement (Ex. PS/1), one Dattar (Ex. P1), which was stained with blood, was recovered at his instance under the heap of paddy straw lying in the court-yard of his house. The said Dattar was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PZ ). After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the accused. He was charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. PW1-Dr. The said Dattar was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PZ ). After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against the accused. He was charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. PW1-Dr. Satinder Singh Bedi, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Pathankot in his examination-in-chief stated that he admitted Sukhdev Singh in the hospital vide bed Head Ticket No.3159-98 (Ex. PE) and medico-legally examined deceased Sukhdev singh and injured Raju on 9.10.1997 at 1.55 AM and 2.00 AM, respectively, and proved the medico legal reports Ex. PA and Ex. PD. He declared injury No.1 on the body of the deceased as dangerous to life whereas injury No.2 was declared as grievous in nature. He has specifically denied that injury No.1 could be the result of blunt weapon. In his statement, he categorically stated that both the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and the duration of the injuries was within few hours. He declared injury on the person of Raju as simple in nature, caused by sharp edged weapon. The duration of injury was within few hours. 8. Pw2-dr. Jaspal Kaur proved the post-mortem report (Ex. PG) and as per her opinion the cause of death was injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW3-Ranjit Singh MHC stated that he had received chit (Ex. PM) regarding the death of Sukhdev Singh, who was admitted in the hospital and he had sent the message to P. S. Shahpur Kandi through wireless vide Ex. PN. PW4-HC Sukhdev Singh has deposed that on receiving the message from P. S. Shahpur Kandi for sending the Investigating Officer to civil Hospital, Pathankot, he had accordingly informed the MHC of P. S. Shahpur kandi. The said witness has further deposed that on 12.10.1997 he had received the wireless message regarding the death of Sukhdev Singh. PW5-Amir Chand has deposed that Special Report (Ex. PO), which was handed over to him on 10.10.1997 by MHC Paramjit Kumar, was sent by him to the illaqa Magistrate. PW6-Lakhwinder Singh has proved the blood stained clothes of deceased Sukhdev Singh, which were taken into possession vide Ex. PQ. PW7-Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman has proved the site plan (Ex. PS) of the place of incident. PO), which was handed over to him on 10.10.1997 by MHC Paramjit Kumar, was sent by him to the illaqa Magistrate. PW6-Lakhwinder Singh has proved the blood stained clothes of deceased Sukhdev Singh, which were taken into possession vide Ex. PQ. PW7-Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman has proved the site plan (Ex. PS) of the place of incident. PW8-Raju, injured and his mother Asha Rani (PW12) were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They have fully supported the prosecution story. PW9-Gurdip Singh, Constable has deposed that blood stained clothes were produced by Raju to ASI Satish Kumar, which were taken into possession, after preparing the parcel. PW10-HC Gurmit Singh and PW11-Paramjit Kumar, MHC have proved their affidavits Ex. PR and Ex. PS. The evidence of these witnesses was formal in nature. PW13-SI Yash Pal was the Investigating Officer, who arrested the accused and recovered the Dattar on his disclosure statement. PW14-ASI satish Chander, who initially went to the hospital and registered the FIR and taken into possession the blood stained clothes and blood stained earth, and recorded the statements of the eye witnesses and prepared the inquest report. 9. In his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , the accused pleaded innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated. He took the defence that suman daughter of his brother Sukhdev Singh (deceased) was aged about 20 years. She was having love affair with one Bittu, resident of the same village. Bittu was frequently visiting the house of his brother. But he did not like the relationship between them. He lodged a strong protest about the said affair to his brother Sukhdev Singh and his family members, but they did not pay any heed to his request. On 8.10.1997, all the family members of his brother Sukhdev Singh except Suman had gone to see the Ram Lila. Availing the said opportunity, Bittu had come to the house of his brother sukhdev Singh and was enjoying with Suman. At that time, Sukhdev Singh suddenly came to the house and saw Bittu and Suman in a compromising position. He got furiated and tried to catch hold of Bittu. Then Bittu in his attempt to escape, caused injuries to his brother Sukhdev Singh, as a result of which he had died. At that time, Sukhdev Singh suddenly came to the house and saw Bittu and Suman in a compromising position. He got furiated and tried to catch hold of Bittu. Then Bittu in his attempt to escape, caused injuries to his brother Sukhdev Singh, as a result of which he had died. He further stated that PW8-Raju in connivance with deceased Sukhdev Singh and his mother PW12-Asha Rani falsely implicated him in this case on account of his strained relations with them because of lodging protest against illicit relations between Bittu and Suman and also with an intention to save the honour of the family and future of Suman. It has been further stated by the accused that his brother Sat Pal had also lodged protest many times with his brother sukhdev Singh with regard to the illicit relations of Suman with Bittu. It was further stated that Sat Pal had come at the place of occurrence and seen Bittu causing injuries to his brother Sukhdev Singh. 10. Sat Pal has been examined as DW1 as defence witness. In his statement, he has stated that Suman was having illicit relations with Bittu, who used to come in the house of deceased Sukhdev Singh. He many times protested to his brother about the said relationship. But they did not listen and due to that his relations with Sukhdev Singh became strained. He further stated that on 8.10.1997 all the family members of his brother Sukhdev Singh, except his daughter Suman, had gone to see Ram Lila. He had seen Bittu coming in the house of Sukhdev Singh at about 11.30 PM and at about 12/12.30 AM, sukhdev Singh reached his house. Thereafter he heard raula and reached the house of Sukhdev Singh. He tried to chase bittu, but could not capture him. Bittu was holding some weapon in his hand. Then he went inside the house of his brother Sukhdev Singh where he found sukhdev Singh and his daughter Suman present. Sukhdev Singh was found bleeding from the head. Then he called PW8-Raju from the Ram Lila by sending some person. When all the family members of Sukhdev Singh reached the house, he had taken Sukhdev Singh to the hospital at Pathankot. Sukhdev Singh was found bleeding from the head. Then he called PW8-Raju from the Ram Lila by sending some person. When all the family members of Sukhdev Singh reached the house, he had taken Sukhdev Singh to the hospital at Pathankot. He further stated that Raju had made a false statement to the police falsely implicating Vijay Kumar to be the assailant on account of the enmity between Vijay Kumar and Sukhdev Singh. He stated that Raju had not received any injury as he was not present at the time of the occurrence. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the trial Court convicted appellant Vijay Kumar under Sec.302 IPC for committing murder of Sukhdev Singh and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted under Sec.324 IPC for causing injury to Raju and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 11. Against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant. 12. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the instant case there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and by taking the benefit of the said delay, both the alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Raju and Asha Rani (PW8 and PW 12) have made up the whole story and falsely implicated the appellant in order to save the honour of the family and future of Suman. She argued that it has been established on record that Bittu, who was having illicit relations with Suman and was caught in a compromising position with her, had caused injuries to deceased due to which he had died. Learned counsel further argued that the testimony of these two interested witnesses, on the basis of which the trial Court has convicted the appellant, is highly unreliable, and the same cannot be relied upon in absence of any corroboration from some independent witnesses. Learned counsel further argued that as per the prosecution version, at the time of the alleged occurrence, many persons had gathered at the spot, but the prosecution did not examine any one of those persons, who could have corroborated the version of the above-named two eyewitnesses. Learned counsel further argued that as per the prosecution version, at the time of the alleged occurrence, many persons had gathered at the spot, but the prosecution did not examine any one of those persons, who could have corroborated the version of the above-named two eyewitnesses. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant has proved his defence by examining DW1-Sat Pal, who has categorically stated that the injuries on the deceased Sukhdev Singh were caused by Bittu, who was seen by him at the time of occurrence running away from the spot with Dattar. Learned counsel states that the said witness has also categorically stated that raju (PW8) was not present at the spot and he had called Raju from the Ram Lila by sending some person. The said witness brought the deceased to the hospital. Learned counsel further argued that the alleged motive in this case is very weak. On the basis of the said weak motive and on the statements of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses, the conviction of the appellant for commission of the offence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC is not safe as the prosecution has not proved the alleged offences against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. In the last, learned counsel for the appellant argued that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the injuries were caused to the deceased by the appellant and resulted to the homicidal death of Sukhdev Singh, even then that homicidal death does not amount to murder punishable under Sec.302 IPC. She argued that in the instant case there was no intention to cause the death of Sukhdev Singh, therefore, at the most, the appellant could be punished under Sec.304 Part I IPC. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, we do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, in this case the occurrence had taken place at 12 midnight on 8/9.10.1997 in the court-yard of the house of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time the appellant had caused injuries to Sukhdev Singh and PW8-Raju by Dattar, and the said occurrence was witnessed by injured Raju and other family members of deceased sukhdev Singh, including his wife Asha Rani (PW12 ). It is the case of the prosecution that at that time the appellant had caused injuries to Sukhdev Singh and PW8-Raju by Dattar, and the said occurrence was witnessed by injured Raju and other family members of deceased sukhdev Singh, including his wife Asha Rani (PW12 ). On the other hand, as per the defence version, the injury was caused to the deceased by Bittu and at the time of occurrence only Sukhdev Singh, his daughter Suman and DW1-Sat Pal were present. Bittu was found running away from the house of Sukhdev Singh, who was holding some weapon in his hand. According to DW1-Sat Pal, he had called pw8-Raju and other family members of his brother Sukhdev Singh (deceased) from the Ram Lila and thereafter they brought the deceased to the hospital. 14. Pw1-dr. Satinder Singh Bedi medico-legally examined sukhdev Singh (deceased) on 9.10.1997 at 1.55 AM and found two injuries on his body. On the same date at 2.00 AM, he had also examined Raju and found one injury on his person. It is pertinent to mention here that in the inquest report, the presence of Sat Pal (DW1) was also recorded. It has also come in evidence that after medico-legal examination of the two injured, namely, sukhdev Singh and Raju by Dr. Satinder Singh Bedi, a VT message was sent, upon which the police reached the hospital in the morning of 9.10.1997, obtained the opinion of the doctor about the fitness of the injured to make the statements. Deceased Sukhdev Singh was opined not fit to make the statement whereas injured Raju was opined fit to make the statement and his statement (Ex. PT) was recorded, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. Thus, from the evidence available on the record, we do not find any delay in lodging the FIR. 15. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Special report (Ex. PO), which was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 11.20 AM on 10.10.1997, indicates the delay in lodging the FIR, is without any basis. The special Report was sent on 10.10.1997 to the Illaqa Magistrate when on the basis of the opinion of the doctor, the offence was converted into under section 307 IPC. It is admitted position that the Special Reports are sent to the Illaqa Magistrates in case of serious offences, like murder and bride burning etc. The special Report was sent on 10.10.1997 to the Illaqa Magistrate when on the basis of the opinion of the doctor, the offence was converted into under section 307 IPC. It is admitted position that the Special Reports are sent to the Illaqa Magistrates in case of serious offences, like murder and bride burning etc. Therefore, merely on the fact that Special Report was sent to the illaqa Magistrate on 10.10.1997, it cannot be assumed that there was delay in lodging the FIR and by taking benefit of the said delay, the prosecution version was concocted. Both the eye-witnesses, namely, Raju and Asha Rani (PW8 and PW 12) have fully supported the case of the prosecution. They have proved in their statements the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. Their ocular version is fully corroborated by medical evidence. Going from their statements and other evidence available on the record, we do not find that the statements of these two witnesses are unreliable or untrustworthy. The presence of these two eye-witnesses in the house at midnight of 8/9.10.1997 cannot be doubted. On the other hand, the statement of DW1- Sat Pal that at the time of the alleged occurrence, Raju and Asha Rani (PW8 and PW 12) were not present at the house of Sukhdev Singh (deceased), is wholly untrustworthy and unreliable. The said witness had stated that PW8- Raju came at the spot after the incident from the Ram Lila on his calling. He had also stated that PW8-Raju did not receive any injury at the time of the alleged occurrence and he along with other family members took Sukhdev Singh (deceased)to the hospital where he was examined by the doctor. This part of the statement of this witness makes his entire version as concocted and false. PW1-Dr. Satinder Singh Bedi has categorically stated that on 9.10.1997 at about 1.55 AM he had medico- legally examined Sukhdev Singh (deceased) and noticed two injuries on his body. On the same date, at 2.00 AM, he had medico-legally examined Raju (injured) and found one injury on his body. The said witness has further stated that he had admitted Sukhdev Singh in the hospital vide Bed Head ticket (Ex. PE ). These facts clearly established that the statement made by Sat pal is not correct. On the same date, at 2.00 AM, he had medico-legally examined Raju (injured) and found one injury on his body. The said witness has further stated that he had admitted Sukhdev Singh in the hospital vide Bed Head ticket (Ex. PE ). These facts clearly established that the statement made by Sat pal is not correct. In the instant case, the prosecution has fully established the commission of the alleged offence by the appellant not only by examining two eye-witnesses, namely, Raju and Asha Rani (PW8 and PW 12), but also by placing on record other reliable evidence, i. e. , recovery of the weapon of the offence at the instance of the appellant from the heap of paddy straw lying in the court-yard of his house. In our opinion, only the person, who had concealed that weapon, could have got recovered the same from the hidden place. 16. The medical evidence led by the prosecution clearly establish that the deceased had died due to injury No.1 which was caused by sharp edged weapon and the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It has been established on record that the appellant had caused the injuries to the deceased. The trial Court after considering all this evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no substance in the defence taken by the appellant that the injuries were caused to the deceased by Bittu. Rather the prosecution has fully established that the appellant has caused those injuries to the deceased and Raju by the dattar, which was recovered at his instance from his house. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the finding that the deceased had died due to the injuries suffered by him at the hands of the appellant. In our opinion, the prosecution has fully proved the commission of the offence against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 17. Now the question arises for consideration, as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellant is to be punished under Sec.304 Part I IPC. In our opinion, the prosecution has fully proved the commission of the offence against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 17. Now the question arises for consideration, as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the appellant is to be punished under Sec.304 Part I IPC. Under Sec.304 IPC, there are two kinds of punishments applying to two different situations, firstly, if the act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and secondly, if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both. An accused can be punished under Sec.304 IPC in case culpable homicide does not amount to murder. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since in the instant case there was no intention to cause death or such bodily injury to the deceased, therefore, the instant case is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the same is punishable under Sec.304 IPC. Counsel further argued that the case of the appellant falls under Exception 4 of Sec.300 IPC. Therefore, the case is of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 18. We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the instant case is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place in the midnight of 8/9.10.1997 when the deceased was in his house. The accused came at the door of the house of the deceased, knocked the door and raised voice that he would teach a lesson to them for playing Black Art (Jadoo Tona ). When the deceased opened the door of his house, the appellant, who was armed with a deadly weapon in his hand, attacked the deceased and caused two fatal injuries, one after another, on the hand and the other on the head of the deceased. When the deceased opened the door of his house, the appellant, who was armed with a deadly weapon in his hand, attacked the deceased and caused two fatal injuries, one after another, on the hand and the other on the head of the deceased. When PW8-Raju, son of the deceased, who had tried to stop the appellant, he also gave one dattar blow to him and thereafter he ran away from the spot along with the weapon of the offence. At the time of occurrence, the deceased and injured were empty handed. As per medical evidence, injury No.1, which was caused on the head of the deceased, was opined dangerous to life and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 19. In view of these facts and evidence, in our opinion, the instant case clearly falls under the definition of murder as defined in Clauses secondly and Thirdly of Sec.300 IPC. The appellant had intentionally caused bodily injury to the deceased with the knowledge that such injury would likely to cause death of the deceased. Injury No.1 inflicted by the appellant on the head of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In our opinion, the case of the appellant does not fall in any of the Exceptions provided under Sec.300 ipc. However, the learned counsel argued that the case of the appellant falls under Exception 4 of Sec.300 IPC, which provides that "culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. " In our opinion, in the facts and circumstance of the case, neither it can be said that the culpable homicide was committed without any premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel nor it can be held that the appellant had not taken any advantage of the situation. In Bhangaru Venkata Rao V/s. State of andhra Pradesh, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 452, the Honble Supreme Court has held that in order to bring a case within Exception 4 of Sec.300 IPC, the aforesaid ingredients must be found. But in the instant case, the aforesaid ingredients are missing. In Bhangaru Venkata Rao V/s. State of andhra Pradesh, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 452, the Honble Supreme Court has held that in order to bring a case within Exception 4 of Sec.300 IPC, the aforesaid ingredients must be found. But in the instant case, the aforesaid ingredients are missing. In Ramkishan V/s. The State of Maharashtra, 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 614 it was held by the Supreme Court that if the accused used deadly weapons against the unarmed man and struck a blow on the head it must be held that using the blow with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, he had taken undue advantage. In the instant case also, without there being any provocation, the appellant, who was armed with Dattar, caused two fatal injuries, one after another, on the hand and the other on the head of the deceased. He had also caused one injury to the injured witness Raju. Undisputedly, the deceased and eye- witness Raju were having no arms at the time of the occurrence. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation and acted in an unusual manner. Therefore, the case of the appellant does not fall in Exception 4 of Sec.300 IPC and the same clearly falls under Section 300 Firstly and Secondly. In our opinion, the trial Court has rightly convicted and punished the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 21. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.