Judgment : (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. The appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon along with five others. The appellant was accused No.1 in Sessions Trial No.19 of 2000. The appellant and original accused Nos. 2 to 6 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of trial, all the accused, except the appellant, were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The appellant was also acquitted of rest of the charges except the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Complainant Yashwant Ganuji Tidke was residing at village Shahapur, Tahsil : Khamgaon, District : Buldana. Pandurang Tidke was brother of the complainant. The complainant had three sons. His brother had four sons i.e. appellant and original accused Nos. 2 to 4. Accused No.5 was mother of the appellant and accused Nos. 2 to 4. Original accused No.6 was wife of original accused No.4. The complainant and family members of his brother were staying in the same locality of the village. Both the family members had agricultural land. There was a dispute over water canal providing water to the field of the complainant and his brother. There used to frequent quarrels over the said issue. 3. Mr. Ashok, son of the complainant, had on 26th December, 1999, tried to take water from the said canal. The appellant and other accused did not permit him to do so and there was a dispute on the said issue. It is alleged that on 26th December, 1999 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant and accused No.4 Ramesh had come to the house of the complainant and had quarreled with the deceased on the ground that deceased Subhash, son of the complainant, had caused damage to the crop of the appellant and his family members. Deceased Subhash (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') tried to convince the appellant and his family members that there was no mistake on his part. Deceased Subhash (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') tried to convince the appellant and his family members that there was no mistake on his part. However, the quarrel did not subside and there was alleged assault on the deceased, his brother Ashok and the complainant by the appellant and other accused. It is alleged that in the said assault the appellant had inflicted an axe blow on head of the deceased. Skull was broken and the deceased had sustained brain injury. The deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Khamgaon where he was declared dead. Injured Ashok was admitted to hospital for treatment. The complainant, father of the deceased and Ashok, rushed to the Police Station and lodged report. The police had registered first information report on the report made by the complainant. The spot of the incident was visited by the police. Inquest panchnama of the dead body was drawn. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. Weapons of assault were recovered during the course of investigation. Blood stained clothes of the injured witnesses and the deceased were seized. The seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyzer. 4. The Medical Officer had reported that the deceased had died due to shock due to injury to vital organ i.e. brain. After receipt of the post mortem report and the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Magistrate. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session for trial of the appellant and other accused according to law. 5. The learned trial Judge had, on 19th April, 2006, framed a charge against the appellant and five other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant and other accused had pleaded not guilty and had claimed to be tried. In all 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to support the charge framed against the appellant and other accused. 6. P.W. 1 is panch witness who was present at the time of spot panchnama. P.W. 2 is doctor who had examined the deceased immediately after his arrival at Khamgaon Hospital. P.W. 3 is panch witness in whose presence clothes of deceased Subhash were seized by the police. 6. P.W. 1 is panch witness who was present at the time of spot panchnama. P.W. 2 is doctor who had examined the deceased immediately after his arrival at Khamgaon Hospital. P.W. 3 is panch witness in whose presence clothes of deceased Subhash were seized by the police. This witness was also present when the appellant had allegedly made a statement before the police that he would show the place where he had kept an axe and when the axe was recovered on the basis of the statement made by the appellant. P.W. 4 is grandson of the complainant. P.W. 5 is resident of the same locality. P.W. 11 is complainant and P.W. 12 is son of the complainant. 7. During the course of arguments it was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned Advocate Mr. Daga that the whole case of the prosecution was based on the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 11 and 12. The cause of death does not appear to be disputed seriously. Learned Advocate Mr. Daga has submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 11 and 12 clearly show that there was a quarrel and that the deceased had sustained injuries during the said quarrel. It is submitted by Mr. Daga that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to establish that it was the appellant who had inflicted a blow on head of the deceased. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 11 and 12 is at variance in material particulars. Mr.Daga has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error inasmuch as the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5 11 and 12 indicated that there was a quarrel and that the evidence of P.W.13 Investigating Officer clearly showed that the appellant and accused No.3 Devidas and accused No.4 Ramesh were also sent to hospital for medical examination on the same day i.e. on 27th December, 1999. It is admitted by the Investigating Officer that the injury reports of the appellant and other accused were not annexed to the chargesheet. It is further admitted by the Investigating Officer P.W. 13 that when the appellant and other accused had visited police station they were also in injured condition. The Investigating Officer did not make any inquiry as to how did the appellant and other accused sustain injuries. It is further admitted by the Investigating Officer P.W. 13 that when the appellant and other accused had visited police station they were also in injured condition. The Investigating Officer did not make any inquiry as to how did the appellant and other accused sustain injuries. He has, however, denied that the appellant and other accused had made a complaint and that the said complaint was not inquired into by the police. It is, therefore, contention of Mr. Daga that the Investigating Officer and witnesses have suppressed material facts while giving evidence before the trial Court. According to him, suppression of material facts by the eyewitnesses and the Investigating Officer vitiate their evidence to such an extent that it needs to be rejected in toto. Mr. Daga has submitted that the learned trial Court should have taken note of the admissions made by the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination and should have rejected the evidence of P.Ws.4,5, 11 and 12. 8. Mr. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that despite certain discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and certain mistakes committed by the investigating officer, fact remains that there is a cogent, reliable and unambiguous evidence to establish that the appellant Suresh was holding an axe and had inflicted a blow on head of the deceased. Mr. Pathan has submitted that suppression of certain facts by the Investigating Officer or alleged refusal on his part to take cognizance of the complaint of the appellant and others would not vitiate the prosecution evidence that the appellant had inflicted an axe blow on the deceased. 9. To appreciate the arguments of both the sides it would be necessary to briefly state the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 11 and 12. P.W. 4 was grandson of the complainant. He was aged about 12 to 13 years on the date of the incident. His age on the date of recording the evidence was 19 years. He had gone to school on 27th December, 1999 and had returned at about 6.00 p.m. It is stated by this witness that original accused No.4 Ramesh and appellant had come to the house of the complainant and wanted to know whereabouts of father of P.W.4. P.W. 4 told them that his father Ashok had gone to answer call of nature. P.W. 4 told them that his father Ashok had gone to answer call of nature. Though father of P.W. 4 was not available at home, deceased Subhash was available. The appellant and original accused No.4 Ramesh had a quarrel with the deceased. They caught hold of collar of the deceased and dragged him to a village road. Accused No. 4 Ramesh called for sticks and axe. It is stated by this witness that original accused No.2 Kailash and 3 Devidas responded to the call of accused No.4 Ramesh and they brought sticks and axe. The deceased had already fallen down due to dragging. It is stated by this witness that the appellant had inflicted a blow on head of the deceased by means of the axe brought by original accused Nos. 2 and 3. 10. Father of P.W. 4, Mr. Ashok who has been examined as P.W. 12, has stated that he had gone to answer call of nature on 27th December, 1999. When he returned home, he found that accused No.4 Ramesh and appellant were dragging Subhash to village road. Many people had gathered on the spot. Accused No.4 Ramesh and accused No.2 Kailash were holding sticks. The appellant was seen armed with an axe. It is stated by this witness that the appellant had suddenly inflicted an axe blow on head of the deceased. Mother and wife of P.W. 12 Ashok had intervened but they were also assaulted. P.W. 12 ran towards the bus stop apprehending danger to his life. After some time he returned home and found that a jeep was parked in front of their house. Subhash was found dead. He was taken to hospital at Khamgaon. P.W.12 was admitted in hospital because he had also sustained injuries and deceased Subhash was declared dead. P.W.12 was discharged on next day. 11. P.W. 11 complainant has stated that accused No.4 Ramesh and appellant had visited their house on 27th December, 1999 at about 6.00 p.m. and had complained that deceased Subhash and P.W. 12 Ashok had caused damage to their crop. Thereafter accused No.4 Ramesh and appellant started abusing deceased Subhash and his brother Ashok. It is further stated by this witness that the appellant suddenly inflicted an axe blow on the head of deceased Subhash. Subhash had fallen down. P.W.11 had attempted to intervene. His son Ashok had, however, run away from the spot. Thereafter accused No.4 Ramesh and appellant started abusing deceased Subhash and his brother Ashok. It is further stated by this witness that the appellant suddenly inflicted an axe blow on the head of deceased Subhash. Subhash had fallen down. P.W.11 had attempted to intervene. His son Ashok had, however, run away from the spot. While P.W. 11 was intervening with a view to save his son, accused No.2 Kailash and accused No.3 Devidas had inflicted stick blow on the head of P.W. 11. Wife of P.W. 11 was also assaulted by accused Nos. 2 and 3. In the meantime, many villagers gathered on the spot. Some of the villagers managed to bring a jeep on the spot. Deceased Subhash and his brother injured Ashok were taken to Khamgaon Hospital. Subhash was declared dead. P.W.11 thereafter went to Khamgaon Rural Police Station and lodged report Exh.84. Police registered first information report Exh.85. 12. P.W. 5 Devidas has stated that on 27th December, 1999 at about 6.00 to 6.30p.m. he was proceeding to his field. He had seen that quarrel was going on between the appellant and his brothers Ramesh and Kailash on one hand and deceased Subhash and his family members on the other hand. The dispute was regarding the canal water. It is further stated by this witness that while the dispute was going on, accused Kailash and Devidas brought an axe and stick from their house. The appellant took axe from his brother and inflicted a blow on head of the deceased. It is further stated by this witness that when P.W. 12 attempted to intervene, he was also assaulted by accused No.4 by means of a stone. P.W. 5 went home and brought a jeep of his brother Bhagwandas. Deceased Subhash and injured Ashok were removed to Khamgaon Government Hospital. 13. We have gone through the cross-examination of these four witnesses. As far as cross-examination of P.W. 4 is concerned, we do not find anything in the cross-examination of this witness which may create doubt about genuineness of his evidence. The cross-examination appears to have been directed to the peripheral issues and not to the dispute in question. 13. We have gone through the cross-examination of these four witnesses. As far as cross-examination of P.W. 4 is concerned, we do not find anything in the cross-examination of this witness which may create doubt about genuineness of his evidence. The cross-examination appears to have been directed to the peripheral issues and not to the dispute in question. As far as cross-examination of P.W. 5 is concerned, it was attempted to bring on record that there was a quarrel and in the said quarrel accused No.4 Ramesh and appellant Suresh had also sustained injuries and they were also taken to the hospital. In the cross-examination of P.W.11 also it is attempted to bring on record that the appellant and other accused had received injuries in the incident and they had gone to hospital prior to reaching of deceased and P.W.4 Ashok to the same hospital. Cross-examination of P.W. 12 is also on the same line. It is not necessary to refer to the cross-examination of P.Ws. 4, 5, 11 and 12 as P.W. 13 Investigating Officer himself has admitted in the cross-examination that the appellant and accused had come to Police Station and they had also sustained injuries. It has also come in the evidence of P.W. 13 that the appellant and accused were referred to hospital for medical examination. The injury reports had not been annexed to the chargesheet. At this stage it may be stated here that it was not necessary on the part of the investigating agency to annex injury reports of the appellants and other accused to the chargesheet. The prosecution did not want to rely upon those documents and therefore, probably they might not have annexed the medical certificates of the appellant and other accused to the chargesheet. Moreover, it is also not brought on record as to what was the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant and the accused. The accused have not spoken anything in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to the nature of injuries allegedly sustained by them during the alleged quarrel. Apart from this, it is also not stated in their statements that there was a quarrel and they had sustained injuries during the quarrel. The appellants have taken the defence of total denial. 14. Learned Advocate Mr. Apart from this, it is also not stated in their statements that there was a quarrel and they had sustained injuries during the quarrel. The appellants have taken the defence of total denial. 14. Learned Advocate Mr. Daga has submitted that though the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not raise any specific defence, the cross-examination of witnesses clearly indicate that the appellant had acted in private defence. It is submitted by Mr. Daga that, if at all this Court comes to a conclusion that the axe blow was inflicted by the appellant this Court may also consider the cross-examination of witnesses and the admission on the part of P.W. 13. Mr. Daga has submitted that the admissions given by P.W. 13 clearly show that the appellant and other accused were also injured. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the appellant can claim right to private defence. 15. We have minutely examined the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 11 and 12 and also P.W. 13 and have given our anxious consideration to the arguments submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Daga on behalf of the appellant. We do not find any material on record to show that the appellant had acted in private defence. The cross-examination is lacking in this regard. There is no material in the cross-examination to indicate that the deceased and his family members were aggressors and that the appellant and other accused had threat and that appellant had dealt an axe blow to the deceased to save either himself or other accused. 16. However, we accept the contention of the learned Advocate Mr. Daga that the offence was not premeditated and that the assault was committed during the course of sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion. Mr. Daga has submitted that the appellant has not taken any undue advantage or had not acted in cruel or unusual manner. It was pointed out that only one axe blow was sustained by the deceased. It was submitted that had the appellant intended to kill the deceased he would have inflicted successive blows on the head of the deceased. Mr. Daga has invited our attention to the evidence of P.W. 5 Devidas Tidke who has stated that the axe was brought by accused No.2 Kailash and accused No.3 Devidas. It was submitted that had the appellant intended to kill the deceased he would have inflicted successive blows on the head of the deceased. Mr. Daga has invited our attention to the evidence of P.W. 5 Devidas Tidke who has stated that the axe was brought by accused No.2 Kailash and accused No.3 Devidas. He has also invited our attention to the evidence of P.W. 4 who has stated that accused No.3 had given a call to his brothers to bring sticks and an axe. Mr. Daga has submitted that in view of this evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 it is clear that the appellant had not come to the scene of offence armed with an axe. The appellant had also not called for axe or any other weapon to be given to him. Original accused No.4 Ramesh asked his brothers to bring axe and original accused Nos. 2 and 3 had brought the axe and sticks. It clearly shows that the appellant had no intention at all of any nature to cause any serious injury to the deceased. The circumstances clearly indicate that during the course of sudden fight and in heat of passion when the axe came in the hands of the appellant he had inflicted a single blow on head of the deceased without acting in any cruel manner. Mr. Daga has contended that this material is sufficient enough to bring the case of the appellant within exception (4) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that though the appellant had intended to cause injury to the deceased by means of an axe and though the injury is stated to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature, the appellant had committed the act in the circumstances mentioned in exception (4) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. After having gone through the evidence of all the eyewitnesses and after having heard learned counsel Mr. Daga and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pathan, we are of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there was no premeditation and that there was a sudden fight. The injury was inflicted by the appellant in a sudden quarrel in heat of passion without taking undue advantage and without acting in a cruel manner. Daga and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pathan, we are of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that there was no premeditation and that there was a sudden fight. The injury was inflicted by the appellant in a sudden quarrel in heat of passion without taking undue advantage and without acting in a cruel manner. The appellant has a clear case to claim benefit of exception (4) to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. In view of what has been stated by us herein above, it follows that the appeal will have to be allowed partly and conviction of the appellant will have to be converted from Section 302 to 304I of the Indian Penal Code. 19. As far as sentence is concerned, we have heard learned counsel Mr. Daga and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pathan. We have also considered the circumstances in which the offence was committed. There are mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant. It has come amply on record that the appellant's brothers were also injured and there was a quarrel between two groups. It has also come on record that there was a dispute over the canal water. The appellant as well as the complainant belong to farmers' families. The appellant does not have any criminal background. In these circumstances, imprisonment of seven years and fine imposed by the learned trial Court, in our view, will serve the ends of justice. Hence, we pass the following order. 20. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence for imprisonment for life is hereby quashed and set aside and instead the appellant is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court i.e. fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months is hereby maintained.