JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. This jail criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-10-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1998 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 324, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324, IPC with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Gulbadan Majhi (father of the deceased Krushna Majhi) and accused-appellant Mansudan Majhi are two brothers. On 06-11-1997 evening the deceased and his father Gulbadan cut the ridge (Adi) separating their lands and the lands of accused Mansudan and discharged water from the lands of Mansudan to their own lands, for which there was dispute at the agricultural fields. Later, at about 9.30 p.m. when the deceased and his father were returning from the agricultural lands, accused-appellant and his wife Asarti Majhi (since acquitted) confronted them being armed with a Falsia (axe) and accused-appellant Mansudan Majhi assaulted the deceased by means of an axe on his head, as a result of which the deceased died at the spot. Accused Mansudan also assaulted the father of the deceased by means of the said axe. Asmati Majhi, wife of Gulbadan Majhi and her daughter-in-law Sukanti Majhi went to the spot to rescue the injured and the deceased, but accused appellant Mansudan pushed Sukanti, for which she sustained injury, and the other accused, i.e. Asrati Majhi assaulted Asmati by means of a lathi. After the occurrence, accused Mansudan and his wife-Asrati fled away from the village. On the next day, the Ward Member of the village (P.W. 4) reported the matter before the OIC, Talsara Police Station, who registered P.S. Case No. 65 of 1997 and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he examined the informant and other witnesses proceed to the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, seized the incriminating articles, sent the injured Asmati and Sukanti to Balisankara PHC and also sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. While in custody accused Mansudan revealed about the concealment of the weapon of offence, i.e. axe in the house of his father-in-law at village Didiga. While in custody accused Mansudan revealed about the concealment of the weapon of offence, i.e. axe in the house of his father-in-law at village Didiga. The I. O. seized the weapon of offence and also the wearing apparels of the accused persons and the deceased and sent all the material objects for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant and his wife-Asrati for commission of offences under Sections 341/302/323/324/34, IPC. 3. The plea of the defence was of complete denial of the prosecution case. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges, examined as many as 15 witnesses including the I.O. and two doctors and exhibited as many as twenty documents. Defence examined none. 5. The learned Sessions Judge on conclusion of trial acquitted co-acused Asarti Majhi of all the charges. He, however, convicted and sentenced the present appellant as already indicated hereinbefore taking into consideration the eye-witness account of the father of the deceased P.W.6, extra judicial confession made by the appellant before his father-in-law P.W.14 and other incriminating circumstances. 6. Smt. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on the following grounds : (i) Prosecution has failed to prove the charges as against the present appellant by adducing clear, cogent and clinching evidence and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. (ii) Prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellant on the vital parts of his body and, therefore, is guilty of suppression of true state of affairs, for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. (iii) The evidence of P.W.6, the sole eye-witness, is not believable, as he is an interested witness being the father of the deceased and his evidence suffers from material contradictions. (iv) Extra judicial confession said to have been made before P.W.14 is a very weak piece of evidence and without any corroboration cannot form the basis for conviction. (iii) The evidence of P.W.6, the sole eye-witness, is not believable, as he is an interested witness being the father of the deceased and his evidence suffers from material contradictions. (iv) Extra judicial confession said to have been made before P.W.14 is a very weak piece of evidence and without any corroboration cannot form the basis for conviction. (v) In view of admission of P.W.6 in cross-examination that while returning home after catching fish he had a thenga with him and his son (deceased) had an axe with him and that they had a quarrel with the appellant on the way and his son (deceased) attempted to assault the appellant with that axe, it can be safely inferred that the appellant assaulted the deceased in exercise of right of private defence and as such the act of the appellant will fall within the ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC. 7. Mr. Sk. Zafuralla, learned Additional Standing Counsel supports the impugned judgment and contends with vehemence that the evidence of P.W.6, the sole eye-witness, is very clear, cogent, convincing and inspires confidence. His evidence gets support from extra judicial confession made by the appellant before his father-in-law (P.W. 14). The appellant while in custody disclosed before the I.O., about the incident and led him to the house of P.W.14 where the I.O. seized the blood stained Falsia (axe). P.W. 14 himself has proved the seizure of weapon of offence from his house. Human blood was detected on the wearing apparels of the appellant and no explanation has been given by him how the human blood came to his wearing apparels. Thus, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial Court requiring interference by this Court with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 8. Perused the L.C.R. and gone through the evidence of the witnesses minutely. P.W. 1 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following external injuries :” 1. Lacerated wound with clots over the anterior portion of the scalp extending from 1\" above the upper pole of left ear extending upwards up to the right side, 3\" above the upper pole of right ear of 8\" long, 1\" wide with multiple fractures of both the parietal bones and frontal bone of the skull exposing lacerated brain matters at places in the wound. On opening the skull the brain was completely lacerated corresponding to the injuries described above with multiple clots present. 2. Lacerated wound 3\" x 2\" into bone deep over mid-dorsum of left hand. 3. Lacerated wound 2\" x 1\" x ¼\" over the back on the right side just above the upper portion of the right scapula. 4. Thoracic cage was intact and normal. He opined that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organ like brain. He further opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were possibly caused by the weapon of offence which was produced before him. He proved the postmortem report Ext.1 and opinion report Ext. 2. P.W. 2 is the doctor who examined Gulbadan Majhi-P.W. 6 and found the following injury :” 1. Incised wound 1½\" x ½\" x ½\" on the medial aspect of lower hand, 3½\" above the wrist joint. The injury was simple in nature and might have been caused by sharp cutting object. This P.W.2 also examined Sukanti Majhi-P.W. 7 and found the following injuries :” 1. Lacerated wound 1\" x ¼\" on the left side of the forehead, which was simple in nature and might have been caused by hard and blunt object. 2. Abrasion 1½\" x ½\" (oval shaped) on the upper surface of the right knee, simple in nature and might have been caused by hard and blunt object. He (P.W.2) also examined another injured Ashamati Majhi and found the following injury :” 1. Bruise 2½\" x 1½\" (oval shaped) on the upper surface of left foot, simple in nature and might have been caused by hard and blunt object. 9. P.W. 3 is the police constable, who stated that in his presence the I.O. seized the wearing apparels of the accused and the command certificate under seizure list Ext.7 on being produced by Constable Udit Chandra Naik. P.W. 4 is the ward member and a co-villager. In his examination-in-chief he stated that receiving the information from one Sukanti (P.W.7) he went to the spot and found that the dead body of the deceased lying on the spot. He also noticed the injuries on the person of the deceased as well as on the person of P.W. 6. Thereafter, he went to Talsara police station and reported the matter. He also noticed the injuries on the person of the deceased as well as on the person of P.W. 6. Thereafter, he went to Talsara police station and reported the matter. Police reduced his oral report to writing and treated it as F.I.R. (Ext.8). P.W. 5 is a witness to the inquest and proved the inquest report Ext.9. P.W.6 is the father of the deceased. In his examination-in-chief stated that at the time of occurrence he and his son (deceased) were at village Munda to catch fish. Accused Mansudan Majhi assaulted him by means of a Falsia, for which he sustained severe bleeding injury on his left hand. Accused Mansudan also assaulted his son (deceased) by means of said Falsia on his head as a result of which his son (deceased) died there. Sukanti Majhi (P.W.7) and Asmati Majhi came to the spot after the assault. Accused Asrati Majhi caught hold of his son (deceased) when accused Mansudan assaulted his son with the Falsia. In cross-examination he admitted that on the date of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m. he and his son (deceased) were returning home after catching fish and he had a Thenga with him and his son (deceased) had an axe with him. They had quarrelled with accused Mansudan on the way and his son (deceased) attempted to assault accused Mansudan with the Tangia before the occurrence. He also admitted that when he was attempting to assault accused Mansudan with the Lathi, it did not hit accused Mansudan. P.W.7 is the wife of the deceased who did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the prosecution. On being confronted with her previous statement she denied to have stated before police that hearing noise she came to the spot and saw accused Mansudan assaulting her father-in-law (P.W.6) by dealing blows with Falsia and that accused Mansudan also dealt a blow with Falsia on the head of her husband (deceased), as a result of which he died. P.W.8 is the brother of accused Mansudan and the uncle of the deceased. He stated that he did not know anything about the case. P.W.9 is a co-villager and a post occurrence witness. P.W.8 is the brother of accused Mansudan and the uncle of the deceased. He stated that he did not know anything about the case. P.W.9 is a co-villager and a post occurrence witness. In his examination-in-chief he stated that hearing noise he came out of his house and found Krushna (deceased) lying dead with bleeding injuries on his person near the house of the accused Mansudan and Gulbadan (P.W.6) sustaining bleeding injury on his right hand. P.W. 6 disclosed that by assaulting with a Falsia accused Mansudan killed his son and caused injury to him. P.Ws. 10 and 11 are the co-villagers who have also not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. P.W. 12 in his examination-in-chief stated that he arrived at Talsara police station at about 3.00 p.m. when accused Mansudan and others were present. In his presence accused Mansudan made disclosure statement, led the police and them (witnesses) to the house of his father-in-law at Didigaon (Didika) and gave discovery of the weapon of offence which was seized by the police under Ext.10. In cross-examination, he admitted that during the relevant period he was working as Home Guard under Talsara police station, the weapon of offence, i.e. Falsia was discovered from the house of the father-in-law of accused, as he was outside the house he had not seen who gave the Falsia to whom and on that day for the first time he had gone to village Didigaon (Didika). P.W. 13 is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels of the deceased. P.W.14 is the father-in-law of accused Mansudan. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on the day following the date of occurrence both accused persons and their daughter came to his house at village Didika and accused Mansudan confessed before him that he had committed murder of deceased Krushna, as there was quarrel between them, by means of the Falsia, which he had held at that time. He noticed bleeding injury on the head of his son-in-law (accused Mansudan) and advised him to go to the police station and lodge a report about the occurrence. P.W.15 is the O.I.C. of Talsara Police Station who registered the case and took up investigation. He stated that during the course of investigation he visited the spot, examined the witnesses, seized the incriminating articles, conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. P.W.15 is the O.I.C. of Talsara Police Station who registered the case and took up investigation. He stated that during the course of investigation he visited the spot, examined the witnesses, seized the incriminating articles, conducted inquest over the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. He also stated that as accused Mansudan Majhi had been to the police station to lodge a counter FIR against the informant party, he arrested him and registered his FIR as Talsara P.S. Case No. 66 of 1997. When the accused is in police custody he revealed before him that he had concealed the weapon of offence, i.e. Falsia in the house of his father-in-law (P.W. 14). So, he went to the house of P.W. 14 and seized the blood stained Falsia and blood stained lungi of accused Mansudan under seizure lists Ext.10 and Ext.15 respectively. He sent the incriminating articles for chemical examination and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the present appellant and his wife Asarati for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/323/324/302/34 of the I.P.C. 10. On perusal of the entire evidence this Court finds that nothing has been brought out by the defence to disbelieve the prosecution case. P.W. 6, the injured eye-witness and the father of the deceased, specifically stated that accused Mansudan first assaulted him by means of a Falsia causing severe bleeding injury on his hand, for which he was treated in Subdega Government Hospital for 8 to 10 days. Then, by means of the said Falsia accused appellant assaulted on the head of his son Krushna Majhi, as a result of which he died at the spot. P.W. 6 is a natural witness and his evidence appears to be clear, clinching and trustworthy. Merely because he is the father of the deceased, he cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term interested refers to a witness who has some direct interest in having the accused convicted somehow or the other. His evidence gets support from the evidence of P.W. 14, who is noneelse, the father-in-law of the accused, before whom the accused had made extra judicial confession. The term interested refers to a witness who has some direct interest in having the accused convicted somehow or the other. His evidence gets support from the evidence of P.W. 14, who is noneelse, the father-in-law of the accused, before whom the accused had made extra judicial confession. Taking into consideration the eye-witness account of P.W. 6, the medical evidence and other incriminating circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that accused appellant is guilty of causing simple hurt to the injured Gulbadan Majhi and committing murder of the deceased Krushna Majhi. When guilt of the appellant is established by the sustained eye-witness account, for non-explanation of injuries on the person of the accused-appellant, the case of the prosecution cannot be viewed with suspicion. 11. But the fact remains, P.W. 6 in cross-examination has clearly admitted that on the date of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m. he along with his son (deceased) was returning home after catching fish and he had a Thenga with him and his son (deceased) had an axe with him. They had quarrelled with accused Mansudan on the way and his son (deceased) attempted to assault accused Mansudan with the Tangia before the occurrence. He also admitted that when he was attempting to assault accused Mansudan with the Lathi, it did not hit accused Mansudan. P.W. 14 in his evidence stated that he noticed bleeding injury on the head of his son-in-law (accused) and advised him to lodge FIR at the police station. His evidence gets support from the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.15), who stated that on the basis of the FIR lodged by accused Mansudan he registered a counter case (Talsara P.S. Case No. 66 of 1997). A cumulative reading of all these facts would go to show that the occurrence took place without any premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Therefore, exception-4 of Section 300, IPC is clearly attracted. Since the appellant dealt a blow by means of a Falsia, which is a deadly weapon, to the head of the deceased, which is a vital part of the body, it can be safely inferred that he had intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, exception-4 of Section 300, IPC is clearly attracted. Since the appellant dealt a blow by means of a Falsia, which is a deadly weapon, to the head of the deceased, which is a vital part of the body, it can be safely inferred that he had intention to kill the deceased. So, applying the ratio decided by the Apex Court in Indrasan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 AIR SCW 5203 : AIR 2009 SC 2760 , Sandhya Jadhav (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 4 SCC 653 : (2006 AIR SCW 1678), and Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 116 , this Court holds that the appellant is liable for punishment under Section 304, Part-I, IPC. 12. In the result therefore, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302, IPC is altered to one under Section 304, Part-I, IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. But, however, his conviction and sentence under Section 324, IPC are confirmed. The judgment dated 22-10-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S. T. Case No. 90 of 1998 is accordingly modified. B. K. MISRA, J. 13. I agree. Appeal partly allowed.