JUDGMENT : RAKESH SAKSENA, J. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 5-4-2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Betul, in Sessions Trial No. 170/2002 convicting him under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 2. According to prosecution, on 8-7-2002, at about 10.30 a.m., when Suribai, the deceased was going to her field taking food for her husband, accused Raghu came with an axe and assaulted her with it on her neck twice, as a result of which she fell down and died. Accused ran away from the spot. Her daughter Sunita went to the field and informed her father Ramji about the occurrence. Ramji went to the spot and then lodged first information report (Ex.P/2) at Police Station, Ranipur. It is said that Sunita (PW-2), Santobai (PW-3), Ramlal (PW-4), Buddhu (PW-5) and Santu (PW-6) were present at the time of occurrence. Police registered the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded for investigation. 3. After inquest, the dead body of deceased was sent to Community Health Centre, Ghoda Dongri for post-mortem examination. Dr. Mohit Tawar (PW-13) conducted post-mortem examination on the same day and found six incised wounds on the neck, head and back of the deceased. 4. Accused was arrested. Axe and shirt were seized from him and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Gwalior for examination. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the case was committed for trial. 6. On charge being framed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. According to him at the time of occurrence he was not present at the spot. He had gone for work at the house of Narayan. He also examined Dukadi (DW-1) and Basant Kumar (DW-2) in his defence. 7. Upon trial and after appreciating the evidence adduced by prosecution, learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, he has filed this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses was misappreciated by the trial Court. The appellant was wrongly convicted. 7. Upon trial and after appreciating the evidence adduced by prosecution, learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, he has filed this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses was misappreciated by the trial Court. The appellant was wrongly convicted. In the alternative, learned counsel placing reliance on the Apex Court's decision rendered in the case of Ghapoo Yadav and others vs. State of M. P., (2003) 3 SCC 528 submitted that the conviction of appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code was illegal, at the worst the appellant could have been liable under section 304-I, Indian Penal Code since there was no evidence on record that appellant had any motive or premeditation for committing murder of deceased. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there was more than enough evidence of reliable eyewitnesses to the effect that appellant committed murder of deceased. He supported and justified the conviction of appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully. 10. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased died of a homicidal death. From the evidence of Dr. Mohit Tawar (PW-13), who conducted post-mortem examination of the body of deceased, it is revealed that deceased suffered following injuries : "1. Superficial burn like black stains and charring over right breast, right upper limb, abdomen, left arm, right and left thighs medially. 2. Incised wound over cervico dorsal spine in mid line from C2 to T2 vertebra 10 cm x 3 cm x 6 cm deep. Direction anteriorly and in mid line. 3. Incised wound in continuation with Injury No. 1 on scapular region 8 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm deep. Direction anteriorly and downwards. 4. Incised wound on right scapular region 8 cm x 3 cm. Subcutaneous tissues cut. 5. Incised wound on right occipital region transverse 5 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm. 6. Incised wound on right side of neck extending from anterior border of trapezius to anterior border of sternomastoid in upwards direction 4 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm. All muscles, carotid vessels, part of trachea and part of oesophagus cut. 5. Incised wound on right occipital region transverse 5 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm. 6. Incised wound on right side of neck extending from anterior border of trapezius to anterior border of sternomastoid in upwards direction 4 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm. All muscles, carotid vessels, part of trachea and part of oesophagus cut. Vertebra fractured and spinal cord transected. On opening of the injuries doctor found bones of the neck, spinal cord, 2nd and 3rd ribs of left side cut. The bones of skull were also cut. In the opinion of doctor, the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. The cause of death was shock due to excessive bleeding. The post-mortem examination report (Ex.P/22) was written and signed by him." 11. From the aforesaid evidence of doctor we are satisfied that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 12. Now the question before us is whether it was appellant who caused the homicidal death of deceased. 13. The prosecution examined Sunita (PW-2), Santo Bai (PW-3), Ramlal (PW-4), Buddhu (PW-5) and Santu (PW-6) as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. 14. Sunita (PW-2), the daughter of deceased, though purporting herself as an eyewitness of the occurrence stated that she saw accused assaulting deceased with an axe, but, in cross-examination she admitted that she came to know about the death of her mother from Santo Bai, who called her to the spot. When she reached at the spot, she found her mother lying dead. She was also confronted with her police statement (Ex. D-1) wherein she did not disclose that she saw accused assaulting her mother. The trial Court also disbelieved her as an eyewitness. 15. Another witness Santobai (PW-3) did not support the prosecution case as an eyewitness; she was declared hostile. 16. Ramlal (PW-4), Buddhu (PW-5) and Santu (PW-6) were also examined as eyewitnesses. They deposed that they were labourers and under a contract with Kishori, they were altering the roof tiles of his house. When they were doing their work, they saw deceased taking food towards her field and murmuring that her cock-hen were killed by somebody. At that very moment, accused came their with an axe and asked deceased to not to abuse anybody and go to her field quietly. Deceased uttered that she was not abusing anybody. When they were doing their work, they saw deceased taking food towards her field and murmuring that her cock-hen were killed by somebody. At that very moment, accused came their with an axe and asked deceased to not to abuse anybody and go to her field quietly. Deceased uttered that she was not abusing anybody. When accused intimidated her saying that she should go silently else he would cut her, she challenged him, whereupon at once accused dealt 3-4 blows of axe on her neck. He also inflicted blows even after she fell down. The evidence of these witnesses is natural and consistent. They were subjected to cross-examination, but absolutely nothing could be brought out to render their presence doubtful at the spot. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses stood corroborated from the evidence of Kishori (PW-7) at whose house they were working. Though Kishori (PW-7) did not support the prosecution case as an eyewitness and was declared hostile yet he stated that he had given contract for Rs. 200/- to Ramlal, Santu and Buddhu for altering roof tiles of his house and that they were working at his house in the morning at about 10.00 a.m. He deposed that when he heard commotion, he went at the spot and saw deceased lying dead in front of his house. There were injuries on her neck and back. He however did not ask anybody as to what happened to her. 17. Ramji (PW-1), the husband of deceased, stated that when he was at his field, at about 10.00 a.m. his daughter came running and informed him that accused killed her mother. When he reached at the spot, he found his wife dead. There were injuries on her neck and back. He went to Police Station, Ranipur and lodged Murg Intimation Report (Ex.P/1) and first information report (Ex.P/2). 18. The evidence of aforesaid eyewitnesses also stood corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Mohit Tawar (PW-13), who deposed about the injuries found on the body of deceased by some sharp edged weapon. 19. Though the accused was arrested on the same day and an axe was recovered from his possession by investigating officer Shailendra Sharma (PW-12), but no FSL report in respect of the aforesaid weapon was produced in the Court. 20. Mohit Tawar (PW-13), who deposed about the injuries found on the body of deceased by some sharp edged weapon. 19. Though the accused was arrested on the same day and an axe was recovered from his possession by investigating officer Shailendra Sharma (PW-12), but no FSL report in respect of the aforesaid weapon was produced in the Court. 20. Defence witnesses Dukadi (DW-1) and Basant Kumar (DW-2) tried to establish that on the day of occurrence accused was working at the field of Basant. According to Basant Kumar, all the time accused used to live at his field. On the day of occurrence also he had milked a she buffalo. On perusal of the evidence of Basant Kumar it appears that on many occasions accused used to go to his house. In view of the cogent and consistent evidence of eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution, the evidence of defence witnesses does not appear trustworthy. 21. After scanning and analyzing the evidence of eyewitnesses viz. Ramlal (PW-4), Buddhu (PW-5) and Santu (PW-6) we are of the view that their evidence is trustworthy, and that learned trial Judge committed no error in relying on their evidence and in holding that it was accused only who assaulted deceased with axe as a result of which she died. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was a quarrelsome woman. She used to make complaints and police reports against many persons. At the time of occurrence also she indulged in useless altercation with accused. Therefore, suddenly, under an impulse, without any premeditation accused assaulted her with axe. In these circumstances, it could not be held that accused intended to commit murder of deceased, at the most he might have been held liable for committing the offence under section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Ghapoo Yadav (supra). 23. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and after examining the law and the facts minutely, we are of the opinion that the case of appellant does not fall within the ambit of any of the Exceptions attached to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 23. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and after examining the law and the facts minutely, we are of the opinion that the case of appellant does not fall within the ambit of any of the Exceptions attached to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on record to indicate that deceased did anything which could have led appellant to the deprivation of self control or provoked him in such a manner to bring his case within the ambit of Exception-1 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of Ghapoo Yadav (supra) the Apex Court observed that : "Exception-4 can be invoked if the death is caused: (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. For the application of Exception-4, therefore, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage". Further, the word "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case." 24. In the case in hand there was no quarrel between deceased and the accused. The deceased woman was going to her field taking food for her husband. She was not even talking to accused, but accused, though without premeditation, indulged in altercation with her saying that she should go quietly to her field otherwise he would cut her with axe. When she remonstrated with him that how could he cut her, he dealt repeated blows with axe to her on vital parts of her body like neck, chest etc. These injuries were sufficient to cause her death. When she remonstrated with him that how could he cut her, he dealt repeated blows with axe to her on vital parts of her body like neck, chest etc. These injuries were sufficient to cause her death. By the blows, her skull bones, neck bone, nerve cord and ribs were cut. It has been stated by the eyewitnesses that when deceased fell down receiving one or two blows, accused continued to inflict blows on her. This shows that accused inflicted injuries to deceased even when she was in helpless condition. Previous altercation was also verbal and not physical. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it would not be possible to hold that the case of appellant was governed under the Exception-4 of section 300 Indian Penal Code. The intention of the appellant clearly seemed to be of committing murder of deceased. 25. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the conviction and sentence of appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as awarded by the trial Court, is affirmed. 26. Appeal being sans merit stands dismissed.