JUDGMENT (Per K.C. Bhanu, J.) This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is •directed against the judgment, dated 16-5-2008, in Sessions Case No. 455 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Adilabad, whereunder and whereby, the appellant/accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.") and accordingly sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal 6f the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 28-11-2006 at about 6.30 p.m. the accused quarreled with his father by name Ashanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') to bring back his wife to their house. At that juncture, the accused brought an axe and beat his father on the right ear and throat with an intention to kill him, thereby the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to hospital for treatment. On the same day, at about 8.30 p.m., P.W. 1, who is the younger brother of accused, gave a complaint to P.W. 18 Sub-Inspector of Police, who in turn registered the same as a case in Crime No. 112 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. While the investigation was in progress, on 1-12-2007 at about 7.00 a.m., P.W. 18 received death intimation that the deceased died while undergoing treatment at Nizamabad Hospital. On the strength of death intimation, the Section of law was altered from 307 IPC to 302 IPC and after completion of investigation, police laid Charge sheet. 3. The trial Court framed the following charge against the accused. "That you accused on 28-11-2006 at about 18.30 hours at Lingpur village with your common intention committed, intentionally or knowingly caused the death of your father Golla Ashanna, by axing him to death as he did not allow you to sell away the land to clear the debt and also did not allow you to bring your wife from your mother-in-law's house and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC." 4. When the above charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. When the above charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 19 and got marked Exs. P-1 to -24 besides case properties M.Os. 1 to 4. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused. 7. The trial Court after accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and recovery of axe at the instance of accused, found the accused guilty of the charge leveled against him and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the accused. 8. The points for determination are: "Whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 302 IPC and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct and proper?" 9. POINTS: Learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant/accused contended that in view of disputes between the accused and P.W. 1, a false case was foisted against the accused; that P.W. 1 was having illicit contact with the wife of accused and as such he implicated the accused falsely; that except the interested evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, there is o order evidence to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased; that absolutely there is no motive or intention for the accused to cause the death of the deceased; that P.Ws. 5 to 7, who are residing close to the house of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution; that under these circumstances, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 to convict the accused and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that presence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, who are eyewitnesses, at the time of incident, is not in dispute; that the evidence of P.Ws. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that presence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, who are eyewitnesses, at the time of incident, is not in dispute; that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 would clearly go to show that it is the accused, who caused injuries to the deceased on the neck as well on the right ear with an axe; that there is evidence which would go to show that after the occurrence, the accused ran away with the weapon from the scene of occurrence; that the trial court after consideration of evidence on record in right perspective, found the accused guilty and that order needs no interference by this Court. 11. P.W. 14 is one of the inquest mediators, who was present at the time of inquest when P.W. 19 - Circle Inspector of Police, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 1-12-2006 from 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injury on the neck. The evidence of P.W. 14 and P.W. 19 and recitals in Ex. P-18 Inquest report, remained unchallenged. 12. P.W.15, is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 1-12-2006 at 11.30 a.m. and found the following injuries : External: 1. 3 X 1 X 1/2 cm. cut injury on the front of the neck (sutured). 2. 4 x 3 x 1/2 cm. lacerated wound on right pinna of the ear and parotid area (sutured). Internal: 1. Blood vessels are prominent. Brain is haemorrhagic. 2. On cut section behind the right ear, it shows rupture of muscles. 3. On cut section of the injury on the neck corresponding to the injury No. 1, it shows ruptured vessels and muscles. Cut of the trachea and signs of operation of traciastimy and trycheal would repairry. He opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrage as a result of respiratory distress in consequence of multiple injuries on the neck about 24.00 hours prior to his postmortem examination. Ex.-19 is the postmortem report. In the Cross-examination, he admitted that the cut injury found on the deceased is possible due to fall on a sharp-edged object from a tree. Ex.-19 is the postmortem report. In the Cross-examination, he admitted that the cut injury found on the deceased is possible due to fall on a sharp-edged object from a tree. But, there is no evidence to show that the deceased had fallen from a tree on a sharp-edged object and as a result, he sustained injury on the neck and died. Therefore, the homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. P.W. 13 is one of the mediators, who was present at the time of observing the scene of occurrence by P.W. 19. Ex.P-17 is the scene of occurrence panchanama. The scene of occurrence is situated at the House bearing No.1-10/6 in Lingapur village. Ex.P-23 is the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence. The accused is also not seriously denying or disputing about taking place of the incident in front of the house of deceased on the road. 14. It is a case of patricide. P.Ws. 1 and 3 are brothers of the accused and sons of the deceased. P.W. 4 is brother of the deceased and P.W. 8 is wife of the accused. Marriage of the accused with P.W. 8 was performed about 15 years ago and they were blessed with three children. About 3½ years prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased sent his elder son, namely, the accused, to Gulf countries by paying some amount to the mediators. Though the accused stayed at Gulf countries for about three years, he never sent any amount to the deceased. The deceased came to know that the accused involved in a case at Gulf countries. Then the deceased sent an amount of Rs. 16,000/- to bring back him. About six months prior to the death of the deceased, the accused returned to India and after returning, he never attended to any work and he always used to quarrel with his relatives. One month prior to the death of the deceased, the accused beat his wife and pressed her neck. Unable to bear the harassment, P.W.8 went to her parents house in Babapur Village of Khanapur Mandal. One week thereafter, the accused went to the said village to bring back P.W.8, but parents of P.W. 8 refused to send her for the reason of harassment and cruelty. Unable to bear the harassment, P.W.8 went to her parents house in Babapur Village of Khanapur Mandal. One week thereafter, the accused went to the said village to bring back P.W.8, but parents of P.W. 8 refused to send her for the reason of harassment and cruelty. Thereafter, he picked up a quarrel with his father (deceased) in not making any efforts to bring back P.W. 8. On the date of incident i.e., on 28-11-2006 at about 6.00 or 6.30 p.m. while P.Ws. 1 to 4 were present in the house, the accused picked up quarrel with his father and beat him with an axe and caused injuries on his neck and right ear. Immediately, he was taken to a Registered Medical Practitioner, who advised them to take to the Government Hospital, as the deceased sustained serious injuries. Then, he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Khanapur. As the condition of the deceased was deteriorating, he was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizamabad. Two days later, while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 report to the police on 28-11-2006 itself. Basing on the report, P.W.18-Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case under Section 307 IPC. He proceeded to the hospital. As the deceased was in unconscious state, he could not record his statement. On 1-12-2006 at about 7.00 a.m., he received death intimation from hospital and he altered the Section of law from 307 IPC to 302 IPC. P.W.19 took up further investigation, he secured the presence of photographer, got taken the photographs, conducted inquest and after inquest, he sent the dead body to the post-mortem examination. He also prepared Ex. P-23 rough sketch at the scene of occurrence and also Ex.P-17-scene of offence panchanama. On 4-12-2006 at about 16:00 hours, he arrested the accused and in pursuance of his confessional statement, M.O.4 - axe was seized. 15. P.Ws. 5 to 7, who are also close relatives of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though P.Ws. 5 and 6 were present in the house, which is very close to the scene of occurrence, their evidence would go to show that they closed their doors after noticing quarrel outside the house. So, their evidence is not relevant to the case of the prosecution. 16. The evidence of P.Ws. Though P.Ws. 5 and 6 were present in the house, which is very close to the scene of occurrence, their evidence would go to show that they closed their doors after noticing quarrel outside the house. So, their evidence is not relevant to the case of the prosecution. 16. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is very clear that the accused quarreled with the deceased, picked up an axe and attacked the deceased by beating him with an axe and caused injuries on the neck as well as on the ear. So, from the evidence of these witnesses, the presence and participation of the accused is established beyond doubt. In view of the fact that the incident had taken place in the evening time, there is very possibility to identify the assailant of the deceased. Furthermore, the accused is very closely related to these witnesses. If really, some other person has caused the injuries to the deceased, these witnesses would not have implicated the accused falsely, unless there is a strong motive for them to implicate. There is no such animosity for these witnesses to foist a false case, particularly, P.W. 2, who is no other than the mother of the accused. A suggestion was given to P.W.1 that he was having illicit contact with the wife of the accused and apprehending that his brother might kill him, he has falsely implicated the accused in this case. Except giving a suggestion, there is no other evidence to show that P.W.1 was having illicit contact with P.W. 8. Even P.W. 8 stated that the accused started harassing her by suspecting her character that she was having illicit contact with P.W.1. Admittedly, P.W. 8 was not present at the time of incident. On coming to know about the incident, she came to the Village. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is clearly established that it is the accused, who caused injuries to the deceased. 17. Now, it has to be seen whether the appellant/accused had any intention or knowledge that the injury is likely to cause death of the deceased and what offence the appellant/ accused has committed in view these proved facts. 18. 17. Now, it has to be seen whether the appellant/accused had any intention or knowledge that the injury is likely to cause death of the deceased and what offence the appellant/ accused has committed in view these proved facts. 18. Where the culpable homicide falls under anyone of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC and none of the exceptions applies, the culpable homicide is murder and is punishable under Section 302 IPC Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC can apply if all the four conditions laid down are satisfied, viz., (1) absence of premeditation; (2) there must be a sudden fight; (3) the killing must be in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; and (4) the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 19. Some pretty quarrels took place between the accused and the deceased prior to the incident. The immediate cause for attacking the deceased was that the accused asked his father to bring bank his wife P.W. 8, for which the deceased stated that he would go to the Village of P.W. 8 two or three days later. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 2 that the accused is a very angry man and out of anger, he had beaten the deceased with an axe, but he had no intention to kill him. It is admitted by P.W. 2 that the accused did not anticipate that his beating would result in the death of his father. 20. Neck is a vital part of the body and axe is a deadly weapon. Though the accused had no intention to cause the death of his father, he must be having knowledge that his act is likely to cause the death of the deceased. But the accused had not taken any undue advantage in repeating the hacking with the axe on the deceased except causing one injury on the vital part of the body, which proved to be fatal. Some pretty quarrels had been taken in between the accused and the deceased because the deceased wanted to all away the share of the accused so as to discharge the loans taken by the deceased for the purpose of sending the accused to Gulf countries and also the accused requested the deceased to bring back his wife from her parents house. At the time of taking place of the quarrel, the accused was not armed with any weapon, but as the deceased stated that he would bring back his wife two or three days later, he got annoyed and picked up the available weapon from the house and hacked the deceased. On a spur of moment, the accused grew wild and attacked his father. Therefore, there is absolutely no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. It is not a pre-planned attack. Hence, the case squarely falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. As the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased, it will not fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC But, he was having knowledge that his act is likely to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the case falls under Section 304 Part-II IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the charge under Section 302 IPC are liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Adilabad against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC vide its judgment, dated 16-5-2008, in Sessions Case No. 455 of 2007 are set aside. However, the appellant/accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The period of remand underwent by the appellant/accused during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 22. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.