Surinder Gupta, J. 1. The appellant faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and was convicted and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Brief Facts The police registered the case on the statement of Dalbir son of Pania Ram, resident of village Mehanda. The appellant who is from the brotherhood of complainant Dalbir, was married to Kavita daughter of Jai Lal, resident of Siwani. The relations of the appellant with his wife were strained. On 20.06.2001, the parents of Kavita brought a Panchayat to village Mehanda and Panchayat decided to severe the relations of the appellant and his wife Kavita. The entire dowry articles were taken back to Siwani by the parents of Kavita. 2. On the same day, at about 08.00 P.M., Bhoop Singh (since deceased) brother of complainant along with Rajesh son of Ram Chand, Jai Bhagwan son of Chhotu, Jagbir son of Bhana and Bijender son of Nanu Ram were going towards the house of Sarpanch and complainant was behind them. On reaching in front of the house of appellant, the deceased told him that the decision of his in-laws in the Panchayat was not proper. They have taken away his wife along with all the dowry articles severing all their relations with him. This infuriated the appellant and he abused the deceased and asked him why he was making fun of him, as it was the deceased who had served tea to his in-laws in the Panchayat. Saying this, he attacked Bhoop Singh with a knife like strip and gave a blow on the left side of his chest and another blow in the middle of the chest. Bhoop Singh tried to run away but fell down. The appellant caused another blow to Bhoop Singh on the right side of his back, while he was lying on the ground. The persons accompanying him raised noise, at which the appellant ran away from the spot but was followed by Rajesh and Jai Bhagwan, who with the help of villagers caught him. The complainant, Jagbir and Bijender took care of Bhoop Singh and found that blood was oozing out from the chest injury. They immediately called a four-wheeler and took Bhoop Singh for treatment to Govt. The complainant, Jagbir and Bijender took care of Bhoop Singh and found that blood was oozing out from the chest injury. They immediately called a four-wheeler and took Bhoop Singh for treatment to Govt. Hospital, Hansi where Bhoop Singh was declared 'brought dead'. 3. The matter was reported to the police. Balbir Singh SHO recorded the F.I.R. on the statement of complainant and the appellant who had been apprehended at the spot, was taken in custody. After completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') was submitted in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi. The copies of the documents as required under Section 207Cr.P.C. were supplied to the appellant and finding a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 10.09.2001. 4. The trial Court found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant and framed the charge against the appellant accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined Dr. S.P. Malik as PW 1, Raju Draftsman as PW 2, Constable Karambir Singh as PW 3, ASI Anoop Singh as PW 4, Head Constable Dharam Lal as PW 5, complainant Dalbir as PW 6, eyewitness Vijender as PW 7, eyewitness Jai Bhagwan as PW 8, Dr. O.P. Charaya as PW 9, Constable Mahender as PW 10, Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Balbir Singh as PW 11 and Constable Rameshwar as PW 12. For proper appraisal of their statements, the above witnesses examined by the prosecution can be put into four categories:- (i) Eyewitnesses Dalbir Singh PW 6, Vijender PW 7 and Jai Bhagwan PW 8 are the eyewitnesses who have deposed regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place and supported the prosecution case. (ii) Medical evidence 6. Dr. S.P. Malik PW 1 had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Bhoop Singh and found following injuries on his person:- "(1) There was an illipical incised wound measuring 2.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. on anterior aspect of left side of the chest 2 c.m. below and medial to the left nipple. On dissection the wound was entering into the thorasic cavity between third and forth rib. On dissection the wound was entering into the thorasic cavity between third and forth rib. On further dissection, the thorasic cavity was full of blood. The wound track was passing through the anterior medial margin of left lung. The pericardium was cut and wound track was entering into the left ventricle on its superioro lateral surface. The corresponding tear was present in the shirt. The right ventricle of the head was intact and contained small amount of blood. (2) An abrasion measuring 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. was present over left border of sternum opposite second intercostal space. On dissection effusio of blood in sub cutaneous tissue was present and the underlying structures were intact. (3) An abrasion measuring 1 c.m. x = c.m. was present over sternum in midline at the level of fourth rib. On dissection sub-cutaneous diffusion of blood was present and underlying structures were intact. (4) An abrasion measuring 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. present on left supra clavicular region between neck and left shoulder on dissection sub-cutaneous diffusion of blood was present and the underlying structures were intact. (5) An abrasion 3 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. was present on back. 3 c.m. lateral and on left side of thrasic spine. It was placed transversally. On dissection sub cutaneous diffusion of blood was present and the underlying structures were intact." PW 9 Dr. O.P. Charaya has sent the intimation to the police station regarding bringing of patient Bhoop Singh at General Hospital, Hansi. (iii) Formal witnesses 7. PW 2 Raju, Draftsman had prepared the site plan (Ex. P7) depicting the place of occurrence. PW 3 Head Constable Karamvir Singh, PW 10 Constable Mohinder Singh and PW 12 Head Constable Rameshwar are formal witnesses. PW 4 ASI Anoop Singh had recorded the F.I.R. (Ex. P10) on receipt of ruqa (Ex. P9). PW 5 Head Constable Dharam Lal had got conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bhoop Singh. (iv) Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Balbir Singh, Investigating Officer of this case appeared as PW 11. 8. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and alleged his false implication by the complainant and his brother at the instance of his in-laws because of his strained relations with them. The appellant did not produce any defence evidence. 9. 8. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and alleged his false implication by the complainant and his brother at the instance of his in-laws because of his strained relations with them. The appellant did not produce any defence evidence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is a case where the appellant was sitting at home in a disturbed and depressed condition as in the Panchayat held during the day, his in-laws had severed his relations with his wife and taken away all the dowry articles. The appellant took the remarks by the deceased about the conduct of his in-laws in severing his relations with his wife and taking away all dowry articles as offending and taunting. He got provoked and in anger and frustration, caused injuries on the person of the deceased without intention to kill him. He had no motive or enmity with the deceased. Counsel for the appellant has limited his arguments to submissions that the evidence brought on file by the prosecution, taken at its face value, makes out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and seeks modification of conviction of the appellant from offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. to 304 Part-II IPC. 10. Learned State counsel has argued that the deceased had not made any offending comments against the appellant. He had simply sympathised with him about the Panchayat proceedings, which took place in the day, in which his in-laws had not only severed all the relations of appellant with his wife but also took away all the dowry articles. Out of rage, the appellant hit the deceased with a knife like strip. Even when the deceased in a bit to save himself tried to run away and fell on the ground, he was caused injuries by the appellant. This shows that the appellant intended to murder the deceased. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have also examined the evidence on record. 12. PW 6 Dalbir complainant is the star witness examined by the prosecution to prove its case. This shows that the appellant intended to murder the deceased. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned State counsel and have also examined the evidence on record. 12. PW 6 Dalbir complainant is the star witness examined by the prosecution to prove its case. He has narrated the incident leading to death of his brother Bhoop Singh as follows:- "On 20.6.2001, at about 8.00 P.M. I, my brother Bhoop Singh, Rajesh, Jai Bhagwan, Jagbir and Bijender were going towards the house of Sarpanch of the village. I was in the last. When we reached in the front of house of accused Atam Parkash he was found standing in the street. Bhoop Singh started talking to Atam Parkash and said that his in-laws had not taken a good step by dissolving his marriage with Kavita and taking away the dowry articles. On that Atam Parkash felt offended and said why he (Bhoop Singh) was making a fun of him and then took out a knife and caused injuries with the same on the chest of Bhoop Singh. Atam Parkash also expressed annoyance at that time saying that he (Bhoop Singh) has served his in-laws with tea etc. After receiving injuries on the chest Bhoop Singh fell down and then Atam Parkash gave him more injuries with knife like patti on his waist. Clarified that the weapon with which the injuries was caused, was a patti (iron strip) like knife. We raised alarm and the Atam Parkash fled away with the weapon of offence. Rajesh and Jagbir chased Atam Parkash and caught hold of him at some distance." 13. The other eye-witness Vijender appeared as PW 7. He had given narration of the incident leading to causing of injuries to the deceased by the appellant as follows:- "On 20.6.2001 at about 8.00 P.M. I, Dalbir, Bhoop Singh, Rajesh, Jaibhagwan and Jagbir were going towards the house of Sarpanch of the village. Bhoop Singh was ahead all of us. When we reached in front of house of accused Atam Parkash, he was standing in the street. Bhoop Singh while talking to the accused stated that in-laws of accused had not taken vice (wise) step by dissolving the marriage and on that accused expressed annoyance saying as to why he (Bhoop Singh) was cutting jokes with him. When we reached in front of house of accused Atam Parkash, he was standing in the street. Bhoop Singh while talking to the accused stated that in-laws of accused had not taken vice (wise) step by dissolving the marriage and on that accused expressed annoyance saying as to why he (Bhoop Singh) was cutting jokes with him. Accused also said that his in-laws might have served tea etc. by him (Bhoop Singh). Then accused gave a knife blow (three in number) on the chest of Bhoop Singh due to which Bhoop Singh fell down and then accused gave one knife blow on his waist. Accused ran away after the occurrence and he was chased by Rajesh and Jagbir and they succeeded in catching hold of him. I, Dalbir and Jaibhagwan started helping Bhoop Singh. Thereafter Dalbir arranged a vehicle and Bhoop Singh was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead." 14. The other eye-witness Jai Bhagwan who appeared as PW 8 has also given similar narration of the incident. 15. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to look into the provision of Section 299 I.P.C. which defines culpable homicide, as follows:- "Section 299. Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide." 16. The definition as given above prescribes culpable homicide as the causing of death by doing: (i) an act with the intention of causing death; (ii) an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (iii) an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death." 17. The definition as given above prescribes culpable homicide as the causing of death by doing: (i) an act with the intention of causing death; (ii) an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (iii) an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death." 17. When culpable homicide is murder, has been defined under Section 300 I.P.C. as follows:- "Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused done with the intention of causing death or -- 2ndly -- if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as to offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or -- 3rdly if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- 4thly - if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." 18. It also gives five exceptions stating the circumstances where culpable homicide is not murder. Exception 4 reads as follows:- "Exception 4. - 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 offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." 19. The facts of the present case and the evidence on record reveal that the appellant, on the unfortunate day of the incident, was sitting in his house in a depressed and dejected mood, as during the day, he had faced the Panchayat where he was found guilty of having strained relations with his wife and under the decision of Panchayat, all the dowry articles were taken away by the parents of his wife and his relations with his wife were severed. From the statement of complainant, whereupon the F.I.R. was registered, it is also made out that the appellant was also feeling hurt that the deceased was serving his in-laws in the Panchayat with tea. From the statement of complainant, whereupon the F.I.R. was registered, it is also made out that the appellant was also feeling hurt that the deceased was serving his in-laws in the Panchayat with tea. At about 8.00 P.M. the same day, it was the deceased, who with his friends, came in front of house of appellant while going to house of Sarpanch. The remarks regarding the happening in Panchayat during the day were passed by deceased which the appellant did not relish and asked him the reason for making fun of him. 20. It is no where the case of the prosecution that the appellant was in any manner inimical towards the deceased or had any motive to cause him the injuries. It was a sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased. 21. In order to invoke Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC, following four requirements must be satisfied:- (i) It was sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." 22. In case Muthu v. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 2007 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 919 : (2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 433, while discussing the distinction between the offence punishable under Section 302 and 304 IPC, it was observed as follows:- "10...............In our opinion, there is a clear distinction between a case of pre-meditated attack with intention to cause death and a case where there was no such premeditated intention and death was caused in the heat of the moment or fit of anger during an altercation or quarrel. 11. No doubt, even in the heat of the moment or fit of anger one should not attack somebody since human beings are different from animals inasmuch as they have the power of self-control. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the heat of the moment and in a fit of anger people some times do acts which may not have been done after premeditation. Hence the law provides that while those who commit acts in the heat of the moment or fit of anger should also be punished, their punishment should be lesser than that of premeditated offences. It is for this reason that Exceptions 1 and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 IPC." 23. Hence the law provides that while those who commit acts in the heat of the moment or fit of anger should also be punished, their punishment should be lesser than that of premeditated offences. It is for this reason that Exceptions 1 and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 IPC." 23. In case of Parkash Chand v. State of H.P., 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 818, the extent and scope of Exception 4 to Section300 I.P.C. was examined and it was observed as follows:- "The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if 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. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300, I.P.C. is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. 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. For the application of Exception 4, 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 cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'. These aspects have been highlighted in Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (3) RCR (Crl.) 891 (SC) : ( 2003 (5) Supreme 223 )." 24. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the notion 'Sudden Fight' in the case of Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 909. 25. In the present case, the appellant was sitting at home at the time of occurrence. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the notion 'Sudden Fight' in the case of Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 909. 25. In the present case, the appellant was sitting at home at the time of occurrence. It was the comments of Bhoop Singh which infuriated him. He was not sitting at home with any intention to have a quarrel with the deceased. The comments of deceased made the appellant to loose his temper and a sudden fight ensued without any premeditation. The appellant had a knife like strip which he used to cause injuries on the person of Bhoop Singh and was caught at the spot. The injuries caused by the appellant were not inflicted with the intention to cause the death of Bhoop Singh. The observations of the trial Court that the deceased had tried to share the grief of the appellant and sympathise with him, is not made out from the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the facts and circumstances that have come on record. The mental state of the appellant, after what had happened during the day, could be well understood. He was in a sad, dejected and depressed mood. The words used by the deceased that in-laws of appellant were not fair with him while taking away his wife and all the dowry articles, were not taken as kind words of sympathy but as a taunt. Had the deceased tried to sympathise with the appellant, his words would not have infuriated him to the extent that he lost his cool and caused injuries to the deceased. The deceased was from the brotherhood of appellant against whom he had no enmity or motive to cause injury or to kill him. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in view and the evidence on record, the observations of the trial Court that causing the injuries on vital parts reflect the intention of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased, are not tenable. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that the offence proved against the appellant is under Section 304 Part-II and not under Section 302 IPC. 26. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that the offence proved against the appellant is under Section 304 Part-II and not under Section 302 IPC. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the appellant has already undergone about five years three months of imprisonment in this case, as such, has suffered for the offence committed by him. The occurrence had taken place because of sudden fight without any premeditation. The appellant had no criminal history and was a victim of circumstances. He has requested for a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. As a sequel of our discussion above, this appeal is partly accepted. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section302 I.P.C. as recorded by the trial Court is modified into his conviction for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The custody certificate on file shows that on the day of suspension of further sentence of the appellant on 31.08.2006, the appellant had undergone five years, two months and eight days of imprisonment. There is nothing on file that appellant had any criminal track record or was involved in any case prior to or even after this incident. We are of the considered opinion that it shall be in the interest of justice to take a lenient view regarding the quantum of sentence. Keeping in view the age, antecedents, facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is awarded the sentence for offence punishable under Section 304Part-II I.P.C. for the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. On the request of learned counsel for the appellant, a period of six months is allowed to deposit the amount of compensation with learned Sessions Judge, Hisar for payment to legal heirs of deceased Bhoop Singh, failing which appropriate legal proceedings shall be initiated against him.