Hon'ble AHLUWALIA, J.—Prem Singh, appellant has directed the present appeal to assail the judgment dated 31st October, 2006 rendered by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli whereby the appellant has been held guilty of offences under Sections 302, 323 and 452 IPC. The trial Court vide the impugned judgment has acquitted the co-accused, Chetram @ Gadali, brother of the present appellant who was also sent for the trial. 2. Having convicted the appellant for the above said offences, the trial Court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under:- For offence under Section 302 IPC : Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months imprisonment. For offence under Section 323 IPC : One year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, to further undergo fifteen days imprisonment. For offence under Section 452 IPC : Two year's rigrous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo one month's imprisonment. All the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Criminal proceedings were initiated by a written complaint (Ex.P/6) submitted by Kunjilal (P.W.5). The written report (Ex.P/6) dated 30th January, 2005, when translated into English reads as under : - “To Station House Officer, Police Station, Hindaun city. Subject: Registration of the case. Sir, In the above noted subject, it is submitted that today, on 30th January, 2005 at about 10.00, I alongwith my son Gaurav, aged 8 years and niece Muneshi had gone to the fields to bring fodder for the buffalo. By mistake, the children had gone into the field of Premsingh S/o Narayan. Feeling annoyed, Vimla started giving abuses. I told Vimla that in future children will not commit mistake. However, Vimla while giving abuses had gone towards her house. Twenty minutes later, Prem Singh, Harsahay and Chetram S/o Narayan and Vimla W/o Prem Singh came armed with lathies and danda. Immediately on arrival, they caught hold of me and made me fall on the ground, they caused injuries with lathies on me and my wife. When my mother and wife came to save us, Prem Singh gave a lathi blow on the head of my mother who came to save me. She immediately died on the spot. Immediately on arrival, they caught hold of me and made me fall on the ground, they caused injuries with lathies on me and my wife. When my mother and wife came to save us, Prem Singh gave a lathi blow on the head of my mother who came to save me. She immediately died on the spot. Since no male member was present in the house, therefore, delay had occurred in making the report. I have submitted the report, action be taken. Occurrence had taken place inside my house. Sign Kunjilal S/o Kanhayalal.” 4. The above said FIR was investigated. Co-accused Vimla and Harsahay could not be arrested. Therefore, charge-sheet was submitted against them under Section 299 Cr.P.C. The trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to Chetram, and had acquitted him of all the charges. 5. From perusal of the FIR, it is evident that occurrence had taken place on 30th January, 2005 at 10.00 A.M. whereas report was submitted on 30th January, 2005 at 3.40 P.M. leading to registration of case. Special Report reached, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City on 31st January, 2005 at 11.00 A.M. 6. Prosecuting agency examined Kamo (P.W.2), and Kunjilal (P.W.5) who both were injured in the occurrence. There is no denial of the fact that in the present case, occurrence had taken place near the house of Kunjilal (P.W.5). The trial Court had not accepted the version of Kunjilal (P.W.5) and Kamo (P.W.2) that occurrence had taken place inside their house. 7. Kamo (P.W.2) while appearing in the Court had stated that their children had gone to the fields of the accused to ease themselves. They had also damaged the mustered crop of the accused, due to which, Vimla had given abuses. She had lodged a protest with Kunjilal (P.W.5), who in return answered that in the future, children will not commit such a mistake. It is stated by Kamo (P.W.2) that Vimla retorted and said to Kunjilal (P.W.5) that “she will chop off his nose.” Upon which, Kunjilal (P.W.5) replied that in that case, he will slap her. To similar effect is the statement of Kunjilal (P.W.5). He further stated that while he was taking meals, accused trespassed into the house and caused injuries to him, and his wife, Kamo (P.W.2). To similar effect is the statement of Kunjilal (P.W.5). He further stated that while he was taking meals, accused trespassed into the house and caused injuries to him, and his wife, Kamo (P.W.2). When his mother intervened to save them, Prem Singh exhorted that “why they should beat a thief, it is better to cause injury to the mother of the thief”. At that stage, he caused one injury on Kamla's head, the mother of Kunjilal (P.W.5) and mother-in-law of Kamo (P.W.2). 8. A perusal of the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P/13) reveals that there was a single injury on Kamla (the deceased): a fracture of left parietal region of skull. There was a subdural haemotama under the fractured site. 9. We are conscious that in the FIR itself Kunjilal (P.W.5) stated that there was no male member in the family. Therefore, delay had occurred in lodging of the FIR. But simultaneously, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that in the present case, the special report reached, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City on 31st January, 2005 at 11.00 A.M. Thus, the special report reached the concerned Court, in the same city, after 25 hours of the occurrence. Thus, to us the delay has been used to inflate the number of the accused. The trial Court has already extended the benefit to co-accused Chetram. We will take the version given in the FIR, except for inflation of number of accused, to be true version as the possibility that the witnesses, while appearing in the Court, have improved their case cannot be ruled out. We also cannot ignore the fact that the trial Court has not believed the witnesses qua the fact that the occurrence had taken place inside the house of Kunjilal (P.W.5) Assertion made by the witnesses that a solitary injury was caused to his mother, Kamla (the deceased), while she intervened to save her son and daughter-in-law, in the FIR contains a truthful version. To be precise, we reproduce exact line of the FIR in vernacular: - ^^esjh ek¡ o esjh ifRu cpkus vk;h rks izseflag us esjh ek¡ ds chp cpko djrh gq;h ds flj esa ykBh dh ekjhA** 10. Thus, we are of the view that the witnesses in the Court have made improvements regarding the manner in which the injury was caused to deceased Kamla, mother of Kunjilal (P.W.5). Thus, we are of the view that the witnesses in the Court have made improvements regarding the manner in which the injury was caused to deceased Kamla, mother of Kunjilal (P.W.5). Having held statement made by the complainant, Kunjilal (P.W.5) in the FIR is reliable and injury was caused to Kamla while she had intervened to save and rescue her son and daughter-in-law, we have to ponder, that in a case, where only solitary blow of lathi has been caused on the person of intervener, what offence will be made out ? In the present case, no blow has been repeated. In Babu Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (142) RLW 1988(1) 493 a Division Bench of this Court relying upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hardev Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1975 SC 179 ), Jagat Singh vs. State of Haryana ( 1977 1 SCC 225 ), Tholan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1984 Cr.L.J.478), Kesar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1981 Raj. Criminal Cases 20), Munshi vs. State of Rajasthan (1981 Cr.L.J.Raj.503), Badri Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1981 Cr.L.J.Raj. 474) and Chaman Budhwa vs. State of M.P. ( AIR 1954 SC 652 ) held that in case where the intervener receives an injury, the offence would fall under Section 304 Part II, and not under Section 302 IPC. 11. It will be apposite here to reproduce the following paras of the judgment: - 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following authorities: Hardev Singh and Anr. vs. The State of Punjab ; Jagat Singh vs. State of Haryana ; Tholan vs. State of Tamil Nadu1984 Cr.LJ 478; Kesar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1981 Raj. Criminal Cases 20; Munshi and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan 1981 Cr.LR (Raj.) 503; Badri Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan 1981 Cr.LR (Raj.) 474; and Chamru Bhudwa vs. State of M.P (7). 12. We have gone through the aforesaid authorities. Criminal Cases 20; Munshi and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan 1981 Cr.LR (Raj.) 503; Badri Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan 1981 Cr.LR (Raj.) 474; and Chamru Bhudwa vs. State of M.P (7). 12. We have gone through the aforesaid authorities. The Supreme Court in Tholan's case (supra), has referred to several earlier cases of the Supreme Court, while convicting the accused persons in that case under Section 304 Part-II, IPC, held that though requisite intention to commit murder could not be attributed to the accused, he wielded a weapon like a knife and, therefore, he could be attributted with knowledge that he was likely to 'cause death', and, therefore, he could not be convicted under Section 302, IPC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court convicted the accused appellant in that case, under Section 304, Part-II, IPC In the present case also, we have mentioned above, the accused appellant inflicted a single blow in the incident, as a result of some altercation between accused appellant and Banshi. Deceased Jassa Ram was only an intervener and there was no pre-meditation or motive or enmity, and looking to the age of the petitioner at the time of the incident, we are of the opinion that the accused appellant should be convicted under Section 304, Part-II. 13. In the result, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the conviction and sentence u/Sec. 302, IPC passed against the appellant Babulal, by the trial court, instead we hold him guilty u/Sec. 304, Part-II, IPC. Appellant is thus, convicted under Sec. 304, Part-II, IPC and sentenced to 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, three months RI. His conviction under Section 450, IPC recorded by the trial court is maintained. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 12. Believing the version given in the FIR that Kamla (the deceased) received a solitary injury on her head while she intervened to save her son and daughter-in-law alongwith finding of the trial Court that occurrence had not taken inside the house of complainant, we respectfully follow the law propounded by the Division Bench of this Court in Babu Lal (supra) where placing reliance upon the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the sentence was converted from offence under Section 302 to 304 Part II IPC. 13. 13. Consequently, taking totality of the circumstances, we convert the offence from 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. As a result thereof, appellant Prem Singh is acquitted for offence under Section 302 IPC and is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and is sentenced to five years imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Conviction and sentence of appellant Prem Singh s/o Narain for offences under Sections 323 and 452 IPC is also maintained. As ordered by the trial Court, all the sentences on different counts shall run concurrently. 14. As a result of above discussion with modification in the offence qua the present appellant and sentence in terms of what has been noted above, present appeal stands disposed of.