JUDGMENT 1. - Ratan Singh, the present appellant, as per the prosecution on 11.11.2005, at about 3:00 PM, had committed the murder of his elder brother, Puran Singh by causing injury on his head with an iron pipe. For causing the murder of his brother, Puran Singh, the present appellant Ratan Singh was tried by the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Dholpur. The said court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo two year S.I. 2. In the present case, the criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-D/1) presented by Leelawati (P.W.1) widow of Puran Singh, before Jai Singh (P.W.15). 3. Jai Singh (P.W.15) in the court stated that on 11.11.2005, he was posted as In-charge, Police Station Bari. At 4:00 PM, Natthi Lal (P.W.2) son of Ramgovind Kushwah and Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) son of Ram Ballabh came at the Police Station and informed that Ratan Singh s/o Bhauna Singh Kushwah has caused murder of his brother and the dead body is lying at the spot. Upon the above information, the Investigating Officer, along with the police party reached at the village Hulasi Ke Pura, where dead body was lying and number of men and women had gathered. The blood was oozing out from the head injury. Leelawati wife of the deceased Puran Singh presented the written report (Exhibit-D/1), on the basis of which a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/19) bearing No. 465/2005 was registered at the Police Station Bari, District Dholpur. 4. Leelawati (P.W.1) in the written report (Exhibit-D/1) stated that at 3:00 PM, her husband was going from one field to another field. On the way, Ratan Singh was drilling a bore and seeing her husband, he came running with an iron pipe and hit the same on the head of Puran Singh, due to which a fracture was caused on his head. The complainant stated that the dispute over the fields was simmering between the brothers. Therefore, for this reason, Ratan Singh had committed the murder of her husband and therefore, she sought a legal action. 5. The complainant stated that the dispute over the fields was simmering between the brothers. Therefore, for this reason, Ratan Singh had committed the murder of her husband and therefore, she sought a legal action. 5. As is evident from the perusal of the written report (Exhibit-D/1), the occurrence had taken place on 11.11.2005 at 3:00 PM and the written report (Exhibit-D/1) was submitted by Leelawati (P.W.1) at 4:31 PM and the case was registered at 5:40 PM. The special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the next day i.e. on 12.11.2005. 6. The accused-appellant, Ratan Singh along with the report of investigation was sent to the court of concerned Magistrate, and thereafter, the trial was committed to the court of Sessions and the charges were framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The charge stated that on 11.11.2005, at 3:00 PM, the appellant had given beating to Puran Singh and thereby committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant Ratan Singh denied the charge and claimed the trial. 7. Leelawati (P.W.1), widow of Puran Singh in the court had reiterated as to what was stated by her in the written report (Exhibit-D/1). In cross-examination, she further stated that her husband has two brothers, eldest being Ramswaroop and youngest being Ratan Singh. She further stated that the land was partitioned long ago and the dispute was pending between the parties regarding the bore in the field. She further stated that at the time of occurrence, she had taken three buffaloes to take water from bore in her field. However, this witness stated that she had told the police that she along with her son Tara Chand (P.W.5) were returning from the field after buffaloes had taken water and then Ratan Singh had given a blow with an iron pipe on the head of Puran Singh. The attention of the witness was drawn to her previous statement (Exhibit-D/2) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she had not stated that she had seen Ratan Singh causing iron pipe blow on the head of Puran Singh. The attention of the witness was drawn to her previous statement (Exhibit-D/2) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she had not stated that she had seen Ratan Singh causing iron pipe blow on the head of Puran Singh. It will be apposite here to reproduce the following lines from the cross-examination of Leelawati (P.W.1) as under:- " eSaus iqfyl c;ku esa ;g ckr crk nh Fkh fd eSa o rkjkpan tc [ksr ij ls HkSalksa dks ikuh fiyk dj ykSV jgs Fks rc gekjs lkeus jru flag us esjs ifr iwju flag ds ikbZ ekjkA ijUrq izn'kZ Mh02 c;kuksa esa gekjs [ksr ls HkSalksa dks ikuh fiyk dj ykSVuk] gekjs lkeus jru flag }kjk iwju flag dks ikbZi ekjuk vafdr ugha gSA eSaus iwju flag dks fxjk gqvk ns[kk FkkA esjs ifr iwju flag jkLrs ij iM+s FksA " 8. Tara Chand (P.W.5), son of Puran Singh aged 12 years, also stated in the court that Ratan Singh came running and caused an injury on the head of his father with a pipe. He further stated that the house of accused adjoins his house. 9. Narayan Dei (P.W.6), daughter-in-law of the deceased, Puran Singh, also stated that Ratan Singh had caused injury to his father-in-law Puran Singh. In cross-examination, she stated that in her presence, the dispute had arisen. 10. Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) in the court stated that on 11.11.2005, Natthi Lal (P.W.2) came running to him and informed that Puran Singh has been murdered. He had not informed as to who had caused injuries to Puran Singh. This witness further stated that the written report (Exhibit-D/1) is in his handwriting. This witness, in cross-examination stated as under:- " eSus yhykorh ls dgk fd fjiksVZ esa D;k fy[kuk gSA yhykorh] uRFkh o cPpksa us vkil esa ckr dh vkSj eq>s tks crk;k og eSaus fjiksVZ esa fy[k fn;kA " 11. Having broadly noted the prosecution case, which rests on the testimony of eyewitnesses, we need not notice the testimony of various other witnesses, who had participated in the investigation. However, it will be apposite here to notice the testimony of Dr. Having broadly noted the prosecution case, which rests on the testimony of eyewitnesses, we need not notice the testimony of various other witnesses, who had participated in the investigation. However, it will be apposite here to notice the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Mittal (P.W.10), who on 12.11.2005, at 10:00 AM, had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Puran Singh and as per the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/12), had found the following injuries on his person:- "Injuries-natural; exact position and measurements including direction especially in incised wounds:- (i) Lacerated wound, 4cm x 3cm, right side parieto-temporal region of skull. (ii) Lacerated wound, 4cm x 4cm, behind left ear. (iii) Lacerated wound, 4cm x 4cm, chin. (iv) Lacerated wound, 2cm x 2cm, left side of chin. (v) Lacerated wound, 3cm x 3cm, right side of mouth with upper incisor teeth absent with maxilla bone fractured. Bones and Joints:- (i) Fracture of right parietal bone. (ii) Fracture of maxilla (iii) Fracture of mandible at chin. Scalps, Skull Bones (Vertex):- (i) Fracture of parietal bone (Right). Membranes:- Ruptured Brain:- at side of injury clotted blood present." 12. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has stated that he had been falsely implicated and he is innocent. No witness was examined in defence. 13. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that Tara Chand (P.W.5), Leelawati (P.W.1) and Narayan Dei (P.W.6) had not witnessed the occurrence. The learned counsel submitted that all the eyewitnesses in the court have stated that the appellant, Ratan Singh had caused a solitary blow on the person of the deceased, Puran Singh, but on the person of Puran Singh, five injuries have been found and thus, the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version and therefore, it can safely be inferred that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. 14. Mr. N.S. Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor, has stated that it has come in the cross-examination of the doctor that all injuries can be result of one blow, if the same is given with force. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that all the injuries are on the right side. 15. We have minutely noticed the medical evidence. We agree with the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that injuries can be result of one blow. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that all the injuries are on the right side. 15. We have minutely noticed the medical evidence. We agree with the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that injuries can be result of one blow. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that after the receipt of a solitary blow, the deceased, Puran Singh fell on the ground. We are of the view that the injuries on the ear and chin can be the result of fall also. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that Jai Singh (P.W.15) in the court had stated that at 4:00 PM, Natthi Lal (P.W.2) son of Ramgovind Kushwah and Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) son of Ram Ballabh had relayed information to him regarding murder. According to the counsel, the information relayed by Natthi Lal (P.W.2) and Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) should have been noted as First Information Report. Jai Singh (P.W.15) had stated that Natthi Lal (P.W.2) and Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) had disclosed that Ratan Singh had caused injuries to Puran Singh and had murdered him. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that both Natthi Lal (P.W.2) and Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) in the court have stated that they had not seen the occurrence. 17. The learned counsel further drew our attention to the cross-examination of Leelawati (P.W.1), wherein she had been duly confronted with her previous statement wherein it was recorded that they had seen Puran Singh lying fallen on the ground. It has come in the testimony that the witnesses were returning after the buffaloes had taken water. It is true that the place of water has been shown in the site plan (Exhibit-P/1). 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 19. To us, the admission made by Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7), who had written the written report (Exhibit-D/1) assume importance. Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) had stated in the court that Leelawati (P.W.1), Natthi Lal (P.W.2) and her children had consultations and deliberations and thereafter, he had written the statement (Exhibit-D/1) on the dictation of Leelawati (P.W.1). We have already reproduced the exact lines in the earlier part of the judgment, wherein Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) asked Leelawati (P.W.1) as to what is to be written in the report. We have already reproduced the exact lines in the earlier part of the judgment, wherein Bhagwati Prasad (P.W.7) asked Leelawati (P.W.1) as to what is to be written in the report. Thereafter, Leelawati (P.W.1) had consultations with her children and later had dictated the report (Exhibit-D/1). 20. We have also noticed that the special report had reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the next day. Thus, it is apparent that Tara Chand (P.W.5), Narayan Dei (P.W.6) and Leelawati (P.W.1), as an after-thought had presented the written report (Exhibit-D/1), on the basis of which FIR (Exhibit-P/19) was registered. It has come in the testimony of Leelawati (P.W.1) that the fields were partitioned earlier and there was no immediate reason for the accused to cause injury. To us, it is on this score the blemish has surfaced in the prosecution case, what was the trigger point and as to why on the fateful day, the accused had caused injury, whether there was any verbal altercation when the deceased was passing through the field, where Ratan Singh was drilling the bore. The witnesses have suppressed these material facts from the court. 21. Taking the conduct of the witnesses into consideration, that they are not telling the complete truth to the court, we can safely assume that when brothers met each other in the fields, they may have exchanged hot words and as a result thereof, the appellant who was drilling the bore, by lifting an iron pipe had caused solitary blow on the head of the deceased Puran Singh. It is to be noted that the appellant had not repeated the blow. It is a case of single blow. 22. Thus, taking into account that the occurrence had taken place between two close relations, who were brothers and something must have happened before the injury was caused, we are of the view that the offence will not fall under Section 302 IPC, but under Section 304-I IPC. 23. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of the appellant Ratan Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convict him for the offence under Section 304-I IPC. As a result thereof, we set aside the life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant and sentence him to undergo ten years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year R.I. 24. As a result thereof, we set aside the life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant and sentence him to undergo ten years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year R.I. 24. With the above modification, qua conviction and sentence the present appeal stnads disposed of.Appeal partly allowed. *******