JUDGMENT: P.K. Lohra,J. This jail appeal laid by accused-appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 17th of May, 2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Nagaur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 341 and 323 Indian Penal Code, 1908 (for short, ‘IPC’). The accused-appellant was handed down sentences for the offences under various Sections of IPC as under: S.No. Section Sentence Fine In Default 1 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.1,000/- Two Months RI 2. 307 IPC Seven Years RI Rs.1,000/- Two Months SI 3. 326 IPC Seven Years RI Rs.1,000/- Two Months SI 4. 324 IPC One year RI Rs.500/- One Month SI 5. 323 IPC Six months RI Rs.500/- One Month SI 6. 341 IPC Fifteen Days SI Rs.250/- Fifteen Days SI Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that SHO, Police Station Khatubadi received a phone call on 23rd of April, 2006, at 3:30 PM, about occurrence of incident at Barna Nada Ki Dhani, Khatubadi and, responding to the same, he reached at the site, where complainant, Ummed Singh S/o Nain Singh, submitted a written report (Ex.P/15). In the written report, complainant made a specific allegation that today, at 1:00 PM, his brother’s son, Bajrang Singh, entered inside their residential premises, situated within the boundary wall of agricultural field, and inflicted blow of axe on his other nephew, Bhagwan Singh S/o Sugan Singh, thereby causing death of Bhagwan Singh. It is also narrated in the written report that, when accused-appellant Bajrang Singh was sought to be apprehended by Dilip Singh and Kishore Singh, the accused-appellant inflicted 3-4 injuries on the right hand of Dilip Singh by causing blow of axe and also inflicted blow on shoulder of Kishore Singh. The occurrence of incident caused hue and cry and, upon hearing alarm, people residing in nearby dhanis assembled at the site and caught hold of the accused person and was, subsequently, tied with rope at the site. The cause for the occurrence of the entire incident was attributed to some bickering between the accused-appellant and the complainant party for permitting goats to graze. Taking note of the written complaint, the SHO registered FIR (Ex. P/16) against the accused-appellant under Sections 302, 307, 323, and 341 IPC. The cause for the occurrence of the entire incident was attributed to some bickering between the accused-appellant and the complainant party for permitting goats to graze. Taking note of the written complaint, the SHO registered FIR (Ex. P/16) against the accused-appellant under Sections 302, 307, 323, and 341 IPC. Thereafter, the SHO made personal inspection of the site and prepared Halat Mauka and site map (Ex.P/18) and collected bloodstained sand as well as normal sand from the place of occurrence and a report (Ex.P/19) was prepared. During investigation, report of condition of dead body (Ex.P/9) and inquest report (Ex.P/10) were also drawn. The bloodstained cloths of deceased were recovered and a report (Ex.P/22) was prepared. Subsequently, dead body of deceased, Bhagwan Singh, was sent for post-mortem and the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P/6) was obtained by the SHO and, later on, dead body was handed over to father of the deceased by report (Ex.P/17). The accused-appellant was arrested and arrest memo (Ex.P/23) was prepared. The SHO also made endeavour to get the accused-appellant medically examined and injury report (Ex.P/28) was solicited. In furtherance of investigation, while acting on report for recovery of weapon of offence i.e. axe, a report of recovery (Ex.P/20) was prepared and so also site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P/21) was prepared. Injury report of injured Dilip Singh, his x-ray plates, cover note and x-ray report were also obtained and so also information about the injuries, were solicited as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/5. Similarly, injured, Kishore Singh, was also subjected to medical examination for ascertaining his injuries and his injury report, an information about the nature of injury was obtained as Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/7 respectively. The bloodstained clothes of deceased, Bhagwan Singh, and bloodstained sand along with the axe were sent for FSL examination by addressing a letter Ex.P/11 to the Superintendent of Police and thereupon Superintendent of Police, vide its letter (Ex.P/12), deposited the same in Malkhana and receipt was obtained. The FSL Report (Ex.P/27) and copies of roznamcha were also included as part of investigation in the form of Ex.P/24 and Ex.P/25 respectively. The SHO also recorded statements of the witnesses and, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323 IPC in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Jayal, District Nagaur. The SHO also recorded statements of the witnesses and, after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323 IPC in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Jayal, District Nagaur. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed case to the Court of Sessions by resorting to Section 209 Cr.PC. Later on, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 341, and 323 IPC on 10th of April, 2006 and proceeded to record evidence of prosecution. The prosecution, in order to bring home accusation against the appellant, produced eleven witnesses including Dr. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1). The learned Public Prosecutor dropped two witnesses of prosecution namely Tanwar Singh and Sanwai Khan and closed prosecution evidence. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., described the statements of prosecution witnesses as false and also stated that he is suffering from the disease of epilepsy. A defence is set out by the accused-appellant that, on the fateful day i.e. 23rd of April, 2006, his goats entered the agricultural field of Bhagwan Singh and, thereupon, Bhagwan Singh, Dilip Singh and Kishore Singh gave him beatings by lathis and he suffered many injuries on his person. The whole endeavour of the accused-appellant was to defend him from aggression shown by three individuals, and therefore, during scuffle the deceased and other incumbents might have suffered some injuries, which were not inflicted by him with intent to cause death of Bhagwan Singh. In support of his defence, the accused-appellant himself appeared in witness-box as D.W.1. The learned trial Court, after conclusion of the evidence, heard final arguments and, by the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant and handed down sentences under different sections of IPC mentioned to supra. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant, at the outset, conceded on the occurrence of incident and his conviction for other offences of IPC without any demure, vehemently argued that, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant, at the outset, conceded on the occurrence of incident and his conviction for other offences of IPC without any demure, vehemently argued that, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that a cumulative reading of the prosecution evidence with the medical evidence makes it abundantly clear that there is no iota of evidence to show that act of the appellant was with intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which is likely to cause death. Learned counsel further submits that there is no semblance of proof that appellant had knowledge that his act is likely to cause death, and therefore, it is not a case of murder but simply a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Learned counsel has further urged that the deceased and the other individuals are close relatives of the appellant and the incident occurred due to sudden provocation depriving the appellant of the power of self-control, and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have examined this aspect objectively so as to record conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part 1 IPC. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there is nothing on record to show that there was personal enmity between the deceased and the appellant or the appellant has acted with premeditation while giving axe blow to him for proving motive of offence and apparently cause of acrimony between the deceased and the appellant was a trivial issue of entrance of goats of the appellant in the field of deceased. He, therefore, submits that the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court for convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC are not sustainable and undeniably it is a clear case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that the prosecution evidence supported by medical evidence is sufficient to bring home guilt for offence under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective for recording its finding that the appellant is guilty of committing offence of murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is not required to be interfered with. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective for recording its finding that the appellant is guilty of committing offence of murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is not required to be interfered with. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that, looking to the injuries suffered by the deceased and the other injured persons, intention of the accused to commit offence is clear and unequivocal and therefore, it is not a fit case wherein the impugned judgment is to be tinkered with for mollifying the offence under Section 302 IPC to offence under Section 304 Part 1 IPC. Heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused impugned judgment and scanned the entire record of the case. The solitary issue, which requires judicial scrutiny in this jail appeal, is the nature of homicidal act committed by the appellant. Taking into account the entire evidence and available material, we are required to see whether the act of accused-appellant amounts to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder and its ramification on the findings in this behalf recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment. For threshing out the matter on this vital issue, we have delved deep into the matter to appreciate the evidence with forensic precision. As the entire prosecution case is founded on the statements of two injured eyewitnesses namely Dilip Singh (P.W.3) and Kishore Singh (P.W.9), it is worthwhile to examine testimony of these two witnesses at the threshold. Dilip Singh (P.W.3) in his examination in chief has attributed a definite role to the accused-appellant for inflicting blow of axe on the rear part of the head of the deceased. He has also castigated the accused-appellant for inflicting injury by use of axe on the palm of his right hand and so also overt act of the accused in inflicting injury on the person of Kishore Singh (P.W.9) . During his cross-examination, Dilip Singh (P.W.3), has very candidly admitted that when he reached at the spot, he has seen one injury on the rear portion of the neck of the deceased. The witness has not shown any previous enmity between the accused-appellant and the deceased. During his cross-examination, Dilip Singh (P.W.3), has very candidly admitted that when he reached at the spot, he has seen one injury on the rear portion of the neck of the deceased. The witness has not shown any previous enmity between the accused-appellant and the deceased. The so-called acrimony between the accused-appellant and the deceased is described by the witness in his deposition as under: ^^-----;g dguk lgh gS fd esjh cdfj;k ctjax flag ds [ksr esa pyh x;h Fkh blfy, ctjax flag us vksyck fn;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjh cdfj;ka vkSj Hkxoku flag dh cdfj;ka lkFk esa pj jgh gks cfYd Hkxoku flga dh cdfj;ka Hkxoku ds [ksr esa pj jgh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd Hkxoku flag dk [ksr vkSj ctjax flag dk [ksr lhZo tksM+ gksus ds dkj.k Hkokuhflag dh cdfj;ka ctjax flag ds [ksr esa pyh x;h gks bl ckr dk vksyHkk ctjax flaag us fn;k gksA >xM+k fdl ckr dks ysdj gqvk oks esjs dks irk ugh gSA----------^^ In latter part of his statements, during cross-examination, the witness has stated as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd ctjax flag vkSj Hkxokuflag ds igys ls dksbZ vnkorh ugha FkhA ;g lgh gS ?kVuk ls igys ctjax flag vkSj Hkxoku flag ds ?kj vkuk&tkuk vkil esa FkkA ;g lgh fd cdfj;ksa dks ysdj ctjax flag vkSj Hkxoku flag ds chp >xM+k gqvk FkkA-------------^^ The other alleged eye-witness and the injured Kishore Singh (P.W.9) has attributed a definite role to the accused-appellant for inflicting injury on his person. This witness has signed report of dead body (Ex.P/9). In his examination-in-chief, he has admitted that there was only one injury on the dead body of deceased. The witness is the person, who has informed the police on phone. The relevant excerpt of the statement (P.W.9) Kishore Singh, during his examination-in-chief reads as under:- ^^-----------EkSus ewy- dks xkao }kjk idM+us ds ckn iqfyl dks VsyhQksu ls lwpuk dh Fkh fQj ogkW ij iqfyl vkbZ Fkh] iqfyl us yk’k dks myV&iqyV dj ns[kk vkSj eSus Hkh ns[kh Fkh] Hkxoku flag ds ,d pksV yxh Fkh] iqfyl us inZ lwjr gky yk’k dh fy[kk i<+h ih-9 dh FkhA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj djok;s FksA--------^^ During his examination, the witness has admitted that he has not seen the incident and reached at the spot afterwards. The relevant part of his statement, during cross-examination, reads as under:- ^^-----;g lgh gS fd Hkxoku flag ds ctjax flag }kjk pksV ekjrs gq;s eSus ugh ns[kk Fkk D;ksfd eSa rks ?kj ij gh Fkk] eSusa ctjax flag vkSj Hkxoku flag dks cksyrs t:j lquk Fkk] eSus mudks yM+rs gq;s ugha ns[kk FkkA Hkxoku flag ds pksV yxrs gh eS nks feuV ds Ik’pkr gh cqykus ij ckgj vk x;k FkkA eSus rks dksbZ chp&cpko ugh fd;k Fkk] ;gh lgh gS fd ctjax flag us esjs ij iRFkj Qsadk rc eSa rks Hkkx x;k Fkk vkSj vius ?kj esa ?kql x;k FkkA iRFkj Qsdk rc eSa rks viuh <k.kh esa tkdj [kM+k gks x;k Fkk mlds ckn D;k gqvk oks esjs dks irk ugh gS vt [kqn dgk fd vkSj Bksdk rc cpkus dh dksf’k’k dh Fkh] iqfyl okyks dk ekSdk okyk LFkku :iflag us crk;k Fkk --------A^^ This witness has also testified on oath that there was no rivalry between the accused-appellant and the deceased, which is clearly discernible from his statements during cross-examination, which reads as under: ^^-----;g lgh gS fd >xM+k cdfj;ksa dh ckr dks ysdj Fkk] tks pjkus ds ckcr~ gqvk Fkk] ;g lgh gS fd igys ls dksbZ jaft’k ckth ugh FkhA---------^^ The other witness Mool Singh (P.W.10), has also very candidly admitted that he has seen one injury on the rear part of the head of deceased, Bhagwan Singh when he reached at the spot, which was caused by a blow of axe. The relevant excerpt from his statement reads as under:- ^^----Hkxoku flag ds flj ds ihNs dh rjQ pksV yxh Fkh tks dqokMh;s dh pksV Fkh----------^^ The witness was not an ocular witness inasmuch as he reached at the spot after half an hour from the time of occurrence. This fact is clearly apparent from the deposition the deposition of the witness during his cross-examination. The relevant part reads as under:- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd eSusa ctjax flag dks Hkxoku flag ds pksV ekjrs ugh ns[kk Fkk] ctjax flag }kjk fnfyi flag dh pksV ekjrs gq, eSus ugha ns[kk Fkk] eS ekSds ij ?kVuk ds djhc vk/kk /kaVs ds ckn es igqapk FkkA^^ At this stage for throwing light on the pivotal issue i.e. the nature of the offence committed by the accused-appellant, it is also worthwhile to have a glance at the testimony of Investigating officer, Banshi Lal (P.W.11). Banshi Lal (P.W.11) in his deposition has admitted that Radiologist is not named as one of the prosecution witness in the list submitted with the charge-sheet. He further admits that when appellant, Bajrang Singh, was arrested, there were nine injuries on his person. The relevant part of his statement reads as under:- ^^----ih-21 ij eqy- ds nks txg gLrk{kj djok;sa gS vt [kqn dgk fd Hkwy ls djok fy;s x;s FksA ;g lgh gS fd jsfM+;ksyksftLV dks xokg lwph esa ugh j[kk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd eqy- ctjax dks fxjrkj fd;k rc mlds 9 tkfgjk pksVs yxh gqbZ FkhA------^^ Investigating Officer (P.W.11) has very candidly admitted that definite opinion of the doctor about the injury suffered by the deceased has not been submitted with the charge-sheet and further in his deposition he has conceded that injured, Kishore Singh, did not sustain serious injury on his person. The close relation and proximity between the accused-appellant and deceased is also admitted by the witness besides the fact that there was no personal vengeance between these two individuals. As per the version of the Investigating Officer, the cause of incident was a quarrel which occurred for a minor dispute of live stocks. The victim has suffered only one significant injury without any intention on the part of the accused-appellant to cause death is also clearly apparent from the deposition of witness. As per the version of the Investigating Officer, the cause of incident was a quarrel which occurred for a minor dispute of live stocks. The victim has suffered only one significant injury without any intention on the part of the accused-appellant to cause death is also clearly apparent from the deposition of witness. The relevant part of statement of Investigating Officer, in this behalf, reads as under:- ^^----;g ckr lgh gS fd cq’kVZ ds nkfgus da/ks ij [kwu yxk gqvk ugh FkkA ;g lgh gS fd ih-7 e`rd dh pksVksa ds Lkac/k esa [kqyklk jk; MkDVj dh pkgh Fkh oks pktZ‘khV ds lkFk is’k ugh dh gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkgr fd’kksj flag ds ‘kjhj ij vk;h pksVks dk eqvk;uk ?kVuk okys fnu ugha djok;k vxys fnu djok;k Fkk D;ksfd mlds xaHkhj pksVs ugh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd eqy- ctjax flag vkSj e`Rkd Hkxoku flag ,d gh ifjokj ds gS vkSj dkdk&ckck ds csVs HkkbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd esjh rrh’k ls eqy- vkSj e`rd ds chp >xM+k cdfj;ksa dh ckr dks ysdj gqvk FkkA esjh rrh’k esa ;g ugh vk;k fd eqy- vkSj e`rd dks ekjus dh ckr ugh vk;h gSA ;g lgh gS fd e`rd Hkxoku flag ds ,d pksV ds vykok vU; dksbZ tkfgjk pksV ugh FkhA esjs }kjk fy;s x;s xokgksa ds c;kuks esa ;g ugh vk;k fd eqy- us tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls okj fd;k gks tSlk xokg us dgk oSlk gh eSusa c;ku fy;s FksA^^ Therefore, in the backdrop of the aforesaid statements of the witnesses, we feel inclined to critically examine the statements of Dr. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) for ascertaining the nature of offence. Dr. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) has also made endeavour to prove the autopsy report (Ex.P/6). While referring to his opinion Ex.P/7, the witness has deposed as follows: ^^-----,Lk,pvks- [kkVw cM+h }kjk e`rd ds ‘kjhj esa vkbZ pksVksa] e`R;q ds fy, Ik;kZIr gS ;k ugh fjiksVZ pkgh oks ih-7 gS ftlesa eSus viuh fjiksVZ , ls ch vafdr dh gS] ftles mDr pksV e`R;q ds fy, lkekU; vuqlj.k esa Ik;kZIr ikbZ x;h Fkh ftl ij lh ls M+h esjs gLrk{kj gSA ^^ Dr. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) during his cross-examination has admitted without demure that in the autopsy report of deceased only one injury is indicated. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) during his cross-examination has admitted without demure that in the autopsy report of deceased only one injury is indicated. The relevant excerpt of the statements of Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1), during his cross-examination, reads as under: ^^-----;g lgh gS fd e`rd Hkxoku flag dh iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ esa ek= ,d gh pksV gSA-------^^ A cumulative reading of the evidence of Dilip Singh (P.W.3), Kishore Singh (P.W.9), Mool Singh (P.W.10), Banshi Lal (P.W.11) in conjunction with the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.1) makes it abundantly clear that the injury caused by the accused-appellant to the deceased was not with intention to cause death and it was not a premeditated attack by the appellant. While construing the entire evidence harmoniously, undeniably we can conclude that on account of injury suffered by the victim, occurrence of death was a likely result but it was not a most probable result. There remains no quarrel that the appellant had no motive to kill the deceased and a trivial issue was blown out of proportion eventually erupting in a quarrel between the accused-appellant and the deceased, finally culminated into hostility. Looking to the injury suffered by the appellant and his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as well as his deposition as witness (D.W.1) makes it abundantly clear that during fight, he was provoked and gave a nasty blow of axe on the rear part of the head of the deceased. That being the position and taking note of the fact that deceased suffered only one injury on his rear part of the head has persuaded us to conclude that the offence committed by the accused-appellant was not a murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Reliance in this behalf can be profitably made to a decision of Supreme court in case of Daya Nand V/s. State of Haryana [2008 Crl. L.J. 2975]. In this verdict, Supreme Court examined the necessary ingredients of Section 299 and 300 IPC to find out a distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder. The Court held: 11. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The Court held: 11. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. Section 299 Section 300 A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done- Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done- INTENTION (a) with the intention of causing death.; or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (1) with the intention of causing death; or (2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or (3) 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 KNOWLEDGE **** (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. (4) with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above. The Supreme Court in case of Chenda @ Chanda Ram V/s. State of Chhatisgarh [ (2013) 12 SCC 110 ] reiterated the same principle for making distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder, while relying on its earlier verdict in case of State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya [ (1976) 4 SCC 382 ], the Court held: In State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, it was held that culpable homicide without the special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under Section 304 of the Code. It was further held that there are three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is murder under Section 300; second, culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under the first part of Section 304; and third is culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under the second part of Section 304. To quote : (SCC p. 386, para 12) “12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder', is 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, ‘culpable homicide of the first degree’. This is the greatest form of culpable homicide which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree’. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304.” Emphasizing on the cogent evidence of motive and previous enmity, the Court found that an incident, which has take place on the spur of moment is not sufficient to record conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Court has also laid emphasis that in want of evidence regarding the intention behind the fatal consequence of the blow, it is unsafe to record conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Court further held: “Having regard to the parameters indicated in Gurmukh Singh’s case, the offence seems to fall under the second part. There is no evidence of motive or previous enmity. The incident has taken place on the spur of the moment. There is no evidence regarding the intention behind the fatal consequence of the blow. There was only one blow. The accused is young. There was no premeditation. The evolution of the incident would show that it was in the midst of a sudden fight. There is no criminal background or adverse history of the appellant. It was a trivial quarrel among the villagers on account of a simple issue. There was only one blow. The accused is young. There was no premeditation. The evolution of the incident would show that it was in the midst of a sudden fight. There is no criminal background or adverse history of the appellant. It was a trivial quarrel among the villagers on account of a simple issue. The fatal blow was in the course of a scuffle between two persons. There has been no other act of cruelty or unusual conduct on the part of the appellant. The deceased was involved in the scuffle in the presence of his wife and he had actually been called upon by her to the spot so as to settle the score with the accused persons....” Supreme Court in its judgment in case of Arjun V/s. State of Maharasthra [2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 506] found that if there is no evidence of premeditation and the act was committed in heat of passion and the accused had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner, the offence committed by him is liable to be punished under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Finally, the Court altered the punishment from 302 IPC to 304 Part 1 IPC. The Court held: “Considering the background facts as well as the fact that there was no premeditation and the act was committed in a heat of passion and that the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner and that there was a fight between the parties, we are of the view that this case falls under the fourth exception to Section 300 I.P.C. and hence it is just and proper to alter the conviction from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. and we do so.” Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are persuaded to hold that the learned trial Court has fell in error for recording finding of guilt against the accused-appellant for murder instead of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and consequently the appeal to that extent merits acceptance in part. Undeniably a solitary injury was caused by the appellant on the rear part of the head of the deceased but in spur of moment and there was no previous enmity between both of them, therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellant is hereby altered from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part 1 IPC and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court of imprisonment for life is reduced to imprisonment for a period of ten years while maintaining fine of Rs.1,000/-. As the appellant has not laid challenge to his conviction for the various other sections of IPC, we have no examined the legality and propriety of his conviction for the said offences and accordingly conviction under these sections are maintained. The upshot of above discussion is that instant appeal is allowed in part and the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is altered to under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and undergo reduced sentence of ten Rs.1,000/-.