JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by the appellant, Darshan Singh @ Raju @ Rajendra Singh, challenging the validity of the judgment dated 15th of January, 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Anupgarh, HQ Suratgarh, District: Sri Ganganagar, in Session Case No. 8/2008, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Brief stated, the facts of the case are that complainant, Ramchandra S/o Nirna Ram, submitted a written report on 05.11.2006 at about 08.15 AM at Police Station Suratgarh District Sriganganagar alleging therein that on 04.11.2006 at about 06.00 PM one Sahiram Saharan, came to his house and asked my brother Om Prakash to accompany him. Upon asking my brother went along with him in the vehicle Spacio and the complainant went along with his another brother Mansaram (PW.19) in their agricultural field. When the complainant was returning back at about 08.30 PM, with Mansa Ram to the house, they heard some noise near the house of the accused appellant, they immediately went near the house and saw that the vehicle was standing outside the house of appellant Raju and inside the house of appellant, appellant Raju was holding the throat of Om Prakash, and by other hand causing injuries by knife in the stomach of Om Prakash. According to complainant, when they reached on the spot, accused Raju ran away from the spot. They immediately took the injured brother Om Prakash to hospital at Suratgarh, from where he was referred to Govt. Hospital, Bikaner, however, in the way to Bikaner, Om Prakash expired. 3. Upon the aforesaid written report (Ex. P/32) a formal F.I.R. No. 746/2006 was registered at Police Station- Suratgarh under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced and during the investigation, after through search the appellant was arrested on 07.12.2006, upon his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the weapon knife was recovered vides Ex. P/10 in the presence of Krishanchandra and Daluram. 4. The investigation of the case culminated into submission of a charge sheet for the offence u/s. 302 of IPC against the accused appellant in the court of learned Addl. P/10 in the presence of Krishanchandra and Daluram. 4. The investigation of the case culminated into submission of a charge sheet for the offence u/s. 302 of IPC against the accused appellant in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, wherefrom the case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, Camp Suratagarh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, framed charge for the offence u/s. 302 IPC after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant, but the accused appellant denied the charge levelled against him and prayed for trial. 5. The learned trial court thereafter recorded the statements of 20 prosecution witnesses and 48 documents so also five articles were exhibited in the trial. The statement of the accused appellant u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the appellant denied all the charges levelled by the prosecution witnesses and gave following explanation, which reads as under: ^^lPph ckr gSS fd eMZZj gqqvk gSS] 4-11-06 dh ckr gSSA lghjke lgkj.k] ijrk lgkj.k o ekejkt dLck 'kke 8-15 pm ij vksseizzdk'k dkss ?kk;y voLFkk essaa essjh Dyhfud ij yk, eqq>ss dgk ffd vksseizzdk'k VwwVh gqqbZZ ckssrykssaa ij ffxj x;k gSS bldk bykt djkss eSSaauss vksseizzdk'k dkss nss[kk ftluss 'kjkc ih j[kh Fkh rc eSSaa ljdkjh vLirky yss tkuss dkss dgk rc lghjke] ijrk o ekejkt uss essjss lkFk ekjihV dh eSSuss 'kkssj epk;k rkss vkl iMkSSl dss ykssx vk x, rc vksseizzdk'k dkss xkMh essaa Mkydj tk[kM+k okyh yss x,A lqqcg eqq>ss irk pyk fd essjss ij eqqdnek ntZZ djok fn;k gSSA eSSaauss iqqfyl dss mPpkf/kdkfj;kssaa dkss f'kdk;r dh ijUrqq essjh dkssbZZ lqquokbZZ ughaa dhA eSSaa MkWWDVj gqqaa essjk dke ejht dkss cpkuk gSS ekjuk ughaa gSS eSSaauss Hkh ejht dkss cpkuss dh lykg nh FkhA^^ 6. The appellant prayed to lead evidence in support of his defence and examined himself as DW.1 on oath. 7. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Public Prosecutor, finally convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to under life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In this appeal, the said judgment is under challenge. 8. 7. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Public Prosecutor, finally convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to under life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In this appeal, the said judgment is under challenge. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the prosecution witness PW.1 Sahiram, with whom deceased Om Prakash went from the house, turned hostile, therefore, the findings given by the learned trial court so as to hold the accused appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of testimony of both the eye-witnesses viz. PW.18, Ramchandra (author of FIR) and PW.19 Mansaram, who are the real brothers of deceased cannot be relied upon because their presence on the place of occurrence becomes highly doubtful. Therefore, the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court against the accused appellant deserves to be quashed. 9. It is argued that as per prosecution case, the accused appellant was arrested on 07.12.2006 but statement of most of the prosecution under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after the arrest of the appellant, after one month from the date of incident. Therefore, on this ground alone, it can be presumed that whole prosecution case is based upon a concocted story framed by the prosecution so as to involve the appellant falsely with the alleged crime. Learned trial court observed in its judgment that deceased, Om Prakash, was resident of Village Sardarpura, and in that village the accused appellant was residing for last more than two and half years and was running a clinic being MRP doctor. The house of the accused appellant is situated near the house of Mukhram Meghwal, in the village there was a rumor that accused appellant is having illicit relationship with the wife of Mukhram Meghwal. Upon said rumor, Om Prakash (deceased) assaulted accused appellant 6-7 days months back prior to the said incident and for the aforesaid incident in the village a "Panchayat" was held in which a compromise was arrived at between the parties. Upon said rumor, Om Prakash (deceased) assaulted accused appellant 6-7 days months back prior to the said incident and for the aforesaid incident in the village a "Panchayat" was held in which a compromise was arrived at between the parties. However, according to prosecution the appellant was having enmity with the deceased, therefore, on the date of incident, when deceased Om Prakash went to the house of accused appellant, Raju, some quarrel took place and at that time one Sahi Ram intervened and took the deceased out of house. When deceased came out of the house, and start their vehicle but after sitting in the vehicle, the deceased Om Prakash said, he has left his diary in the house, therefore, went back in the house, where again quarrel took place in between deceased and the appellant, in which Raju @ Rajendra @ Darshan Singh, inflicted injuries upon the person of deceased by knife and ran away from the place of occurrence. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the story of prosecution is totally concocted story because in the statement of accused appellant recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., it is specifically explained by the accused appellant that on the date of occurrence, the deceased was taken to his clinic by Sahi Ram Saharan, Sarvan, Mamraj etc. resident of village at about 08.12 PM in injured condition and said that injuries have been caused by broken bottles, therefore, provide him necessary treatment. After examining deceased, Om Prakash, the accused appellant said that he has consumed liquor, therefore, he may be taken to the Govt. Hospital; and denied to provide treatment, then Sahi Ram, etc. assaulted him, thereafter upon raising voice residents of the locality came on the spot and took Om Prakash for treatment in the vehicle. According to appellant, an information was received in the morning that a false FIR has been registered against him, the accused appellant made complaint to the higher authorities but nobody heard his grievances. It is also explained by him that I am doctor by profession and my work is to save the life of patients and not to kill them, therefore, I advised to take injured, Om Prakash to the Govt. Hospital. 11. It is also explained by him that I am doctor by profession and my work is to save the life of patients and not to kill them, therefore, I advised to take injured, Om Prakash to the Govt. Hospital. 11. According to learned counsel for the appellant he has been falsely implicated in this case only for the reason that there was rumor in the village with regard to illicit relation of him with the wife of one Mukhram Meghwal. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no independent witness to prove the prosecution case, more so, the entire prosecution case is based upon the testimony of two witnesses i.e. PW.18, Ramchandra and PW.19, Mansa Ram, they are real brothers of the deceased. 12. With regard to recovery of knife, it is submitted that both the Motbir witnesses of Exhibit. P/10, i.e. Kailash Chandra (PW.3) and Dalu Ram (PW.20), gave contradictory statements, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon to prove the recovery of knife. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the alleged charge for committing murder deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted to be true, then also, as per prosecution case the occurrence took place in the house of the appellant and it is required to be ascertained that as to why deceased, Om Prakash and Sahi Ram and others went to the house of appellant, who was running a clinic as MRP doctor. As per prosecution case, due to rumor in the villages that accused appellant is having illicit relationship with the wife of one Mukhram Meghwal, the deceased, Om Prakash, assaulted the appellant, therefore, it is obvious that the complainant party came to the residence of the accused appellant to cause injuries or to make quarrel with him, in which probably injuries were sustained to the deceased which resulted into the death. 14. 14. The evidence of whole prosecution case speaks loudly that deceased, Om Prakash, and complainant party were angry with the appellant for the reason that there was rumor in the village with regard to illicit relations of accused appellant with the wife of Mukhram Meghwal, the deceased along with three persons, went to the house of accused appellant to teach him a lesson, and during the course of aforesaid quarrel, deceased sustained injuries and died. 15. While inviting attention of the Court towards the statements of doctor (PW.12, Vinod Sharma), it is submitted that none of the injuries were sufficient to cause death and the natures of the injuries were not so serious, therefore, even if this court comes to the conclusion that incident took place on the relevant day, in the house of accused, then while accepting the explanation given by the accused appellant in his statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the conviction can be altered from the offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I of the IPC because as per evidence on record, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 16. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that it is a case in which two witnesses, namely, PW.18 Ramchandra and PW.19 Mansa Ram, categorically stated before the court on oath that on the date of incident where they were returning from the agricultural field, they heard noise from the house of the accused appellant and immediately went there and saw that accused appellant was causing injuries to their brother. It is true that both these witnesses are real brother of the deceased but only for this reason that they are real brothers of the deceased, their testimony cannot be disbelieved because the recovery of knife has been proved by the prosecution, so also, it is one of the important fact that after the incident the appellant absconded and was arrested on 07.12.2006 after one month of the incident. It is obvious that no innocent person will leave his house until and unless he is guilty for committing offence. In this case after incident the accused appellant absconded himself and later on after serious efforts he was arrested by the police. It is obvious that no innocent person will leave his house until and unless he is guilty for committing offence. In this case after incident the accused appellant absconded himself and later on after serious efforts he was arrested by the police. Thus it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the trial court while holding the accused appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC. 17. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that it is a case in which the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt while leading trustworthy evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence, so also, recovery of knife, therefore, the instant appeal may kindly be dismissed. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings of the learned trial court and scanned entire evidence, upon which the trial court relied upon to convict to accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 19. 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings of the learned trial court and scanned entire evidence, upon which the trial court relied upon to convict to accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 19. As per facts the FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint filed by PW.18, Ramchandra, real brother of the deceased, in which following allegations against the appellant were levelled by him: - ^^lssok ess Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh iqqfyl Fkkuk lqqjrx<++ fo"k; & eqqdnek ntZZ djokuss okLrssA egkssn; mijkssDr fo"k; vUrZxr fuossnu gSS fd izzkFkhZZ xkaao ljnkjiqqjk [k/kkZZ dk jguss okyk gSSA dy fnukaad 4-11-06 dkss eSSaa viuss ?kj ij ekSStwwn Fkk fd oDr djhc N%% ctss lkaa; dky lghjke lgkj.k essjss HkkbZZ vksseizzdk'k dss ikl vk;k rFkk essjssHHkkbZZ dkss dgk vktk ?kwwe dss vkrss gSS rkss essjk HkkbZZ vksseizzdk'k Liss'kh;kss xkM+h yssdj lghjke dss lkFk pyk x;k rFkk eSSaa vkSSj essjk HkkbZZ eUlkjke xkoaa essaa ujek pqqxkbZZ dss fy, pqqxkjss djuss dss fy, xkaao essaa pyss x, oDr djhc lk<ss vkB ctss ess vkSSj essjk HkkbZZ eUlkjke okfil vk jgss rkss jkLrss ess jk.kqq flaag vkj ve ih MkDVj dss ?kj dss ikl 'kkssj lqqukbZZ fn;k rkss ge nkssukssaa HkkbZZ Hkkx dj ogkaa x, rkss nss[kk rkss essjss HkkbZZ dh xkM++h ckgj [kM++h Fkh rFkk jktqq flaag MkDVj essjss HkkbZZ vksseizzdk'k dk ,d gkFk lss xyk idM++dj tku lss ekjuss dh fu;r lss nwwljss gkFk lss pkdww lss essjss HkkbZZ dss issUV essaa okj dj jgk Fkk tc ogkaa igqqpss rkss jktqq flaag essjss HkkbZZ dkss ogkaa fxjkdj Hkkx x;kA blh nkSSjku ekSSdss ij vksseizzdk'k Lokeh] o vkl iMkSSlh Hkh vk x, Fkss fftudh lgk;rk lss mlh dh xkMh essaa Mkydj lqqjrx< gkssLihVy yk, tgkaa ij MkDVjkssaa uss mldh gkyr T;knk [kjkc gkssuss dss dkj.k chdkussj yss tkuss dks dgk rkss ge mlss chdkussj yss x, rFkk chdkussj dss jkLrss essaa gh e``R;qq gkss xbZZ essjss HkkbZZ e``R;qq jktqq flaag MkDVj dss }kjk pkdqq dh pkssVss ekjuss dss dkj.k e``R;qq gqqbZZ fjikssVZZ nssrk gwwaa dkjokbZZ fd tk,A** 20. Upon perusal of above written complaint, upon which formal FIR (Ex. P/33) was registered on 05.11.2006 at Police Station- Suratgarh, it is revealed that deceased, Om Prakash, went from his house on 04.11.2006 with one Sahiram Saharan in a Spacio vehicle in the evening at 6'O Clock. Upon perusal of above written complaint, upon which formal FIR (Ex. P/33) was registered on 05.11.2006 at Police Station- Suratgarh, it is revealed that deceased, Om Prakash, went from his house on 04.11.2006 with one Sahiram Saharan in a Spacio vehicle in the evening at 6'O Clock. The said witness Sahi Ram Saharan (PW.1) appeared before the trial court and gave statement but turned hostile and did not support the fact that deceased, Om Prakash, went with him in Spacio vehicle in the evening of 04.11.2006. 21. The prosecution witness PW.6, Sardarar Ram, also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly, PW.8, Kumbharam, PW.9 Om Prakash, PW.10 Indraj, all the witness of incident, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 22. It is established fact that deceased, Om Prakash, went to the clinic of accused from the front side of the house of accused. Now the question arise as to why deceased, Om Prakash, went to the house of accused, who was running a clinic being RMP doctor. The witness PW.7 Durja Ram, categorically stated before the court that on the date of incident my brother, Sardara Ram, who was running a STD booth in the area, near the house of deceased, went to the home for taking meal, at that time, when he was sitting in the STD booth, the deceased Om Prkash came there in a vehicle and made enquiry about accused Darshan Singh @ Raju. At that time, more than 8-10 persons were standing in the street. In the vehicle, 2-3 persons were sitting when deceased came on the spot. Upon making enquiry by the deceased, the witness PW.7, Durja Ram, said that I no knowledge about Darshan @ Raju. Thereafter, Om Prakash went towards the house of accused appellant along with 2-3 persons and after some i.e. half an hour, I heard some noise from the house of accused with regard to quarrel, therefore, went on spot. Upon making enquiry by the deceased, the witness PW.7, Durja Ram, said that I no knowledge about Darshan @ Raju. Thereafter, Om Prakash went towards the house of accused appellant along with 2-3 persons and after some i.e. half an hour, I heard some noise from the house of accused with regard to quarrel, therefore, went on spot. The following statement is given by the witness PW.7 (Durja Ram) on oath before the court, which reads as infra: ^^eSSaa gkftj vnkyr eqqfYte dkss tkurk gwwaa tkss gekjss xkaao essaa MkDVjh djrk Fkk ge xkaao essaa bldkss jkt vkSSj jktssUnzz dgrss FkssA ;g dqHkkjke ess?koky dss edku essaa MkWWDVjh djrk Fkk vkSSj ogh jgrk FkkA ljnkjk jke essjk HkkbZZ yxrk gSS tkss Vssyfjaax dk dke djrk gSS og igyss gekjss xkaao essaa gekjss Lo;aa dss ukssgjss essaa nqqdku djrk Fkk vkSSj ,lVhMh dk dke djrk FkkA gekjss ukssgjss dss nf{k.k dh rjQ dss edku essaa tkftj vnkyr jktww MkWWDVjh djrk FkkA eSSaa gekjss xkaao dss vksseizzdk'k lgkj.k dkss tkurk FkkA ftldh e``R;qq gkss pqqdh gSSA vksseizzdk”k dh e``R;qq gqq;ss yxHkx rhu o"kZZ gkss pqqdss gSSA vksseizzdk'k viuss ikl xkM++h j[krk FkkA essjk NkssVk HkkbZZ ljnkjk jke [kkuk [kkuss x;k gvk Fkk rkss vksseizzdk'k xkMh ij vk;k vkSSj mluss gkftj vnkyr MkWWDVj dss ckjss essaa iwwNk FkkA essjss lkFk xyh essaa vkB nl yM++dss Hkh [kM++ss Fkss tkss xyh essaa Fkss vkSSj eSSaa i< jgk FkkA eSSuss vksse dkss dgk Fkk fd MkWWDVj dk eqq>ss /;ku ughaa gSSA xkM+h essaa nkss rhu vkneh vkSSj cSSBss Fkss ftuessaa ekejkt o irjke FkssA vksse] MkWWDVj dh ?kj dh rjQ xyh essaa x;k Fkk tkss MkWWDVj dh rjQ tkrh gSSA vk/kk ?k.Vk iSSrhl feuV ckn 'kkSSj epk fd vksse dkss ekj fn;k vksse dkss ekj fn;kA fQj vksseLokeh] bUnzkt ess?koky] nkss rhu vU; fQj ge ukSSgjss dh nhokj Qkaan dj mudss ikl x;ss rkss vksse ogkaa tkss [kkV Fkk cSSBk Fkk iSSj ilkjss cSSBk Fkk ftldkss geuss mBkdj xkM+h essaa fcBk fn;k FkkA vksse] gkftj vnkyr MkWWDVj dh nhokj dss ikl cSSBk FkkA xkM+h ml le; LVkVZZ Fkh eSSaauss cUn dh gqqbZZ ughaa nss[khA vksseizzdk'k Lokeh xkM++h pyk jgk FkkA vksseizzdk'k lgkj.k dss yxh gqqbZZ Fkh fdruh yxh gqqbZZ Fkh eqq>ss ughaa irkA --------* 23. In the cross-examination, this witness categorically stated that when I reached on the spot, I saw that injuries were caused to deceased, Om Prakash, and Raju @ Darshan was not there. The said witness being independent witness, categorically stated before the court on oath that deceased, Om Prakash along with 2-3 persons came to the STD Booth of his brother, at that time, there was no injury on the person of Om Prakash. 24. We have also perused the statements of author of FIR i.e. PW.18, Ramchandra. The said witness reiterated the facts narrated by him the FIR. Similarly PW.19, Mansaram, another real brother of deceased also reiterated the facts disclosed in the FIR. 25. Upon perusal of statements of PW.18, Ramchandra and PW.19 Mansaram, it is abundantly clear that in the house of accused appellant, deceased, Om Prakash was found in injured condition and as per statements of two witnesses PW.18 and PW.19, real brothers of deceased, it is proved that some incident took place in the house of accused appellant. Most of the independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case including Sahiram Saharan, with whom the deceased went from the house. Be that as it may, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that accused appellant himself in his statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that deceased, Om Prakash, Sahiram, Parta Saharan, Mamraj came to his house while taking Om Prakash in injured condition and asked him for providing treatment and they all were in drunken position, upon refusal to provide treatment to injured Om Prakash, Sahiram, Parta Ram, Mamraj left the injured in front of his house and ran away. The prosecution has come out with a case that before the alleged incident a quarrel took place in between deceased, Om Prakash and Raju, for the reason that there was rumor in the village that accused appellant was having illicit relation with wife of one Mamraj Meghwal and community people made complaint to Om Prakash, deceased with regard to said illicit relations, and upon that Om Prakash (deceased) gave beatings to accused Raju @ Darshan Singh. Later on, a compromise was arrived at between them and Mamraj shifted his house to Chak 9 SBD. In the investigation, statements of Sahiram Saharan were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are available on record as Ex. P/2. 26. Later on, a compromise was arrived at between them and Mamraj shifted his house to Chak 9 SBD. In the investigation, statements of Sahiram Saharan were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which are available on record as Ex. P/2. 26. The Investigating Officer proved the said statement, in which the reason of quarrel came on record during investigation. Although, said Sahiram Saharan (PW.1) turned hostile before the court but upon assessment of entire evidence and the incident, as narrated by PW.7, Durja Ram, we have no hesitation to observe that deceased along with 2-3 persons went to the house of accused appellant, where some quarrel took place, in which injuries were caused to the deceased, which resulted into the death. The accused appellant himself has admitted the fact that the day on which the occurrence took place, deceased along with 2-3 persons came to his clinic, at that time, Om Prakash (deceased) was in injured conditions, so also, was in drunken state. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that deceased was found in injured condition in front of house of the accused appellant. 27. After arrest of the accused appellant, he (appellant) gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, upon which recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered vide Ex. P/10 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, PW.3 Krishanchandra, and PW.20 Daluram. Both these witnesses categorically stated before the court that blood stained knife was recovered in their presence from the house of accused appellant and recovery memo (Ex. P/10) was prepared, and they put their signatures on the same as witness of recovery. 28. The blood stained clothes of the deceased and knife were sent to FSL for chemical analysis and in the FSL Report (Ex. P/38) dated 11.01.2007 it is reported that upon the clothes and knife blood of "B' ground was found. Meaning thereby, the prosecution has established that injuries were caused to the deceased by the knife, recovered as per information given by the accused appellant. 29. P/38) dated 11.01.2007 it is reported that upon the clothes and knife blood of "B' ground was found. Meaning thereby, the prosecution has established that injuries were caused to the deceased by the knife, recovered as per information given by the accused appellant. 29. Upon assessment of the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has led the trustworthy evidence to establish the fact that incident took place in front of house of accused appellant though most of independent witnesses have turned hostile but accused himself in his statements recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. accepted that deceased was taken to his clinic in injured condition, but narrated altogether different story than the story of the prosecution. 30. After assessment of evidence, we cannot lose site of the fact that the place where the incident had taken place is said to be the house of accused appellant and as per the statement of PW.7, Durja Ram, who is independent witness and resident of the area, it is established that when deceased, Om Prakash, went to the house of accused along with 2-3 persons, was not in injured condition, therefore, it is obvious that some quarrel took place in the house/clinic of the accused appellant, in which injuries were sustained to the deceased. 31. We have perused the statement of doctor, who performed the postmortem of the deceased. PW. 15 Dr. Manoj Agarwal, nowhere stated before the court that injuries found upon the body of deceased were caused by knife. More so, it is stated by him in cross-examination that, ^ ^pkssVssaa lkjh lkeuss dh rjQ vkbZZ gSSA ,sslh nhokj ftl ij dkaap dh ckssryssaa rkssM++dj mYVh yxkbZZ gkssrh gSS rkss izzsslj lss fxjuss ij lHkh pkssVkssaa dss vkuss dh laaHkkouk lss baadkj ughaa fd;k tk ldrkA pkssVssaa nk;haa lkbM essaa vf/kd vkbZZ gqqbZZ gSSA^^ 32. In the totality of the assessment, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased along with 2-3 persons went to the house of accused appellant along with 2-3 persons, where the occurrence took place, therefore, obviously the complainant party was aggressor and, thus it cannot be said that there was any pre-meditation or any intention of the accused appellant to cause death of deceased. More so, as per evidence when quarrel took place in the house/clinic of accused appellant, some injuries were caused to the deceased, which resulted into the death. 33. More so, as per evidence when quarrel took place in the house/clinic of accused appellant, some injuries were caused to the deceased, which resulted into the death. 33. In the case of State of HP v. Ram Pal reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 165, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, gave following finding upon the identical facts. The paras Nos. 5 to 8 of the said judgment are as follows: "5. Having perused the record for the limited purpose of finding the nature of offence, we see that it is clear from the evidence of PW- 3 himself that he and Jaiwant consumed liquor before going to the tea stall of the respondent herein to demand the money which was due to him and when they reached there the deceased went inside the tea stall and started quarreling with the accused persons. During the said quarrel it is stated that the deceased called the accused persons as "cheat" and "beiman" and the quarrel then spilled outside the stall at which point of time a stick that was carried by Choudhary Ram was snatched by PW- 3, in the process Choudhary Ram got injured and fell down. Here we must notice the case of the defence is that PW- 3 assaulted Choudhary Ram which caused him facial injury and noticing his father being assaulted the respondent intervened and assaulted PW- 3 first with a knife and then assaulted the deceased twice on his back. 6. On the facts of this case whichever version we take it is clear that it is the deceased and PW- 3 after consuming liquor went to the tea stall of the accused. When the deceased went inside and abused the accused, the said verbal quarrel then spilled outside the shop when Choudhary Ram was injured on the fact either intentionally or otherwise by PW- 3. It is at that time the respondent stabbed PW-3 and the deceased. From the above facts stand proved are (a) the deceased went with PW- 3 to the shop of the accused; (b) picked up an argument during which he abused the accused; (c) Choudhary Ram was injured first and then the respondent stabbed PW- 3 and the deceased; (d) injury was inflicted on the back of the deceased. 7. From the above facts stand proved are (a) the deceased went with PW- 3 to the shop of the accused; (b) picked up an argument during which he abused the accused; (c) Choudhary Ram was injured first and then the respondent stabbed PW- 3 and the deceased; (d) injury was inflicted on the back of the deceased. 7. On the above facts we are of the opinion that the High Court was justified in altering the sentence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. We are also in agreement with the finding of the High Court that sentence of over 4 years' RI suffered by the respondent meets the ends of justice. 8. For the reasons stated, this appeal fails hence dismissed." 34. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 506 held that if motive is absent and there was allegation of prosecution for inflicting one injury may be that too by force, then also no offence under Section 302 IPC is said to be made out because offence cannot travel beyond offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. The relevant para No. 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference: - "17. Considering the background facts as well as the fact that there was no premeditation and the act was committed in a heat and passion and that the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted n a cruel manner and that there was a fight between the parties, we are of the view that this case falls under the forth exception to Section 300 IPC and hence it is just and proper to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and we do so." 35. After perusing the aforesaid judgments in the light of the evidence of the present case, it is explicitly clear that the prosecution has proved the fact that incident took place in the house of the accused appellant, where accused appellant was residing and in this regard there is independent evidence of PW.7, Durja Ram that deceased after making enquiry about accused appellant went towards the house of accused appellant and after half an hour, upon hearing the noise of some quarrel, he went on the spot immediately and saw that deceased was lying in injured condition and accused appellant was missing. It is obvious from the record that there is no allegation against the accused appellant for reparation or pre-meditation, more so, it appears from the evidence that some quarrel took place in a spur of moment and hot, in which injuries were caused to the deceased. Therefore, the case does not fall under Section 302 of IPC because the deceased and complainant party was aggressor, they went to the house/clinic of accused appellant, where quarrel took place, in which injuries were caused to the deceased. 36. It is established law that in absence of any motive or intention, the accused appellant can be convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC and not for offence under Section 302 of IPC. The findings thus recorded by the learned court below convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is not sustainable in law because as per prosecution case, the deceased along with 2-3 other persons went to the house of accused, where some quarrel took place and the persons who accompanied the deceased, turned hostile before the court and did not support the prosecution case for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 37. In our view, it is case of culpable homicide not amount to murder, therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant u/s. 302 of IPC deserves to be altered to the offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC. 38. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is partly allowed, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is hereby altered to Section 304 Part I of IPC. 38. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal is partly allowed, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is hereby altered to Section 304 Part I of IPC. The accused appellant is hereby convicted for offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment is hereby reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/-.