JUDGMENT : 1. In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant is challenging the validity of judgment dated 16th of May, 2009, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.2, Pali, in Session Case No.31/2008, by which the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant, Hari Ram, for the offence under Section 302 and 498A of IPC and passed following sentence :- 302 of IPC: Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 498A of IPC: Two Year's Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case, on 05.04.2008, PW.2- Sakaram submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station- Rohat. 498A of IPC: Two Year's Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case, on 05.04.2008, PW.2- Sakaram submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station- Rohat. In the written report following allegations were levelled by the accused appellant, which reads as infra: - ^^lsok esa] Jheku~ Fkkusnkj lkgc iqfyl Fkkuk jksgV ftyk ikyh izkFkhZ%& ldkjke iq= Jh tsikjke tkfr es?koky fuoklh fuEcyk rglhy vkgksj ftyk tkyksj jktŒ fo"k;%& eqdnek ntZ djus ckcrA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd esjh cfgu eatw iRuh gfjjke dkSe es?koky fuoklh Hkkaojh ds lkFk djhc ikap o"kZ iwoZ jkth[kq'kh ls fgUnw jhfr fjokt ds vuqlkj 'kknh gqbZ FkhA og blh izdkj gfjjke dh lxh cfgu Jhefr 'kkafr nsoh iRuh lk;jkjke dkSe es?koky fuoklh fuEcyk ds lkFk ikap o"kZ iwoZ 'kknh gqbZ FkhA esjh cfgu eatw ds ,d iq= pkj o"kZ dk gS vkSj esjh HkkHkh 'kkafr ,d o"kZ ls Hkkaojh buds ih;j esa firk ujlhjke ds ikl jg jgh gSA vkSj esjh cfgu eatw vius llqjky Hkkaojh gh vius ifr gfjjke ds lkFk jg jgh Fkh] ijUrq esjh HkkHkh 'kkfUr dh otg ls buds ;kfu esjh cfgu ds llqjky okys ujlhjke llqj o lklq ysgjh nsoh o esjh HkkHkh esjh cfgu dh lxh uun o esjk cguksbZ gfjjke esjh cfgu ds lkFk ekjihV o ijs'kku djrs jgrs FksA vkt fnukad 05-04-2008 dks lqcg Jh idkjke iq= dyk jke dkSe es?koky us djhc vkB cts Qksu dj crk;k fd vkids cfgu dk budh nqdku ds Åij okys dejs esa gfjjke iq= ujlhjke dkSe es?koky ;kfu esjk cguksbZ us eatw dh xyk nck dj gR;k dj nh gSA bl lwpuk ij eSa esjs ifjokj ds lnL;ksa o esjs fj'rsnkjksa dks ysdj Hkkaojh igqapk rks ekSds ij nqdku ds Åij okys dejs esa esjh cfgu eatq dh xyk nckdj gR;k dh gqbZ FkhA vr% Jhekuth ls fuosnu gS fd esjh cfgu ds gR;kjs dks l[r ls l[r ltk fnyokus dh dk;Zokgh djkosa o bl vijk/k esa 'kkfey yksxksa dks Hkh ltk fnykosA** 3. After investigation, the S.H.O., Police Station Rohat, filed charge sheet against four accused persons, namely, Hari Ram (appellant herein), Narsingh Ram, Smt. Lehari and Smt. Shanti W/o Sh. Sayaram, resident of Village Bhanwari, District Pali before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. 4. After investigation, the S.H.O., Police Station Rohat, filed charge sheet against four accused persons, namely, Hari Ram (appellant herein), Narsingh Ram, Smt. Lehari and Smt. Shanti W/o Sh. Sayaram, resident of Village Bhanwari, District Pali before the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, Pali, after committal of the case to it, transferred the case for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.2, Pali for trial vide its order dated 22.08.2008. 5. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 498A of IPC against accused, namely, Smt. Shanti, Narsingh Ram and Smt. Lehari, and framed charges under Section 302 and 498A of IPC against the accused appellant and thereafter proceeded for trial. 6. In the trial, statements of 17 prosecution witnesses were recorded. Thereafter the statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., in which accused persons denied the charges levelled against them. Accused appellant, Hari Ram, took a specific plea that the day on which the occurrence, took place, he was not in the village and he went to Sumerpur to meet his relative. In defence, statements of one Laduram, were recorded as DW.1 by the accused appellant. 7. The learned trial court after recording the entire evidence finally heard the arguments and vide its judgment dated 16.05.2009 acquitted the accused, namely, Narsingh Ram, Smt. Lehari and Smt. Shanti from the charge u/s 498A of IPC, however, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. 8. In the instant appeal, the judgment dated 16.05.2009 is under challenge. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case of no evidence because PW.1, Mishrilal, PW.4 Narayan Singh, PW.5 Otaram, PW.6 Pakaram, who gave information to the complainant- Sakaram, PW.7 Dhala Ram, PW.10 Smt. Oti, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. However, the author of the FIR PW.2 Sakaram, brother of deceased, Smt. Manju, and PW.8, Smt. Naju, mother of deceased, made allegations against the accused appellant that relationship with family of deceased and family of accused appellant was quarrelsome because the sister of accused appellant, viz. Shanti who was married with Sayara Ram, brother of deceased, Manju, and Manju was married with accused appellant. Shanti who was married with Sayara Ram, brother of deceased, Manju, and Manju was married with accused appellant. Meaning thereby the brother of deceased and husband of deceased were brother-in-law of each other. Smt. Shanti, wife of Sh. Sayara Ram, brother of deceased, was not living with her husband or in her matrimonial house, and she was residing with accused party and due to said reason, the relationship in both the families was not cordial. This fact has not been proved by the prosecution that accused appellant was harassing or continuously beating Smt. Manju (deceased) for the said reason, therefore, it is a case in which motive/intention is absent. Further, it is submitted that most of the witnesses turned hostile except brother and mother of the deceased, therefore, the conviction which has been based while taking presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, is not sustainable in law. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that although a plea was taken in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the accused appellant that he was not present in the house when the occurrence took place, more so, he was at Sumerpur to meet his relative, but the learned trial court disbelieved the said explanation given by the appellant and erroneously convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC without any reliable or trustworthy evidence. 11. As per learned counsel for the appellant the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence because there is no eye witness in this case. He further argued that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted, then also, probably some occurrence took place in the night due to quarrel in between husband and wife because sister of accused appellant, Smt. Shanti, was married with brother of deceased i.e. Sayara Ram, however, she (Smt. Shanti) was not living with her husband from last two years and she was residing with her parents and accused appellant. Due the said reason, the relationship of both the families were not cordial and probably due to said reason, in sudden provocation in anger, accused appellant committed throttling of Smt. Manju (deceased), which resulted into her death. Due the said reason, the relationship of both the families were not cordial and probably due to said reason, in sudden provocation in anger, accused appellant committed throttling of Smt. Manju (deceased), which resulted into her death. Therefore, even if the incident is accepted, then also, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove motive, and thus the act can be termed as an act in spur of moment, hence, this case falls under the category of culpable homicidal not amount to murder. It is thus argued that conviction recorded against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC may kindly be converted to offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentence may be reduced from life imprisonment to term already undergone by him. 12. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ravi Kumar v. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) Crimes 7 (SC) and submitted that while following the aforesaid judgment the conviction may kindly be altered because the appellant is entitled to benefit of explanation 4 of Section 300 of IPC. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that conviction of the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is based upon presumption drawn under Section 106 of the Evidence Act because the appellant as well as deceased, are husband wife and admittedly there is evidence on record that both were residing in room, in which deceased Manju was found died and as per postmortem report (Ex.P/4), cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW.14, Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sarda, specifically stated before the court that in the postmortem, five abrasions and one bruise were found upon the body of deceased and as per opinion of Medical Board, the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. Therefore, it is beyond imagination to accept the plea of accused appellant that occurrence took place all of sudden. As per learned Public Prosecutor the findings recorded by the learned trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, does not require any interference because prosecution as proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 15. As per learned Public Prosecutor the findings recorded by the learned trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, does not require any interference because prosecution as proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence. 16. To prove the prosecution case, statements of 17 witnesses were recorded. The witness PW.1, Mishrilal, is the material uncle of deceased. He said that I was called by the police at the time of preparing 'Panchnama' and memo of handing over the dead body of Smt. Manju to Sakaram (brother of deceased). He further said that I put my signatures on both the memos, however, no allegation are made by this witness against the appellant. PW.2, Sakaram, is the author of FIR. The said witness submitted written report (Ex.P/1) to the police at Village Bhanwari. In the said report, it is stated by him that on 05.05.2008 in the morning, at 8'O Clock, I received phone call from Pakaram from village Bhanwari, in which he informed that your sister has been murdered by her husband, Hari Ram, therefore, come immediately. The said witness further stated that I and Mohanram and other family members immediately went to village Bhanwari at the residence of my sister where we saw that dead body of my sister was lying there and upon inspection it was found that she was killed by throttling. Upon assessment of testimony of this witness, it is obvious that he is not the eye witness but submitted FIR on the basis of information received by him from witness, Paka Ram. PW.3 Hajaram, is the witness who saw the dead body and he put his signatures on the inspection report, but no allegation has been levelled by him against the accused appellant. PW.4 Narayan Singh, is the neighbourer of Hari Ram. The said witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The said witness specifically stated before the court that during investigation, my statements were not recorded by the police. PW.5 Otaram, is the witness, in whose presence, the site plan (Ex.P/2), 'Panchnama' (Ex.P/4) and memo of handing over the dead body of deceased (Ex.P/5) were prepared. The said witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The said witness specifically stated before the court that during investigation, my statements were not recorded by the police. PW.5 Otaram, is the witness, in whose presence, the site plan (Ex.P/2), 'Panchnama' (Ex.P/4) and memo of handing over the dead body of deceased (Ex.P/5) were prepared. The said witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. PW.6 Pakaram, is the person who was named by the complainant, Sakaram, in his written report and said that information was given by Pakaram with regard to murder of Manju by accused appellant. This witness turned hostile and did not support prosecution case and he specifically stated that I do not know how Manju died, nor Hari Ram made any confession before me. PW.7, Dhalaram, is the shopkeeper, whose shop is situated near the shop of accused appellant, Hari Ram. The said witness turned hostile and did not support prosecution case. PW.8 Naju, is the mother of deceased. The said made following statement before the trial court, which reads as under:- ^^eatw esjh csVh Fkh ftldk 'kknh 6 lky igys Hkkaojh fuoklh gjhjke ds lkFk dh Fkh tks vkt gkftj vnkyr gSA gjhjke dh cfgu 'kkfUr dh 'kknh esjs csVs lk;jkjke ds lkFk lkaBs esa dh FkhA 'kkfUr 2 lkyksa ls vius ihgj esa cSBh gSA esjh csVh eatq dks mlds llqjky esa rdyhQ esa j[krs Fks eatq dgrh Fkh fd eSa esjk ?kj ugha NksMwaxh blfy;s og ogha ij jgrh FkhA eatq dks ijs'kku o eqf'dy esa j[krs Fks tc og ihgj vkrh Fkh fd rks cgqr jksrh Fkh vkSj eq>s crkrh FkhA eatq lkl&llqj ds lkFk 'kkfey esa jgrh FkhA pS= eghus ds nwljs i[kokM+s esa eatq dks mlds ifr vkSj mlds llqjky okyksa us ekj fn;kA mldh e`R;q gksus ij esjk nsoj Hkkaojh eq>dks ysdj x;k FkkA eatw dh e`R;q ds le; eSa ogka ugha Fkh] dSlh ekjh eq>s ugha ekywe fQj dgk fd xyk ?kksaVdj ¼Vwik nsdj½ eatq dks ekj fn;kA** Upon perusal of aforesaid statement of said witness along with cross-examination, it is obvious that no specific incident is reported by her with regard to cruelty being subject to her daughter by the accused appellant. More so, it is said by her that at the time of death of Manju, I was not there and I do not how she died. More so, it is said by her that at the time of death of Manju, I was not there and I do not how she died. In the cross- examination, no specific allegation is levelled by PW.8 for committing murder of her daughter by the appellant. PW. 9 Sayara Ram, is the husband of sister of accused appellant. The said witness specifically stated before the court that I received information from village Bhanwari that his in-laws have killed Manju by throttling. No specific incident or allegation is levelled by him against the accused appellant. In the cross-examination also, no allegation is levelled by this witness against the accused appellant. PW.10, Smt. Oti, is the neighbourer of the accused appellant. The said witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and no specific allegation is levelled by her against the accused appellant. PW.11, Mukesh Kumar was working as ASI in the office of Superintendent of Police, Pali. The said witness stated before the court that in Case No.61/2008, Head Constable Karan Singh, gave him 3 sealed packets and I prepared forwarding letter and sent the sealed packets to FSL, Jodhpur for chemical examination. Meaning thereby he is the witness of investigation. PW.12, Karan Singh, was working as Constable at Police Station Rohat, where FIR was registered. The said witness handed over the sealed packets in the office of Superintendent of Police, Pali for sending the same for chemical examination at FSL, Jodhpur. PW.13, Anita, who was working as Constable on 05.04.2008 at Police Station Rohat. It is stated by her that after inspection, the details of dead body were recorded vide Ex.P/3 in her presence. PW.14, Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sarda, stated before the court that after postmortem, I gave postmortem report (Ex.P/14) and after inspection of injuries found upon the body of deceased, the Medical Board gave its opinion that Smt. Manju W/o Hari Ram, died due to asphyxia due to throttling. No other external injuries by any weapon was reported by said witness except injury upon the neck. PW.15 Raju Singh, was working as Head Constable at Police Station Rohat on 09.04.2008 in the 'Malkhana' before whom, 3 sealed packets were deposited and the said witness gave those packets for chemical examination to FC Karan Singh, who deposited the same in the office of Superintendent of Police, Pali. PW.16, Subhagaram, was working as FC at Police Station Rohat. PW.15 Raju Singh, was working as Head Constable at Police Station Rohat on 09.04.2008 in the 'Malkhana' before whom, 3 sealed packets were deposited and the said witness gave those packets for chemical examination to FC Karan Singh, who deposited the same in the office of Superintendent of Police, Pali. PW.16, Subhagaram, was working as FC at Police Station Rohat. He is the witness of arrest of accused appellant along with other persons. PW.17, Peparam, is the investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused appellant. The following statement was made by said witness before the court, which reads as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd e`rdk eatq vkSj eqyftek 'kkfUr dh 'kknh vkBs&lkBs esa gqbZ gSA eqyftek 'kkfUr vius llqjky D;ksa ugha tk jgh gSA blds ckjs essa eSaus vuqla/kku ugha fn;kA esjs vuqla/kku esa ;gh vk;k gS fd 'kkfUr ds llqjky ugha tkus ds dkj.k bu nksuksa ifjokj ds vkil esa eueqVko Fkk o ifr&iRuh ds chp esa Hkh [kViV FkhA vuqla/kku esa ;g vk;k fd e`rdk eatq ij mlds llqjky okys ;g ncko Mky jgs Fks fd Hkkafr dks rsjs ihgj okys ys tk;sA 'kkfUr dk yM+dk eatq ds ihgj okyksa ds ikl esa gks ldrk gS ysfdu eSaus bl ckjs esa vuqla/kku ugha fd;kA** 17. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence acquitted the accused, Narsingh Ram, Smt. Lehari, and Smt. Shanti, from the charge levelled against them u/s 498A of IPC but held the accused appellant guilty for offence under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC on the basis of presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act for the reason that in the room, where the deceased died, appellant and Manju were residing as husband and wife. The trial court further observed that although most of the witnesses turned hostile but at the time of deciding the case, the merits of the case is required to be considered and not the number of witnesses. 18. It is also observed that it is not a case of demand of dowry, but it is a case in which presumption is required to be drawn against the accused appellant under Section 106 of Evidence Act because the case is based upon circumstantial evidence and accused and victim only were persons present at the place of incident. Therefore, burden lies on the accused to give explanation in order to absolve him from suspicion. Therefore, burden lies on the accused to give explanation in order to absolve him from suspicion. After due consideration of entire evidence, there is no doubt in this case that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused appellant with the crime. The only evidence is that the accused appellant and the deceased were residing together in a room as husband and wife, where the dead body of Manju was found. It also emerges from the record that a dispute was going on in between the family of accused appellant as well as deceased because the marriage of sister of appellant was solemnized with Sayara Ram (brother of deceased, with whom Smt. Shanti was not willing to reside), and deceased was married with accused appellant, in "Aata-Sata" and due to said reason which is not even investigated into by the investigating agency, that Shanti (sister of appellant) was residing with her parents and accused appellant. Therefore, the relation of both the families was not cordial. But upon perusal of the statement of PW.8, Naju (mother of deceased), it is obvious that there was no doubt expressed by PW.8 against the accused appellant and the only statement is given by her that Shanti, wife of his son, was residing from last two years with her parents without any reason and behaviour of in-laws of her daughter, was not good with her. In the cross-examination also, it is stated by PW.8, Naju, that efforts were made by her for taking back Shanti to her matrimonial home, to which she was agreeable. 19. We have minutely considered the entire evidence coupled with the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to incident. Upon assessment of entire evidence, it is obvious that there was no demand of dowry and there is no specific allegation against the accused appellant with regard to his behaviour with deceased, Manju, since his marriage. The only allegation is that there was quarrel in between the families because Shanti, sister of accused appellant was not ready to go with Sayara Ram, brother of deceased. The only allegation is that there was quarrel in between the families because Shanti, sister of accused appellant was not ready to go with Sayara Ram, brother of deceased. It is also true that in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant took a plea that he was out from village Bhanwari on the date of incident and went to Sumerpur to meet his relative, but the learned trial court while drawing presumption u/s 106 of the Evidence Act, held the accused appellant guilty because the appellant as well as Smt. Manju, were residing together in the room. 20. In our opinion, there is no doubt that presumption can be drawn against the accused appellant under Section 106 of Evidence Act if husband wife were residing in a room and wife was found dead in the morning. Therefore, we hold that there is evidence on record with regard to incident occurred in the room, where dead of Smt. Manju was found and in that room accused appellant and deceased were residing but at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is no evidence on record with regard to ill-treatment being meted out to the deceased by the appellant since his marriage. Furthermore, from the wedlock of accused appellant and deceased, one son was born and they were residing happily and there is no evidence of any motive. 21. The basic requirement to convict an accused for offence u/s 302 of IPC is that there must be motive/intention to kill any person and in absence of "motive", obviously the case squarely falls within the exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. We have considered the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard and after overall assessment, we are of the opinion that in absence of evidence of motive, it cannot be said the finding of learned trial court which is based upon presumption drawn u/s 106 of the Evidence Act, for committing offence u/s 302 of IPC by the accused appellant, is sustainable in law. 22. As per verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court even if the evidence of eye witness is on record and it is found that incident took place in a spur of moment or without pre-meditation and no conclusive evidence of pre-determined motive or enmity, then accused cannot be convicted for offence u/s 302 of IPC. 22. As per verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court even if the evidence of eye witness is on record and it is found that incident took place in a spur of moment or without pre-meditation and no conclusive evidence of pre-determined motive or enmity, then accused cannot be convicted for offence u/s 302 of IPC. In the case of in the case of K. Ravi Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while following various judgments held that accused appellant is entitled for benefit of exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC if prosecution has failed to lead evidence to prove the motive for committing offence of murder. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ravi Kumar (supra) held as under: - "14. Keeping in view the approach of this Court for giving benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in cases mentioned above and applying the same to the facts of this case, we are inclined to give benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to the appellant by altering his sentence awarded to the appellant punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. This we say so in the facts of this case for more than one reason. Firstly, even according to the prosecution, there was no premeditation in the commission of crime. Secondly, there is not even a suggestion or we may say conclusive evidence that the appellant had any pre-determined motive or enmity to commit the offence against the deceased leave alone a serious offence like murder. Thirdly, incident that occurred was due to sudden quarrel which ensued between the appellant-accused and the deceased-Padma on the issue of going to village Mandya to see the ailing appellant's father. Th e appellant, on receiving this news, had become upset and, therefore, his insistence to see his ailing father immediately was natural and at the same time, Padma's refusal to leave could lead to heated exchange of words between them. True, it is that it reached to its extreme inasmuch as the appellant in heated exchange of words lost his mental balance and poured kerosene on Padma setting her to burn. However, the fact remains that it was an outcome of sudden outburst and heated exchange with no predetermined motive per se to kill her. True, it is that it reached to its extreme inasmuch as the appellant in heated exchange of words lost his mental balance and poured kerosene on Padma setting her to burn. However, the fact remains that it was an outcome of sudden outburst and heated exchange with no predetermined motive per se to kill her. Fourthly, no conclusive evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove any kind of constant quarrel ever ensued in the last 9 long years between the couple and that too for a cause known to others which could lead to killing Padma or whether any unsuccessful attempt was ever made by the appellant to kill her in past and lastly, we have not been able to see from the post-mortem (18 of 20) [CRLA-491/2009] report that any stab injury on Padma's body was caused nor prosecution was able to prove that any blood stained knife from the place of occurrence was recovered at the instance of the appellant or of any witness. 15. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, which, in our opinion, emerge from the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that these reasons are sufficient to give benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to the appellant and enables the Court to hold that the offence in question was not murder but it was an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as specified in Exception 4 to Section 300 and hence punishable under Section 304 part II IPC 16. In the result, we allow the appeal but only to the extent that instead of Section 302 IPC, the appellant shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 498-A as also the fine imposed upon the appellant and the default sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered which shall run concurrently. 17. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in above terms in modification of the orders passed by the courts below." 23. The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 498-A as also the fine imposed upon the appellant and the default sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered which shall run concurrently. 17. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in above terms in modification of the orders passed by the courts below." 23. Upon consideration of evidence of this case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to give benefit of exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC to the accused appellant on the ground that even according to prosecution case, there was no pre-meditation in commission of crime; and secondly, there is not even a suggestion or we may say conclusive evidence that the appellant had any pre-determined motive or enmity to commit the offence against the deceased leave alone a serious offence like murder. Thirdly, no conclusive evidence is adduced by the prosecution to prove any kind of constant quarrel ever ensured since marriage between the couple and that too for a cause known to others, which could lead to killing Manju or whether any unsuccessful attempt was ever made by the appellant to kill her in past. 24. We have no hesitation to observe that most the witnesses of the area, where the house of appellant is situated, no supported the prosecution case and, the person who gave information to the complainant, Sakaram, i.e. PW.6 Paka Ram, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 25. In the light of aforesaid reasons which in our opinion, emerges from the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that these reasons are sufficient to give benefit of exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC to the appellant. 26. Resultant, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the accused appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 489A IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is hereby convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amount to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment is hereby reduced to ten year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-.