JUDGMENT : 1. In this criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant, Vajia @ Vaje Ram, a challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 27th of June, 2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara in Session Case No.10/2008, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation to undergo six months' addition simple imprisonment. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. On 29.10.2007 complainant, Shambhoo S/o Roopa Adivasi (PW.1) gave verbal information that marriage of his daughter, namely Sakudi, was solemnized with Vajia @ Vaje Ram, in village Beeldi 6-7 years back. From the wedlock of Varia and his daughter, Sakudi, three children were born. It was further stated that on last Thursday, in the evening his daughter and son-in-law (appellant herein) along with their children came to my residence. The sister of appellant, namely, Meera, was married in village Jhampapada, with Rama. On Saturday at about 10'O Clock, in the morning, his son-in-law, daughter and their children left his house to meet Meera, from where they came back in the evening at 06.00 PM and after taking dinner they slept. In the morning, his wife, namely, Sapli, prepared meal for them and after preparing meal, his wife who was working in the field near the house, went for grazing the cattle, at that time his daughter and son- in-law were taking meal in the house. After taking meal, they had to go to their village, Beeldi, however, all of sudden at about 8'O Clock, they heard cries of his daughter and upon hearing the commotion, they immediately rushed inside the house, where complainant saw that on seeing him, his son-in-law who was having an axe in hands, ran away towards southern side of the house. In the meantime, his wife Sapli, on hearing the hue and cry, also came in the house and saw that their daughter, Sakudi was lying on the floor and blood was oozing out from her neck, head and right ear. The complainant and his wife made cries, on which, their neighbourer, Narayan also came. It was further averred that his daughter died before coming Narayan came on the place of occurrence. The complainant and his wife made cries, on which, their neighbourer, Narayan also came. It was further averred that his daughter died before coming Narayan came on the place of occurrence. According to complainant, there was no dispute in between his daughter and son-in-law, nor his daughter complained in past to him and his wife but his son-in-law while inflicting injury by axe upon the head, neck and right ear committed murder of Sakudi and took axe with him while leaving his house. Therefore, it was prayed that appropriate action may be taken against him. 3. Upon the aforesaid verbal information recorded by the S.H.O. Police Station- Pipalkhut, FIR No.118/2007 (Ex.P/2) was registered on 29.10.2007 against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 4. During investigation, 'Panchayatnama' of dead body of Smt. Sakudi, was prepared vide Ex.P/3 and necessary investigation from the site was conducted and clothes of deceased, so also, blood stained soil was taken in possession vide Ex.P/4, Ex.P/5, Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 respectively. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and accused appellant was arrested on 31.10.2007 at 11.30 AM. The dead body of Smt. Sakudi was taken to hospital for postmortem. The medical Officer of Govt. Primary Health Centre, Pipalkhunt, conducted postmortem and gave its opinion on 30.10.2007 vide Ex.P/10. 5. The weapon of offence i.e. axe was recovered on the basis of information given by accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/11. The axe was taken in possession was sealed. The articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After conducting thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant u/s 302 of IPC in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatol, from where the case was committed to learned Sessions Court, Banswara as for trial the Sessions Court was having the jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, transferred the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) Banswara, vide order dated 05.12.2008. 6. The learned trial court after hearing arguments framed charge against the appellant for the offence u/s 302 of IPC, but the accused appellant denied the same and prayed for trial. 7. In the trial, statements of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded including author of FIR i.e. PW.1 Shambhoo and PW.2, Smt. Sapli (mother of deceased), who was present at the time of occurrence, so also, PW. 7. In the trial, statements of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded including author of FIR i.e. PW.1 Shambhoo and PW.2, Smt. Sapli (mother of deceased), who was present at the time of occurrence, so also, PW. 3 Narayan and PW.4 Narayan. In the trial 22 documents were exhibited from the prosecution side. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of prosecution, proceeded to record the statements of accused appellant u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. In the statements recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused appellant denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and stated that no axe was recovered upon his information and, so also, recovery of axe is totally false. It was also stated that I was arrested at Pratapgarh, where I am working. In spite of granting opportunity to him, no evidence was produced by him in his defence. 8. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments finally convicted the accused appellant vide its judgment dated 27.06.2008 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC while relying upon the testimony of all the witnesses, including four witnesses viz. PW.1 Shambhoo and PW.2 Sapli. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no evidence of motive on record and there is no eye witness of the incident, therefore, the finding of learned trial court holding the accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of IPC is not sustainable in law and, therefore, judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the accused appellant invited our attention towards the statements of PW.1, Shambhoo and PW.2, Sapli, father and mother of deceased and stated that according to statements of these witnesses, there was no quarrel in between the husband wife. It has further been stated by these witnesses that their son-in- law and daughter were taking meal inside the house prepared by the mother of deceased. Therefore, in absence of any evidence of motive or any eye witness, it cannot be said that prosecution story is trustworthy. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in absence of direct evidence although prosecution can rely on circumstantial evidence, but complete chain of circumstances is required to be proved, but in this case, although PW.1, Shambhoo and PW.2, Smt. Sapli/Chapli, were present when the alleged incident took place, but they were not inside the house, even according to their statements. Therefore, it is not established by the prosecution that as to what happened in the house where the occurrence took place. He further argued that witnesses of recovery viz. PW.10 Kachru and PW.11 Bherulal, turned hostile and did not prove the recovery. Thus the judgment impugned based on untrustworthy evidence deserves to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the trial court has committed error of law and fact in placing reliance upon the statements of relative and interested witnesses, who belonged to the family of the deceased. A careful scanning of the testimony of so-called eye witnesses would make it clear that evidence led by these witnesses do not inspire any confidence, nor there is any corroboration of allegations levelled by PW.1, Shambhoo and PW.2, Smt. Sapli, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. It was further argued that dead body of deceased Sakudi, was found in complainant's house, therefore, the accused appellant cannot be held liable for committing murder of Smt. Sakudi because no blood was found upon his clothes as well as on the axe, which was allegedly recovered on the basis of information given by the accused appellant. It is further submitted that finding of learned trial court is based upon major contradictions and omissions and improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to establish evidence, so also, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in absence of direct evidence. 13. In the alternative, learned counsel for the accused appellant submitted that the even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, then also, main ingredient of committing murder, which is motive, is absent in this case. It is further submitted that as per evidence on record there was no evidence of quarrel in between husband and wife or any other incident to prove that the accused appellant was having any intention to kill his wife, so also, the house in which the occurrence took place, is owned by the complainant (father-in-law of accused appellant), therefore, there is no question to accept any evidence that accused appellant came on the spot from outside the house. While intention our attention towards recovery memo (Ex.P/11), it is submitted that it has nowhere been observed that blood was found upon the axe, which was said to be recovered as per information of the appellant u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. It is also submitted that both the witnesses of recovery i.e. PW.10 Kachru and PW.11 Bherulal, turned hostile and did not support prosecution case. He further argued that no FSL report is on record, therefore, it is obvious that whether there was blood on the axe or not, has not been proved by the prosecution. It is thus argued that when motive for committing murder is absent, then it cannot be said that allegation of offence u/s 302 IPC has been proved by the prosecution. It is, however, submitted that if this Court comes to the conclusion that husband (appellant) and wife (deceased) both were in the house, and thus presumption is drawn against the appellant for committing offence, then also, on the assessment of entire evidence it is a case of culpable homicidal not amounting to murder because probably incident took place all of sudden, therefore, conviction of accused appellant may be altered from offence u/s 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC. 14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused appellant is not disputed the fact that the day on which the incident took place, he (appellant) has not went to his in-laws' house along his wife and children. PW.1, Shambhoo (father of deceased) and PW.2 Smt. Sapli (mother of deceased) both specifically gave natural statements before the court that their daughter, Sakudi, came to their house with her husband (appellant, Vajia @ Vaje Ram) and children; and thereafter meal was prepared for them and in the morning when they were to go back, accused appellant as well as Sakudi, were taking meal in the house, at that time, accused appellant inflicted injury by axe upon head, neck and right ear of their daughter, and ran away from the place of occurrence. Both witnesses viz. PW.1 and PW.2 although not alleging any incident or motive to cause death but they specifically stated that accused appellant was coming out from the house while having an axe in his hand and on seeing them he (accused appellant) ran away from the place of occurrence. Both witnesses viz. PW.1 and PW.2 although not alleging any incident or motive to cause death but they specifically stated that accused appellant was coming out from the house while having an axe in his hand and on seeing them he (accused appellant) ran away from the place of occurrence. The learned trial court has thus rightly relied upon the testimony of these witnesses because their presence cannot be doubted. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that it is a case in which trustworthy evidence is on record so as to hold accused appellant guilty for committing murder of his own wife, therefore, the learned trial court has relied upon the testimony of trustworthy and reliable witnesses. He further argued that the prosecution has proved the recovery of axe at the instance of the accused appellant vide Ex.P/11. According to learned Public Prosecutor, it is a case in which the appellant has been convicted on the basis of trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, and therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have assessed the entire evidence. In this case, statements of 15 prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the trial court, out of which PW.1, Shambhoo is the father of deceased. The said witness nowhere stated that any motive was there for accused appellant for committing murder of his daughter, however, it has been stated by him that axe by which injury was inflicted by the accused appellant, was lying in his house. Accused appellant is his son-in-law, and husband of Sakudi, who was in house along with my daughter. The said witness nowhere stated that any motive was there for accused appellant for committing murder of his daughter, however, it has been stated by him that axe by which injury was inflicted by the accused appellant, was lying in his house. Accused appellant is his son-in-law, and husband of Sakudi, who was in house along with my daughter. In the cross- examination, following statement is given by PW.1, Shambhoo, which reads as infra: ^^;g lgh gS fd oth;k esjs ?kj dc vk;k mlh rkjh[k irk ugha] ysfdu cq/kokj dks vk;k FkkA cq/kokj dks vk;k FkkA eSaus ckalokM+k cl LVs.M ugha ns[kkA vkt eq>s iqfyl okys yk, gSA ;g xyr gS fd esjs edku ls eSa eos'kh pjk jgk Fkk] og LFkku 100 xt nwjh ij gks cfYd ikl gh FkkA vkt [kqn dgk fd FkksM+h nwjh gh FkkA esjh dqYgkM+h esjs ?kj ij Mk.Ms esa j[kh FkhA esjh yM+dh vkSj tekbZ ds chp dksbZ cksy pky ugha gqbZ] D;ksafd eSa FkksM+h nwj ij FkhA ;fn cksypky gksrh rks lqukbZ nsrhA ;g lgh gS fd esjk tekbZ] esjh yM+dh o muds cPps ehjk ds ?kj ij Hkh x;s Fks ;g lgh gS fd eSaus tekbZ dks Hkkxrs gq, ihB ls Hkkxrs gq, ns[kk Fkk dqYgkM+h dk gRFkk djhc 2 QqV FkkA ;g lgh gS fd esjk ?kj 6&1@2 QqV mapk gSA dqYgkM+h Mk.Mks esa pwYgs ls 2&1@2 QqV maph FkhA eos'kh pjkrs oDr 7 cdfj;ka] 3 HkSals] 2 cSy] 4 xk;] djhc 16 eos'kh eSa pjk jgk FkkA esjh yM+dh vksŒ vkbZŒ jsŒ ,slk dgdj fpYykbZ FkhA ;g xyr gS fd ukjk;.k o esjh iRuh lkFk vk, gks] cfYd esjh iRuh igys o ukjk;.k ckn esa vk,A esjh dqYgkM+h tks ?kj ls xbZ] mls vkt rd eSaus ugh ns[kkA** PW.2, Sapli, is the mother of the deceased. In the examination-in-chief, PW.2 made following version, which reads as infra: - ^^esjh yM+dh dk uke liqM+h FkkA mldh vkB o"kZ igys oth;k ds lkFk 'kknh djokbZ FkhA esjh yM+dh ds rhu cPps FksA mlds cPps ikap o"kZ rhu o"kZ rFkk 6 ekg ds FksA pkj efgus igys dh ckr gSA esjs ?kj ij esjh yM+dh o tekbZ esgeku vk, gq, FksA ?kVuk ds pkj fnu igys vk, FksA chp esa esjk tekbZ o mldh yM+dh xkao esa oth;k dh cgu ds ogka esgeku x;s FksA tgka ij ,d fnu jgs Fks fQj okil esjs ?kj ij vk x;s FksA jkr dks ge lHkh us [kkuk [kk;k vkSj lks x;s FksA eSa esjs [ksr ij lks;kchu dkVus x;h FkhA ?kj ds ikl gh [ksr esa esjk ifr tkuoj pjk jgk FkkA ?kVuk lqcg ds vkB cts dh gSA ldqM+h ds tksj ls fpYykus dh vkokt vkbZ eSa nkSM+dj ?kj dh rjQ vkus yxh rks ns[kk fd oth;k gkFk esa dqYgkM+h ysdj Hkkx jgk FkkA eSa ?kj esa x;h rks ns[kk fd ldqM+h ds xys vkSj nka, dku ds ikl dqYgkM+h dh pksVs ns[kh mlds [kwu fudy jgk FkkA ldqMh rM+irs gq, ej x;hA fQj ekSds ij esjk ifr Hkh vk x;k Fkk fQj ukjk;.k Hkh nkSM+dj vk x;k FkkA oth;k us esjh yM+dh dks D;ksa ekjk eq>s irk ughaA** 17. Upon perusal of statements of both these witnesses, it appears that there is no whisper of allegation against the accused appellant that his relations with deceased were bad, more so, it is stated by the said witness that they never heard any incident with regard quarrel in between deceased and the accused appellant, or that accused appellant ever ill-treated their daughter. PW.3, Narayan, is the neighbour, who came on the spot after hearing the commotion from the house of complainant, therefore, he cannot be treated as eye witness of the incident. PW.4, another Narayan, who is son of the complainant. His statement is based upon hear say evidence. PW.5, Mangilal, stated before the court on oath that on 29.10.2007, I was at my residence. Narayan, son of Shambhoo, came there at 8-9'O Clock and informed that my sister, Sakudi has been killed by Vajia while inflicting injury by axe and made request to accompany him. PW.5 went on the spot along with Narayan, but it is admitted fact that he is not eye witness of the case. Narayan, son of Shambhoo, came there at 8-9'O Clock and informed that my sister, Sakudi has been killed by Vajia while inflicting injury by axe and made request to accompany him. PW.5 went on the spot along with Narayan, but it is admitted fact that he is not eye witness of the case. PW.6 Rangji is the witness, who was present at the time of preparation of "Panchnama" (Ex.P/3) by the police, so also, he has proved Ex.P/4, Ex.P/5, Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7, whereby simple soil and blood stained soil was taken in possession along with clothes of deceased, so also, site plan was prepared in front of him. PW.7 Dinesh Kumar, who was working on the post of Constable, is the witness, before whom the accused appellant was arrested on 31.10.2007 vide Ex.P/8. The another witness PW.8, Sultan Mohd. who was working on the post of Head Constable at Police Station Pipalkhunt, and was the in-charge of Malkhana. It is stated by the said witness that on 29.10.2007 two sealed argicles in connection with F.I.R. No.118/2007 registered u/s 302 of IPC were deposited in the 'Malkhana' and thereafter on 30.10.2007 one another sealed article and on 01.11.2007 some more articles were deposited in the "Malkhana". It is further stated that on 08.01.2008, four articles were taken back for sending the same to FSL and the same handed over to Constable Joshil and all these articles were sent FSL and thereafter taken back from FSL and deposited in the Malkhana. PW.9 Dr. Suman, is the witness who performed the postmortem of the deceased and gave postmortem report (Ex.P/10). PW.10 and PW.11 Kachru and Bherulal, are the witness of recovery of axe. The said witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. They stated that Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12 were prepared at Police Station Pipalkhunt for recovery of axe. PW.12 Amiritlal, who was working as Constable at Police Station- Pipalkhunt. The said witness stated before the court that written report sent by S.H.O., Sh. Abhay Sharma, was received by him at police station and, thereafter FIR was registered u/s 302 of IPC against the accused appellant. PW.13, Surendra Singh, was working as Constable, who went on the spot along with C.I., Abhay Sharma, and verbal report given by PW.1, Shambhoo, was recorded by C.I. and after obtaining signatures of Shambhoo, the same were sent through him for registration of the FIR. PW.13, Surendra Singh, was working as Constable, who went on the spot along with C.I., Abhay Sharma, and verbal report given by PW.1, Shambhoo, was recorded by C.I. and after obtaining signatures of Shambhoo, the same were sent through him for registration of the FIR. PW.14 Joshil Dodiyar, who was working as Constable at Police Station, Pipalkhunt. The said witness stated before the court that four sealed articles of FIR No.118/2007 registered against the accused appellant were received by him from Sultan Mohd., Head Mohrir to deposit the same at FSL, Jaipur and the same were deposited by him in the FSL and received receipt thereof vide Ex.P/14. PW.15, Abhay Sharma, C.I. and S.H.O. of Police Station Pipalkhunt, stated before the court that investigation was conducted by him. In the cross- examination, it is specifically stated by him that blood and blood group of accused appellant was not examined during investigation. It is also stated that no blood was found upon the clothes of accused appellant, so also, no finger prints were taken from the recovered axe. After arresting the accused appellant, he was medically examined by Dr. Suman P. Sardar, Medical Officer of P.H.C., Pipalkhunt. The detail of injuries found upon the person of appellant was mentioned in the arrest memo Ex.P/8. The investigating Officer specifically stated before the court that injuries found upon the body of accused appellant were probably caused when incident took place. After arresting the accused appellant, he was medically examined by Dr. Suman P. Sardar, Medical Officer of P.H.C., Pipalkhunt. The detail of injuries found upon the person of appellant was mentioned in the arrest memo Ex.P/8. The investigating Officer specifically stated before the court that injuries found upon the body of accused appellant were probably caused when incident took place. The investigating Officer gave following statement in his cross-examination, which reads as under: - ^^------ ;g lgh gS fd vfHk;qDr dh fxjrkjh ds i'pkr~ mldk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k djk;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDr dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k MkWDVj Jherh lqeu ihŒ ljnkj fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ihŒ,pŒlhŒ ihihy[kqaV }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA eqyfte ds eqag ij pksVsa ldqM+h ds ejus ds ckn ugha vk ldrh] igys vk ldrh gSA eqyfte dh QnZ fxjrkjh izn'kZ ihŒ 8 esa vfHk;qDr ds 'kjhj ij vk;h pksVksa dks mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] vfHk;qDr ds cka;h o nka;h vka[k ds uhps rFkk xky ij ekewyh [kjksap ds fu'kku ik;s x;s Fks tks ?kVuk ds le; e`rdk }kjk izfrjks/k fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i vk ldrs gSA bl laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tks fd e`rdk }kjk vfHk;qDr dks ;s pksVs igqapkus ds dkj.k eqyfte us vkos'k esa vkdj e`rdk ds 'kjhj ij eqyfte us dqYgkM+h ls okj dj fn;k gksA bl laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ifr&iRuh ds chp vkilh >xM+s esa e`rdk us vfHk;qDr dks ;s pksVsa igqapk;h gksA ;g xyr gS fd vfHk;qDr ?kVuk ds ckn ftl jkLrs ls Hkkxk gks ml jkLrs dh esjs }kjk tkap ugha x;h gksaA** 18. Upon assessment of entire evidence, we are of the opinion that although there is no eye witness in this case, so also, no blood was found upon the clothes of accused appellant and on the axe, but prosecution has proved the fact that the day on which the occurrence took place, the accused appellant was inside the house of Shambhoo with deceased Smt. Sakudi. It is also established from the entire evidence that there was no quarrel in between the deceased and the accused appellant, so also, there is no evidence on record, therefore, presumption can be drawn under Section 106 of Evidence Act that some occurrence took place inside the house, where accused appellant and deceased were taking their meal. It is also established from the entire evidence that there was no quarrel in between the deceased and the accused appellant, so also, there is no evidence on record, therefore, presumption can be drawn under Section 106 of Evidence Act that some occurrence took place inside the house, where accused appellant and deceased were taking their meal. Upon totality of the assessment of the evidence, we are of the opinion that presumption can be drawn under Section 106 of Evidence Act that it is only accused appellant, who inflicted injuries upon the person of deceased but we cannot lose sight of the fact that in absence of motive, and evidence of ill- treatment being meted out to the deceased in past, or quarrel in past in between the accused appellant and deceased, it can be held that finding of learned trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is not sustainable in law, but he can be held guilty for offence u/s 304 Part I of IPC because probably occurrence took place in spur of moment in the house of in-laws' of appellant, where the axe was lying in the house and was used by the appellant for inflicting injuries to his wife, Smt. Sakudi, which resulted into her death. 19. Our aforesaid finding is supported by the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Ravi Kumar v. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) Crimes 7 (SC), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court while following various judgments viz. Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC 217 , Ghapoo Yadav v. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528 , Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327 , Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1996) 10 SCC 668 and Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharasthra (2013) 6 SCC 770 , gave following verdict, which reads as infra: "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. 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 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. 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 an d 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." 20. On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because even if the presumption is drawn against the accused appellant u/s 106 of Evidence Act for the reason that husband (appellant) and wife (deceased, Smt. Sakudi) were only inside the house but other evidence loudly speaks that there was no quarrel in between accused appellant and his wife, Sakudi. The father of deceased Shambhoo (PW.1) and mother of deceased, Smt. Sapli (PW.2) statedon oath that there was no quarrel or dispute in between accused appellant and deceased, Smt. Sakudi. Therefore, it can be ascertained that occurrence took place all of sudden in a spur of moment, without pre-meditation and without pre-determined motive or enmity, in view of above, it is a fit case in which the conviction of accused appellant for the offence u/s 302 of IPC should be altered to offence u/s 304 Part I of IPC because, there are sufficient ground to extend the benefit of exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC to the appellant. 21. Resultantly, the present criminal appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the accused appellant for under Sections 302 of 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 years' rigorous imprisonment and the order of fine is hereby maintained.