JUDGEMENT : P. DIWAKER, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.7.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur in S.T. No.197/2010 whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 2 years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that Nirasha Bai (deceased) and accused/appellant were the neighbourers. On 9.7.2010 the accused/ appellant was fencing thorny bushes of Babool after digging the earth near the house of deceased, which was objected by the deceased on the ground that the same would cause hindrance in her ingress & egress. The accused/appellant started abusing her filthily and threatened her that he will do whatever he wishes. Thereafter the deceased had gone to inform one villager namely Yogendra and when she could not get him, she returned back and again asked accused/appellant not to fence near her house. On this, the accused/appellant assaulted on the back side of her head and also waist by means of axe as a result of she fell down and died instantaneously. At the instance of Preeti Nishad (PW-1), FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered on 9.7.2010. Inquest (Ex.P-5) was prepared over the body of deceased on 9.7.2010. Body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted on 10.7.2017 by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-6) who gave his report Ex.P-12 stating that he noticed following injuries on the body of deceased;- • Incised wound on the occipital region running backward obliquely upward to downward with size of 6.5 cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm • Three impacted abrasions present on right buttock of 6.5x0.3cm in size • 8cm interrupted contused lacerated wound present just below Injure No. (A). • 5.5 x0.3cm present on 4cm below Injury No.(B) • Incised fracture situated on the occipital bone. • Brain matter was intact. As per opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by sharp & blunt object and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injuries and their complications. 3. • Brain matter was intact. As per opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused by sharp & blunt object and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injuries and their complications. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and accordingly the charge was framed against him. The prosecution in order to substantiate its stand, examined 10 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted & sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that;- • Evidence of Preeti (PW-1), eyewitness to the incident, is the daughter of the deceased and being so, her evidence is not reliable. • Since the incident occurred on account of a sudden quarrel and the appellant assaulted the deceased in a heat of passion without there being any pre-meditation, Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC can apply and therefore the offence will not be under under Section 302 of IPC but under Section 304 Part I of IPC. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment in the matters of State of UP & ors v. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 ; Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in (2005) 9 SCC 315 ; Gali Venkataiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2007) 14 SCC 475 ; Mangesh v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 2 SCC 123 & Saroj alias Suraj Panchal & another reported in (2014) 4 SCC 802 . • the appellant is already in jail for the last more than seven years and therefore by altering his conviction, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the evidence of Preeti (PW-1) was reliable. It stood corroborated from the evidence of other eyewitnesses, who are neighbourers of the deceased. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the evidence of Preeti (PW-1) was reliable. It stood corroborated from the evidence of other eyewitnesses, who are neighbourers of the deceased. He justified and supported the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and record carefully. 8. Preeti (PW-1) is the minor daughter of the deceased. She is also lodger of FIR (Ex.P-1). Before recording the statement of this witness, the trial Judge had asked certain questions from her to ascertain whether she can understand the question and reply properly and thereafter he recorded the statement of this witness. While supporting the prosecution case, this witness has stated that on the fateful day at about 2 in the afternoon, the accused/appellant was putting fence of thorny shrubs near her house. The same was objected by her mother (deceased) on the ground that it will cause hindrance in their ingress & egress. On hearing this, accused/appellant attempted to blow on the person of her mother with the help of axe which was saved by her mother with her hands. Thereafter her mother had gone to call one Yogendra. When her mother returned back to home, accused/appellant assaulted on the head of her mother with axe as a result of which she fell down and when her mother (deceased) tried to get-up, the accused/appellant again assaulted on the waist of her mother and thereafter fled from there. She immediately rushed to call her aunt Radha. She has further stated that she went to the police station along with her uncle and lodged the report Ex.P-1. 9. Smt. Rambati (PW-3) is the another eyewitness of the incident. According to this witness, when the deceased returned from the house of one Yogendra, the accused/appellant caused injuries by an axe on the head and waist of the deceased as a result of which she fell down. 10. Mangal Kashyap (PW-4) is the hearsay witness. He reached the spot after the incident was over. He was informed by the daughter of deceased that accused/appellant after assaulting her mother fled away. He is a witness to inquest Ex.P-5, memorandum statement of accused/appellant Ex.P-6 and seizure memo Ex.P-7 by which axe was seized at the instance of accused/appellant. 11. 10. Mangal Kashyap (PW-4) is the hearsay witness. He reached the spot after the incident was over. He was informed by the daughter of deceased that accused/appellant after assaulting her mother fled away. He is a witness to inquest Ex.P-5, memorandum statement of accused/appellant Ex.P-6 and seizure memo Ex.P-7 by which axe was seized at the instance of accused/appellant. 11. R.K. Dubey (PW-5) is the police person who assisted in the investigation. 12. Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-6) is the person who conducted post-mortem examination over the body of deceased and noticed the injuries as described above. According to him, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injuries and its complications. This witness has further opined vide Ex.P-13 that the injuries present on the body of deceased could be caused from the axe produced before him for examination and were sufficient to cause death in a ordinary course of nature. 13. Smt. Hemlata (PW-8), neighbour of the deceased, has stated about the quarrel taken place between the accused/appellant and the deceased on the date of incident. Balram Dhruv (PW-9) is the witness of map Ex.P-4. Chetan Singh Sahu (PW-10) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the prosecution case. 14. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of incident the accused/appellant had assaulted the deceased with axe and injuries suffered by her led to her instantaneous death. The incident was witnessed by Preeti (PW-1), who has categorically stated that it is the accused/appellant who firstly attempted to attack her mother (deceased) by means of axe, which was warded off by her mother with her hands. The deceased went to one Yogeshwar to inform him about the conduct of accused and when she returned from there, the accused/appellant again caused injuries on the head and waist of her mother (deceased) which resulted in her death. Statement of this witness finds corroboration not only from the facts stated in the promptly lodged FIR (Ex.P-1) but also from the medical evidence wherein it has been stated that cause of death of deceased was haemorrhage & shock due to head injury caused by sharp and blunt object. Query raised by the prosecution as to whether the injuries present on the body of the deceased could be caused by the seized axe, was also answered by the doctor in affirmative vide Ex.P-13. Query raised by the prosecution as to whether the injuries present on the body of the deceased could be caused by the seized axe, was also answered by the doctor in affirmative vide Ex.P-13. The doctor has further opined that injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. Evidence of this witness further gets corroboration from the statement of independent eyewitness Smt. Rambati (PW-3), who has categorically stated that on the fateful day there was some quarrel between the accused and the deceased in connection with fencing of thorny shrubs of Babool over which the accused/appellant gave axe blows on the head & waist of deceased as a result of which she fell down and died instantaneously. Furthermore, on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P-6) made by accused/appellant, bloodstained axe was recovered vide seizure memo of Ex.P-7 and there is no explanation from the accused/ appellant as to how the blood stains are there in the axe seized from his possession. Since nothing has been brought on record by the defence to controvert the stand of the prosecution, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve statement of Preeti (PW-1) who have described the incident in a lucid manner. 15. True it is that Preeti (PW-1), eyewitness to the incident, is the relative of deceased, but by now it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relative of the deceased is an interested witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. In the present case, PW-1 was cross- examined at length by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused/appellant could come on record and thus there is no evidence whatsoever before this Court to doubt the version given by the aforesaid witness. 16. Now coming to the submission of learned counsel for the accused/appellant that it is only un-premeditated assault made in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel which would come within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. 16. Now coming to the submission of learned counsel for the accused/appellant that it is only un-premeditated assault made in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel which would come within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. In the instant case, evidence on record goes to show that on a request being made by the deceased to the accused for not putting fence near her house as it would create obstruction in her way, the accused/ appellant attempted to assault her by axe but could not succeed on account of intervention by his wife and the deceased left the spot. However, on return of the deceased, the accused/appellant attacked and assaulted on her head by axe as a result of which she fell down. After the deceased had fallen down, that is to say when she was in a helpless position, the appellant again caused axe injury on her waist as a result of which she died instantaneously. Thus, it is apparent that there was no quarrel between the parties and the occurrence cannot be said to be result of sudden fight or sudden quarrel. Further, after the injured had fallen down, the appellant gave another axe blow on the waist of the deceased when she was in a helpless position, it indicates that he had not only acted in a cruel or unusual manner but attacked with pre-meditated mind with intention to kill her. Evidence further goes to show that accused/appellant had sufficient time, in between, to cool and compose himself and there was no reason for him to cause injuries to the poor lady. Even the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination over the body of deceased, has opined that the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In these circumstances, Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is not applicable to the facts of the present case as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. We have also gone through the judgments cited and relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. In these circumstances, Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is not applicable to the facts of the present case as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. We have also gone through the judgments cited and relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the evidence available in the present case against the appellant. 18. In view of' the above, we are of the opinion that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity in passing the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal filed by the accused/appellant and the same is accordingly dismissed.