JUDGMENT : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the Additional Session Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Session Case No. 51/13, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine Rs.25,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded during the trial may be summarized thus: on 25.5.13 in the night Prabhu s/o Bhimraj was sleeping on the cot in padsal. At that time, Hamira s/o Roopa Garasiya resident of Sarkakheda came abusive and shouted at Prabhu to come out. Prabhu came out and tried to take him to the house by pacifying. When they reached near the rapat built on nala, Hamira started beating Prabhu with stone. On Prabhu raising hue and cry, Ratan s/o Sava Parmar (PW 2), Prabhu’s mother Dhanki Bai (PW 7), Oga s/o Bhura (PW 9) rushed to the spot and saw Prabhu lying on the ground, blood was oozing out from his head. On account of Hamira inflicting injury with stone on head, Prabhu died on the spot. 3. Prakash (PW 3) submitted a written report (Ex.P/5) to the Police Station, Ogna. The police registered the FIR (Ex.P/6) for offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. 4. After inquest proceedings, the body of the deceased Prabhu was subjected to autopsy by Dr. Dharmendra Garasiya (PW 12), Senior Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Jhadol. During the investigation, necessary memos were prepared. Accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/18). The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The blood stained stone, blood smeared soil, control soil and two napkins seized were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the FSL Report was obtained. 5. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against appellant accused for offence under Section 302 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol, who while taking cognizance committed the matter to the Session Judge, Udaipur, which was later transferred for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur. 6. The trial Judge framed the charges against the appellant accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. 6. The trial Judge framed the charges against the appellant accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses (PW 1 to PW 15). The documentary was exhibited as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/23. The appellant accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while denying the prosecution evidence, he claimed that Prabhu was sitting on tractor trolly which on account of jump fell in a pit, Prabhu fell down on the stones and died. He denied to have caused death of Prabhu. No witness was examined in defence, however, documentary evidence was exhibited as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4. 8. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record and the submissions made by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant accused as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 9. Mr. K.R. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective which has resulted in erroneous findings being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that alleged eye witnesses being relative of deceased were highly interested witnesses and thus, the conviction based on their testimony is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The testimony of eye witnesses suffers from lot of contradiction regarding the time and place of occurrence. It is submitted that as per the Post Mortem Report, the death was caused on account of head injuries which are alleged to be inflicted by the accused with stone. It is submitted that looking at the nature of the injuries in no manner it can be inferred that the appellant had an intention to cause death of Prabhu. Learned counsel would submit that the injury was caused under grave and sudden provocation and the same was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and thus, conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of motive, no inference of intention on the part of the appellant to cause death could be inferred. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant falls within Section 325 IPC and in any case, does not travel beyond 304 Part II IPC. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant falls within Section 325 IPC and in any case, does not travel beyond 304 Part II IPC. In support of the contention learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of ‘Mohanlal Vs. State of Rajasthan’ 2010 (1) Cr.L.R (Raj.) 361. 10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the guilt of the accused stands established on the basis of testimony of eye witnesses Ratan Lal (PW 2), Prakash (PW 3) Jalam Chand (PW 4), Dhanki Bai (PW 7) Kalki Bai (PW 8) and Lalu Ram (PW 11), which further stands corroborated by medical evidence and thus, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC, cannot be faulted with. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the credit of the witnesses is not impeached in any manner in cross examination and thus, there is no reason why their testimony should be discarded on account of their being interested witnesses. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the evidence on record thoroughly. 12. Dr. Dharmendra Garasiya (PW 12), conducted autopsy of the dead body of Prabhu. As per the post mortem report (Ex.P/7), following ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased Prabhu : (1) Abrasion 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm on left shoulder (2) Abrasion 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm on right shoulder (3) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep, right frontal bone region (haematoma) (4) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep, on left parietal bone (diffuse haematoma at just above left mastoid region). The cause of death is opined to be multiple head injuries which lead to extradural haematoma and brain haemorrhage. 13. Dr. Dharmendra Garasiya (PW 12), in his deposition has categorically confirmed the injuries sustained by the victim as also the cause of death. Thus, looking at the nature of injuries and the medical evidence on record the death of Prabhu was concededly homicidal in nature. 14. The prosecution case was founded on testimony of eye witnesses Ratan Lal (PW 2), Prakash (PW 3) Jalam Chand (PW 4), Dhanki Bai (PW 7) Kalki Bai (PW 8) and Lalu Ram (PW 11) and other corroborative evidence. 15. 14. The prosecution case was founded on testimony of eye witnesses Ratan Lal (PW 2), Prakash (PW 3) Jalam Chand (PW 4), Dhanki Bai (PW 7) Kalki Bai (PW 8) and Lalu Ram (PW 11) and other corroborative evidence. 15. In the first instance, we consider it appropriate to scrutinize the evidence of eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. 16. Ratan Lal (PW 2) deposed that on the fateful day around 7 P.M. while he, Hamira and Prabhu were on the way, at the valley Hamira and Prabhu picked up quarrel. Later, Hamira came abusive and shouted at Prabhu to come out. Hamira inflicted injury on head of the Prabhu with 5 kg stone. The blood oozed out from the head of Prabhu and he died on the spot. In cross-examination, he deposed that he reached the place of occurrence and thereafter Prakash (PW 3), Dhanki Bai (PW 7), Oga (PW 9) and Hakra (PW 5) and Jalam Chand (PW 4) also reached there. When he attempted to capture Hamira, he ran away. He further deposed that on hue and cry being raised, he went to the spot around 10 P.M. 17. Prakash (PW 3) deposed that on Prabhu raising hue and cry, he rushed to the spot. Ratan Lal (PW 2), Prabhu’s mother Dhanki Bai (PW 7) and Jalam Chand (PW 4) had also reached there. Hamira inflicted injuries on the head of the Prabhu with stone. In cross-examination, he deposed that after he reached the place of occurrence, Ratan Lal (PW 2), Dhanki Bai (PW 7), Kalki Bai (PW 8), Jalam Singh (PW 4) and Oga Ram (PW 9) also reached there. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Prabhu under the intoxication condition fell into nala, suffered the injuries and died. He categorically deposed that he had seen Hamira throwing stone. 18. Jalam Chand (PW 4) deposed that it was around 10 P.M. on hue and cry being raised, he reached the place of occurrence where Prakash (PW 3), Ratan (PW 2), Dhanki Bai (PW 7) etc were already present. The dead body of Prabhu was lying there. He was beaten by Hamira with stone. They tried to capture Hamira but he ran away. However, in cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Prakash and Ratan apprised him that Hamira has ran away. 19. The dead body of Prabhu was lying there. He was beaten by Hamira with stone. They tried to capture Hamira but he ran away. However, in cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Prakash and Ratan apprised him that Hamira has ran away. 19. Dhanki Bai (PW 7) deposed that Prabhu had gone with Hamira to take him home by pacifying, however, on the way, he started beating him with stone. On his raising hue and cry, she along with Prakash (PW 3), Jalam Chand (PW 4), Ratan (PW 2), Kalki (PW 8), Oga (PW 9) and Sava reached there. Hamira was sitting on Prabhu Lal, who on seeing them ran away. Prabhu threw a heavy stone on chest of his son Prabhu, which resulted in his death. The blood was oozing out from his nose, ear and mouth. She deposed that there was no enmity between Hamira and Prabhu. In cross-examination, she deposed that before her reaching to the place of occurrence, injury was already caused on the head of the deceased. 20. Kalki Bai (PW 8) deposed that on Prabhu shouting, she along with Ratan (PW 2), Prakash (PW 3), Oga (PW 9), Smt. Dhanki (PW 7), Jalam Chand (PW 4), Kali Bai and Lalu (PW 11) reached the place of occurrence. She saw that Hamira while sitting on Prabhu was hitting his head with stone. On seeing them, Hamira ran away. On account of the head injury, blood was oozing out. Prabhu was lying dead on C.C. Road. In cross-examination, she deposed that when they reached the place of occurrence, Prabhu was lying dead. 21. Oga Ram (PW 9) has also deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence along with Prakash and others, Hamira was inflicting injury on the head of Hamira by stone. When he reached there running, Hamira ran away. In cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Hamira was not there, he had seen him running away. At the same time, he again deposed that he had seen Hamira inflicting injuries on the person of Prabhu. 22. Lalu Ram (PW 11) deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Hamira was throwing stone on head of Prabhu. Jalam Chand (PW 4), Ratan (PW 2), Oga (PW 9), Kali Bai, Dhanki (PW 8) and Kalu were also present there. 22. Lalu Ram (PW 11) deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, Hamira was throwing stone on head of Prabhu. Jalam Chand (PW 4), Ratan (PW 2), Oga (PW 9), Kali Bai, Dhanki (PW 8) and Kalu were also present there. They tried to capture Hamira but he ran away. 23. It is true that there exists some discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses and other witnesses of the incident. But then, the contradictions are minor and trivial in nature and there exists no material contradictions so as to make the testimony of the said witnesses doubtful, untrustworthy or unreliable. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Judge that around 10 P.M. accused Hamira came to the house of Prabhu, from there, they went together and on the way Hamira caused injuries on the head of Prabhu with stone, which resulted in his death cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. We do not find any good reason to arrive at a different conclusion. 24. This takes us to consider whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, wherein the incident has occurred, the injuries caused by the appellant accused on the person of the deceased Prabhu leading to his death can be said to be an act of the appellant accused constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the conviction of appellant by the trial Judge under Section 302 IPC deserves to be altered under Section 304 Part-I or 304 Part-II IPC. 25. Indisputably, there was no enmity between the appellant accused and the deceased Prabhu. It is also an established fact on the record that when appellant accused came to Prabhu’s house and shouted at him to come out, Prabhu came out and tried to pacify him and taken to him to his house. It has not come out on record as to what transpired between them on the way, which led to appellant accused assaulting Prabhu with stone and causing injuries on his head. But then, as per the post mortem report, out of four injuries, two were abrasions and remaining two were lacerated wounds. The medical evidence does not suggest that any single injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. But then, as per the post mortem report, out of four injuries, two were abrasions and remaining two were lacerated wounds. The medical evidence does not suggest that any single injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As a matter of fact, the cause of death is opined to be cumulative effect of multiple ante mortem injuries leading to haemorrhage. 26. In Madhu Sudan Satpati & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1994 SC, 474, where there was only one injury on the head of the deceased and that proved to be fatal, the other injuries were found to be simple and weapons used were also not deadly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be reasonable to hold that the accused persons had only knowledge that injuries inflicted were likely to cause death and accordingly, altered the conviction from Section 304 part I IPC to punishable u/s 304 part II IPC. 27. In Nadodi Jayaraman vs. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1993 SC 777 , where 32 injuries were caused to the deceased, most of the injuries were on non vital parts of the body, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the court held that appellant therein do not appear to have had the intention of causing the death of the deceased or even causing such bodily injuries likely to cause death. They can at the best be attributed with the knowledge that their act is likely to cause death or causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. 28. In Fateh Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1989 (2) Crimes (Raj.) 249, this court relying upon the decision in the matter of Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1969 RLW 449, wherein no injury was inflicted to the deceased on any vital part of his body, the injuries inflicted were on hand, feet, leg etc. this court held that act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 29. this court held that act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 29. In Mohanlal’s case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant where the accused had spontaneously during the heat of the moment gave a brick blow without having any intention to kill but with the knowledge that his act may cause death, this court altered the conviction of the accused from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part II IPC. 30. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the instant case, on the facts and in the circumstances wherein the incident had occurred and looking at the nature of the injuries, it cannot be inferred that the appellant accused had intention to cause death or the act was done with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. But then, the fact remains that the deceased was caused injuries on the head with stone and therefore, looking at the nature of injuries caused, it can be safely concluded that the accused had knowledge that the injuries caused are likely to cause death. Thus, the conviction of the appellant accused deserves to be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. 31. In view of the discussion above, we partly allow the appeal. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside. We convict the appellant accused for offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs.25,000/. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.