JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The instant appeal was admitted by this Court on 22.08.2017. The Secretary, Legal Services Authority of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur vide its Order dated 09/13.06.2017 appointed Mr. S.P. Joshi, learned counsel as an Amicus Curiae to contest the present appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant. 2. The present criminal jail appeal under Section 383 read with Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 16/2011 (20/2014) whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years' additional rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution story emanates from a written report (Ex.P/6) filed by Puran Singh (P.W. 2) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali on 08.06.2011 wherein it was stated that his uncle's son Asupal Singh alias Montu was a labour contractor who was employed at a site in progress at Indra Colony, Jawai Dam. Asupal Singh was not carrying his lunch and therefore he, along with Mahipal Singh and Mahaveer Singh carried the food to the house of Sualal. Asupal Singh was sitting on a cot and his labourers were working at the site. Ganesharam who was resident of Indra Colony, Jawai Dam came to purchase tobacco and was fighting with Asupal. At that time, they counselled Ganesharam and sent him back to his residence. After a while, Ganesharam's wife Teena came around and started quarrelling with Asupal. While they were indulged in the altercation, the accused-appellant stealthily came with an axe and inflicted two blows on Asupal. Asupal ran for some distance and fell on the ground. When Ganesharam was inflicting the axe blows, his wife Teena had caught hold of the hands of Asupal. This incident which happened at around 1.30 P.M., was witnessed by him along with Mahipal Singh (P.W. 11), Mahaveer Singh (P.W. 4), Chunni Lal (P.W. 9) and Mitharam alias Pitha (P.W. 10). The accused Ganesharam ran away from the place of incident along with his wife Teena. Asupal succumbed to the injuries. He reported the matter. 4. This incident which happened at around 1.30 P.M., was witnessed by him along with Mahipal Singh (P.W. 11), Mahaveer Singh (P.W. 4), Chunni Lal (P.W. 9) and Mitharam alias Pitha (P.W. 10). The accused Ganesharam ran away from the place of incident along with his wife Teena. Asupal succumbed to the injuries. He reported the matter. 4. On this report, an F.I.R. No. 187/2011 (Ex.P/27) was registered at Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and investigation commenced. During the investigation, police arrested the accused-appellant vide Arrest Memo dated 10.06.2011 (Ex.P/26) and his wife Teena vide Arrest Memo dated 08.06.2011 (Ex.P/20). 5. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused-appellant and his wife Teena for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. 6. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. to the accusedappellant and under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. to the accused Teena who denied the charges and sought trial. 7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and 30 documents and in defence, 06 documents were got exhibited as Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6. 8. The accused-appellant and his wife Teena were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they were confronted with the evidence adduced against them during the course of trial to which they denied and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case and were innocent. 9. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, acquitted the co-accused Teena for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced the accusedappellant as above vide judgment dated 25.02.2017. Hence this appeal. 10. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 11. Mr. S.P. Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently and fervently argued that there are a number of contradictions and omissions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which create doubt and thus, the learned trial court fell in error while convicting the accused-appellant for the offence alleged vide Judgment dated 25.02.2017. 12. 11. Mr. S.P. Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently and fervently argued that there are a number of contradictions and omissions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which create doubt and thus, the learned trial court fell in error while convicting the accused-appellant for the offence alleged vide Judgment dated 25.02.2017. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae takes us to the statements of eyewitnesses P.W. 2 - Puran Singh, P.W. 4 Mahaveer Singh, P.W. 9 Chunnilal alias Chunaram, P.W. 10 Mitharam alias Pitha and P.W. 11 Mahipal Singh and contends that the heated altercations between the deceased and the accused-appellant took place at the spur of the moment and when the deceased was involved in the altercation with the wife of the accused-appellant Teena, the accused-appellant suddenly came and inflicted the axe blows. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae argues that the accused-appellant never intended to kill Asupal Singh and just in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, the injuries were inflicted. Therefore, in light of the testimony of the eye-witnesses, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the case of the accused-appellant falls in Exception IV of Section 300 of I.P.C. and therefore, he prays that the conviction of the accused-appellant deserves to be converted from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. 14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the Judgment dated 25.02.2017 submits that P.W. 2 - Puran Singh, P.W. 4 Mahaveer Singh, P.W. 9 Chunnilal alias Chunaram, P.W. 10 Mitharam alias Pitha and P.W. 11 Mahipal Singh have clearly deposed that the accused-appellant had come at the place of incident when his wife Teena was quarrelling with the deceased. Suddenly, the accused-appellant inflicted axe blows on the vital parts of the body of Asupal Singh resulting into his death. He further contends that the testimony of eye-witnesses gets complete corroboration with the medical evidence in the shape of statement of P.W. 12 Dr. Hanuman Prasad Bairwa and the postmortem report (Ex.P/25) wherein the cause of death is haemorrhagic shock due to sharp cut of external & internal jugular and common carotid vessels. He further submits that the FSL Report (Ex.P/30) shows the presence of "A" blood group on the weapon of offence i.e. axe, matching with the bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased sent for FSL examination. He further submits that the FSL Report (Ex.P/30) shows the presence of "A" blood group on the weapon of offence i.e. axe, matching with the bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased sent for FSL examination. He further submits that the learned trial court, after evaluating the entire facts and evidence, came to the only possible and logical conclusion while convicting the accused-appellant for the offence alleged in the present case vide Judgment dated 25.02.2017, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 15. We have considered the submissions made at bar and have carefully and threadbare perused the entire evidence available on record. 16. The testimony of P.W. 2 - Puran Singh, P.W. 4 Mahaveer Singh, P.W. 9 Chunnilal alias Chunaram, P.W. 10 Mitharam alias Pitha and P.W. 11 Mahipal Singh clearly shows that while the deceased Asupal Singh was at the site, where labourers were working, the accused-appellant came and had some altercations/ scuffle but Puran Singh (P.W. 2), Mahaveer Singh (P.W. 4) and Mahipal Singh (P.W. 11) after counselling sent him back. But after some time, his wife Teena came and had heated altercations with the deceased. Since the house of the accused-appellant was situated closeby, when the accused-appellant saw his wife quarrelling with the deceased, he went at the place of incident and inflicted the fatal blows. 17. In view of the testimony of these witnesses, there is no doubt that the deceased Asupal Singh died because of the fatal injuries caused by the accused-appellant. Since learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant has also not seriously contested and disputed the incident attributing the fatal injuries to the accused-appellant, we hold that it was the accused-appellant alone and none else who caused fatal injuries to the deceased Asupal Singh. The findings of the learned trial court on this aspect are, therefore, upheld. 18. Now the pertinent question as to whether the conviction of the accused-appellant is sustainable under Section 302 of I.P.C. or should be converted from Section 302 of I.P.C. to Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. is required to be considered by us. 19. All the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 - Puran Singh, P.W. 4 Mahaveer Singh, P.W. 9 Chunnilal alias Chunaram, P.W. 10 Mitharam alias Pitha and P.W. 11 Mahipal Singh have consistently deposed that after the heated altercations with Ashupal Singh, the accused-appellant went back to his house. 19. All the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 - Puran Singh, P.W. 4 Mahaveer Singh, P.W. 9 Chunnilal alias Chunaram, P.W. 10 Mitharam alias Pitha and P.W. 11 Mahipal Singh have consistently deposed that after the heated altercations with Ashupal Singh, the accused-appellant went back to his house. But when he saw his wife quarrelling with Asupal Singh, he again came back and inflicted fatal blows to Asupal Singh. The quarrel was sudden and because of the sudden fight, the incident took place in the heat of passion. Nothing has come on record which shows that there was any previous enmity between the accusedappellant and the deceased Asupal Singh. It appears that after the heated altercations, when the accused-appellant went back to his house, his wife started quarrelling with Asupal Singh. The accused-appellant watched deceased and his wife indulged in a quarrel, in the heat of passion, he went at the place of incident and inflicted fatal blows to Asupal Singh. In our opinion, there is nothing on record which disclosed any premeditation on the part of the accused-appellant for inflicting fatal injuries to the deceased Asupal Singh. 20. We note that the incident took place in a village at a site of construction near the house of the accused-appellant. The dispute must have arose on a trivial issue resulting into heated altercation between the deceased and the accused-appellant. It appears that issue was joined by the wife of the accused-appellant and when he saw the scuffle between deceased and his wife Teena from a distance, he ran towards them and in the heat of passion inflicted fatal injuries to Ashupal Singh. 21. We also note that although, there are two injuries but the first injury on the neck was fatal and the second injury on the right maxillary region was not the real cause of death, which indicates that the accused-appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased. 22. In our opinion, the facts hereinabove disclose that the assault was perpetrated without any premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 22. In our opinion, the facts hereinabove disclose that the assault was perpetrated without any premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. This brings the conviction of the accusedappellant within the four corners of Exception IV of Section 300 of I.P.C., therefore, in our view, learned trial court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Hence, the conviction of the accusedappellant, in our view, is required to be toned down from one under Section 302 of I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I of I.P.C. 23. We are gainfully supported by the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2019 AIR SC 264 which read as under :- "7. The High Court acquitted all the other accused, since fatal blow is attributed to the appellantaccused. The question falling for consideration is to the nature of the offence. As pointed out earlier, the occurrence was at about 10.00 p.m., when there was wordy quarrel between the accused party and the deceased - Bherulal that there was a quarrel between them is established from the evidence of PW-6 also. In the quarrel, the appellantaccused has inflicted injuries on the right side of the head of the deceased measuring 15x2 1/2 x 3 c.m. Though there was another injury found on the deceased it was one contusion measuring 10x2 cm on lower portion of right neck. The fourth exception to Section 300 IPC deals with death committed in sudden fight without premeditation. The sudden fight implies the absence of premeditation. Even as per the evidence of PW-6, there was a wordy quarrel and in that quarrel the appellant inflicted farsi blow on the head of the deceased. As the injuries inflicted on the deceased in the sudden fight between the deceased and the accused party. There was no premeditation. One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased. The manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on the deceased attract Exception 4 to Section 300. There was no premeditation. One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased. The manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on the deceased attract Exception 4 to Section 300. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant is modified under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 8. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified as conviction Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case." 24. In view of the discussion made above, the conviction of the accused-appellant is converted from one under Section 302 of I.P.C. to Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. While converting the conviction of the accused-appellant as above, in our view, the interest of justice will be served if the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned trial court is reduced from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is maintained. The impugned judgment dated 25.02.2017 stands modified to that extent. 25. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.