JUDGMENT : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Krishan Lal @ Kalu against the judgment dated 11/04/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur (District Sriganganagar) in Sessions Case No. 23/2010, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded from a written report (Ex.P.1) submitted by Krishanlal @ Pappu (PW.3) to the Circle Inspector, Police Station Kesharisinghpur, District Sriganganagar on 27/09/2010 was that he was resident of Chak No. 7, S-II. His daughter had come for delivery at their place of residence and was staying with them for the last two and a half months. On 26/09/2010 (wrongly written as 27/09/2010), his son-in-law (the appellant), Krishan Lal @ Kalu came to his house. After having dinner, the appellant stayed over night at their house. In the morning at around 8 a.m., informant and his wife went to work at the house of PW.7 Satnam Singh, their daughter was at their house. His son-in-law Krishan Lal assaulted his daughter with an axe which was lying in their house. Because of axe blow, his daughter fell on the ground and the accused-appellant inflicted a knife blow on her stomach. On hearing the hue and cry, they along with the other neighbours rushed to their house and saw the incident with their own eyes. In the meantime, the appellant after inflicting injuries to his daughter ran away from the place of occurrence towards the agricultural field. Sharda who received injuries on her head and abdoman expired on the way while she was being taken to the Primary Health Centre, Kesharisinghpur. His son-in-law i.e. accused-appellant inflicted axe and knife blows on the head and stomach of his daughter resulting into her death. 3. On this written report, an FIR No. 186/2010 (Ex.P.2) was registered by the SHO, Police Station Kesharisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar on 27/09/2010 and the investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P.8 on 27/09/2010. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 & 449 IPC. 4. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offences under Sections 302 & 449 I.P.C to the accused-appellant who denied the charge and sought trial. 5. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 & 449 IPC. 4. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offences under Sections 302 & 449 I.P.C to the accused-appellant who denied the charge and sought trial. 5. During the trial, the prosecution produced 11 witnesses apart from 19 documents to prove their case. 6. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial, which he denied and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and was innocent. 7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statement of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 11/04/2014. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the accused appellant vehemently and fervently argued that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case. The relationship between the appellant, his wife and in-laws was very cordial and there was no enmity nor there was any past history or incident. Therefore, there was no reason for the appellant to commit murder of his wife Sharda. On a day prior to the incident, the appellant had come from his village Banwari Lal Kasania Ki Dhani to the house of complainant PW.3 Krishanlal @ Pappu (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) and after having dinner, stayed over night at their house. Further, there was absolutely no intention for the appellant to cause any injury much less the fatal injury to his wife as he did not carry any weapon with him from his house. It can hardly be believed that the appellant was aware as to where the weapon of offence i.e. axe was lying in the house of the complainant. Therefore, it is highly improbable that a person coming from outside will know the place where axe would have been lying in the house of complainant. 10. He further argued that when the appellant inflicted first blow with the axe then there was no occasion to change the weapon of offence from axe to knife for inflicting the second injury. The prosecution story was based on conjectures and surmises. 10. He further argued that when the appellant inflicted first blow with the axe then there was no occasion to change the weapon of offence from axe to knife for inflicting the second injury. The prosecution story was based on conjectures and surmises. He further argued that there was no eye-witness to the incident as PW.3 Krishan Lal @ Pappu and PW.4 Smt. Santosh stated in their evidence that at the time of alleged incident, they had gone to the house of their neighbour PW.7 Santam Singh. Therefore, the testimony of PW.3 Kishanlal @ Pappu and PW.4 Smt. Santosh was required to be discarded being false as admittedly they were in the house of PW.7 Satnam Singh and could not have seen the incident. 11. Learned counsel further argued that it has come on record that when the appellant came to the house of complainant for taking away his wife, his father-in-law Krishan Lal @ Pappu and mother in law Smt. Santosh refused to send her with him, as a result of which he got annoyed and inflicted the fatal blows to his wife Sharda. He, therefore, contended that in the heat of moment and due to grave & sudden provocation, the accused-appellant lost control and inflicted the injuries to his wife Sharda without there being any premeditation. Therefore, the conviction is required to be toned down from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. In support of his submission for toning down conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana, 1981 AIR 1552 SC. 12. On the strength of the submissions made above, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant should be acquitted of the charges levelled against him by setting aside the judgment dated 11/04/2014 passed by learned trial Court. 13. E-converso, learned public prosecutor vehemently and fervently supported impugned judgment dated 11/04/2014 and submitted that the appellant had come and stayed with the complainant over night and simply because he was not allowed to take away his wife, he inflicted the fatal blows to his wife Sharda. 13. E-converso, learned public prosecutor vehemently and fervently supported impugned judgment dated 11/04/2014 and submitted that the appellant had come and stayed with the complainant over night and simply because he was not allowed to take away his wife, he inflicted the fatal blows to his wife Sharda. He argued that in the statement of PW.3 Krishanlal @ Pappu and PW.4 Smt. Santosh, it has come on record that while they were at the house of Satnam Singh, they heard hue and cry of their daughter Sharda, upon which, they rushed to their house and saw the appellant assaulting their daughter Sharda. The appellant after inflicting injuries fled away from their house towards the agricultural field. He contended that the injuries stated by PW.3 Krishanlal @ Pappu and PW.4 Smt. Santosh are getting complete corroboration from the statement of PW.2 Dr. Desdeepak Arora and the postmortem report (Ex.P.16). He further contended that the cause of death being the fatal injuries sustained by Smt. Sharda at the hands of accused appellant is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The recovery of bloodstained weapon of offence matching with the bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased puts a seal on the fact that it was none other than the appellant who had caused the fatal injuries to the deceased Sharda. 14. On the strength of these arguments, learned public prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt and, therefore, learned trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the offences alleged vide judgment dated 11/04/2014. 15. We have considered the submissions made at bar and have minutely sifted through the record of the case as well as the impugned judgment dated 11/04/2014 rendered by the trial Court. 16. PW.3 Krishanlal @ Pappu being father of the deceased Sharda narrated the incident almost on the same lines as stated by him in the written report. He stated that while he and his wife were at the house of PW.7 Satnam Singh, who was their immediate neighbour, they heard cries from their house and when they rushed there, they saw the appellant inflicting injuries to their daughter with an axe and, thereafter, he ran away towards the agricultural field. He stated that while he and his wife were at the house of PW.7 Satnam Singh, who was their immediate neighbour, they heard cries from their house and when they rushed there, they saw the appellant inflicting injuries to their daughter with an axe and, thereafter, he ran away towards the agricultural field. He further stated that the appellant came to their house to take away his wife (Smt. Sharda) to the matrimonial home but he refused to send her as she had delivered a baby in the recent past. They tried to make the appellant understand that they would send Sharda after sometime but the appellant got annoyed and furious and committed this incident inflicting fatal blows to his daughter. Nothing significant was elicited during the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt the credibility or veracity of the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief. 17. PW.4 Smt. Santosh being mother of the deceased stated the incident almost on the same lines as narrated by PW.3 Krishanlal @ Pappu. She also affirmed that her daughter was murdered by the appellant only for the reason that they refused to send Sharda with him on account of Sharda having delivered a baby few days back. The appellant assaulted Sharda after getting annoyed with the refusal to send her with him. 18. PW.6 Dharampal @ Paliram who was the next door neighbour to the complainant also stated that the appellant got annoyed when he was not allowed to take away his wife Sharda by her parents resulting into the present incident in which he inflicted fatal injuries to Sharda. 19. PW.7 Satnam Singh was also the next door neighbour of the complainant. He narrated the incident almost on the same lines as stated by PW.3 Krishanlal @ Pappu. However, in the cross-examination, he stated that he had not heard about any untoward incident or inimical relationship between the two families in the past. When the appellant was not allowed to take his wife Sharda to the matrimonial home by her parents, he got furious and angry and inflicted the fatal blows to his wife Sharda. 20. PW.1 Gopal Lal Meena is the Station House Officer who investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples, prepared memos in accordance with the provisions of law. 21. PW.2 Dr. 20. PW.1 Gopal Lal Meena is the Station House Officer who investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples, prepared memos in accordance with the provisions of law. 21. PW.2 Dr. Desdeepak Arora who conducted the autopsy upon the dead-body of the deceased Smt. Sharda, described the dimensions and places of injuries present on the body of deceased and stated that the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to the injuries caused to the vital organs of the body. 22. The postmortem report is Ex.P.16 wherein the cause of death was opined to be haemorrhagic shock due to injury to vital organ i.e. brain. FSL Report is Ex.P.19 showing A blood group on the weapon of offence i.e. "Chaku" matching with the bloodstains present on the clothes of the deceased sent for FSL. 23. A close reading of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses leads us to believe that the appellant being the husband of deceased Sharda came to the house of complainant a day prior to the incident. After taking dinner, he stayed over night at the house of complainant. This clearly shows that the relationship between the appellant and the complainants family including his wife Sharda was cordial and normal. It has also come on record that Sharda was staying at her parental house for last more than two months and, therefore, the appellant had come to take her to the matrimonial home. Till the previous night, everything was normal and, therefore, there was no reason for the appellant to carry a weapon with him when he came to stay in the house of complainant. Admittedly, nothing has come on record which shows that when the appellant came from his house, he carried axe or knife with him. These facts clearly indicate that there was no premeditation for committing the offence by the appellant. It was only the refusal and resistance of PW.3 Krishanlal @ Pappu and PW.4 Smt. Santosh i.e. parents of Sharda to send her along with the appellant which irked the appellant and provoked him resulting in loosing his mental balance. In sheer frustration and deprivation of the company of his wife. The accused-appellant lost control and inflicted the fatal injuries to his wife Sharda with an axe and knife present in the house of complainant. In sheer frustration and deprivation of the company of his wife. The accused-appellant lost control and inflicted the fatal injuries to his wife Sharda with an axe and knife present in the house of complainant. The said fact is proved from the postmortem report (Ex.P.16), statement of doctor (PW.2), recovery of weapon of offence and the FSL report (Ex.P.19) of the articles sent for examination which lead to the conclusion that it was none other than the appellant who was involved in the murder of his wife Smt. Sharda. In rural set up particularly in villages, the presence of axe is very common in almost every house. The presence of the accused appellant in the house of complainant and infliction of fatal injuries by him to his wife is proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution. We concur with the finding of conviction by the trial Court. 24. The pertinent question herein is that in the set of circumstances mentioned above, whether the act committed by the appellant will fall in any of the exceptions to Section 300 of IPC ? 25. We note that in the statements of PW.3 Krishan Lal @ Pappu (father-in-law), PW.4 Smt. Santosh (mother-in-law), PW.6 Dharmpal @ Paliram (next door neighbour) and PW.7 Satnam Singh (next door neighbour), it has categorically come on record that prior to this incident, the relationship between the appellant, his in-laws and wife was normal and cordial. When the appellant came to the house of complainant to take away his wife to the matrimonial home, he was denied by Shardas parents and that caused annoyance and frustration to the appellant depriving him of his control and in the heat of passion, he committed the present incident inflicting fatal injuries to his wife Sharda. When the appellant came to the house of complainant to take away his wife to the matrimonial home, he was denied by Shardas parents and that caused annoyance and frustration to the appellant depriving him of his control and in the heat of passion, he committed the present incident inflicting fatal injuries to his wife Sharda. It will be worth to reproduce Para-31 of the trial Court order for better appreciation of the facts on the issue :- **31- fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&1 esa ;g rF; vk;k gS fd vfHk;qDr ?kVuk ls ,d fnu iwoZ ifjoknh ds ?kj vFkkZr og viuh llqjky vk;k Fkk] jkr dks [kkuk [kkdj ds lks x;kA vfHk;qDr dk vius llqjky i{k ls bl ?kVuk ls iwoZ dksbZ >xM+k ugha FkkA ih-M-3 d`.kyky mQZ iIiw vkSj ih-M-4 lUrks”k tks fd vfHk;qDr ds llqj o lkl gSa ds }kjk vius c;kuksa esa ,sls dksbZ dFku ugha fd, gS fd vfHk;qDr ?kVuk ds igys fnu ?kj esa vukf/kd`r :i ls izos’k fd;k gks cfYd tks rF; i=koyh ij vk;s gSa mlds vuqlkj nks <kbZ ekg iwoZ e`rdk 'kkjnk fMyhojh ds fy;s vius ihgj vkbZ gqbZ Fkh vkSj mlds cPpk iSnk gqvk FkkA vfHk;qDr viuh ifRu dks vius lkFk vius ?kj ys tkuk pkgrk FkkA vfHk;qDr ds lkl llqj ds }kjk euk djus ij mldks Øks/k vk x;k vkSj mlus e`rdk dks dqYgkM+h] pkdw ls okj djds mldh gR;k dj nhA bl izdkj vfHk;qDr dk vius llqjky esa vkuk ,d LokHkkfod ckr gS] llqjky i{k ls ;fn dksbZ eueqVko ugha gks rks ?kj esa nkekn dh mifLFkfr vPNh ekuh tkrh gSA ?kVuk ls iwoZ vfHk;qDr ds llqjky i{k ls vPNs lEcU/k Fks blfy;s ?kVuk ls iwoZ vfHk;qDr dk vius llqjky esa vkuk vkSj jkr dks :duk x`g vfrpkj dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh xbZ fd vfHk;qDr e`rdk 'kkjnk dh gR;k djus ds fy;s vk;k gks] cfYd gR;k dk dkj.k ckn esa iSnk gqvk gSA blfy;s vfHk;qDr ds }kjk gR;k djus ds vk'k; ls x`g vfrpkj fd;k x;k gks bl vkjksi dk vfHk;kstu i{k lkfcr djus esa iwjh rjg ls vlQy jgk gSA** 26. In this view of the matter, we feel persuaded that the present case falls under the exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. 27. In this view of the matter, we feel persuaded that the present case falls under the exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. 27. We are gainfully supported by the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 2018 SC 2693 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: "22. Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code reads as under: Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without 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. 23. There is no dispute about the ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, the following conditions are to be satisfied namely: (i) that the incident happened without premeditation; (ii) in a sudden fight; (iii) in the heat of passion; (iv) upon a sudden quarrel and (v) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 24. It may be relevant to note that in the case of Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, (2004) 11 SCC 395 , it was held as under For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The fourth exception of Section 300 Indian Penal Code covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds mens sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds mens sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused: (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code is not defined in Indian Penal Code. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage". 28. In view of the discussion made above, the conviction of the accused-appellant is converted from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I 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 that of ten years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is maintained. The impugned judgment dated 11/04/2014 stands modified to that extent. 29. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.