JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 08.11.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.73/2016:- Offence under Section Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine 302 IPC Rigorous Life Imprisonment Rs.25,000/- 1 month’s Additional R.I. 341 IPC -- Rs.500/- 5 Days’ SI 323 IPC -- Rs.1,000/- 5 Days’ SI 2. He has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentences awarded to him by the trial court. 3. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow:- Manohar (PW.2) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO Police Station Shergarh on 27.02.2016 at 10:00 PM alleging inter alia that on the same day evening at about 8:30, his father Shri Ramesh Kumar was proceeding towards Punjaram Ki Dhani. Pancha Ram came across with a lathi in his hand and launched an assault on Shri Ramesh Kumar who raised a hue and cry. On hearing the sounds of commotion, the informant, his mother and Shri Punja Ram rushed to the spot and in their view, Pancha Ram inflicted a lathi blow on the head of his mother. The neighbours collected on which, Pancha Ram ran away. His parents were taken to the Shergarh Hospital. His father received serious injuries on his temple as a result whereof he expired. An enquiry was made from the informant who disclosed that his father Ramesh Kumar and the accused Pancha Ram were taxi drivers and a dispute had arisen between them owing to a stepney which was the motive behind the assault. 4. On the basis of this written report, FIR No.27/2016 (Ex.P/13) came to be registered at the Police Station Shergarh, Jodhpur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302 IPC. Usual investigation was undertaken. The accused was arrested. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Shri Ramesh Kumar by a Medical Board constituted at the Community Health Centre, Shergarh. The Board issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) taking note of following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound behind right pinna about 3 x 1 cm. (ii) Multiple bruises approximately 12 x 4 cms on chest. (iii) Lacerated wound on the right great toe. On opening the scalp, fracture was found at the right parietal region. The Board issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) taking note of following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound behind right pinna about 3 x 1 cm. (ii) Multiple bruises approximately 12 x 4 cms on chest. (iii) Lacerated wound on the right great toe. On opening the scalp, fracture was found at the right parietal region. Ribs on left side were fractured. The Medical Board gave an opinion that cause of death of Shri Ramesh Kumar was massive haemorrhage caused by head injury. 5. Investigation was concluded and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 302 and 447 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur where charges were framed against the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and exhibited sixteen documents to prove its case. The accused denied the prosecution allegations in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and examined two witnesses in defence. After hearing arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence, this appeal. 6. Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses Smt. Kamla Devi (PW.1) and the informant Manohar (PW.2) is not reliable. Both the witnesses have given contradictory statements regarding the place of incident which is noted in the site inspection plan (Ex.P/6). As a matter of fact, a sudden quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased, who was heavily intoxicated and during the scuffle, the deceased fell down on stones and received injuries. He thus, urged that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is not justified and deserves to be toned down to Section 304 Part-II IPC. He thus, urged that conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is not justified and deserves to be toned down to Section 304 Part-II IPC. In support of his contentions, Shri Rajesh Kumar placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Ananta Kamilya vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2020 SC 315 (2) Jugut Ram vs. State of Chhatisgarh, reported in AIR 2020 SC 4395 (3) Ilangovan vs State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Inspector of Police, reported in AIR 2020 SC 5335 (4) Bher Singh Purohit & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan, reported in 2018 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 636, (5) Magni Ram Balai vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2018 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1064 7. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions of the appellant’s counsel and contended that the evidence of the witnesses Smt. Kamla Devi (PW.1) and Manohar (PW.2) remained unshaken despite prolonged cross-examination. Both the witnesses were unquestionably present at the spot. Smt. Kamla Devi received injuries in this very incident. The appellant was having prior animosity with the deceased Ramesh Kumar owing to the dispute of spare tyre. On the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding to the house of Shri Punja Ram, he was waylaid by the accused and was assaulted with lathi. Repeated blows were given by the accused on the head and chest of the victim leading to fracture of parietal bone as well as ribs. The medical evidence fully corroborates the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The trivial contradictions regarding the place of incident cannot in any manner impeach the evidentiary worth of the eye-witnesses. The accused himself, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted the incident and stated that a scuffle took place between him and the deceased Ramesh Kumar who fell down on the ground and received the injuries. The defence witnesses also admitted that a scuffle took place between the accused and the deceased and thus, the incident is not disputed. He thus, urged that the case at hand does not involve any such circumstance which can be considered valid for acquitting the accused or toning down the offences. With these submissions, he implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellant’s conviction. 8. He thus, urged that the case at hand does not involve any such circumstance which can be considered valid for acquitting the accused or toning down the offences. With these submissions, he implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellant’s conviction. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. 9. At the outset, it may be noted here that the incident took place at around 8:30 pm. The written report (Ex.P/1) came to be lodged by PW.2 Manohar S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar at the Police Station Shergarh at 10:00 PM i.e,. within one and a half hour of the incident. PW.1 Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of the deceased Ramesh Kumar, upon being examined on oath gave convincing testimony alleging that she heard the cries of her husband on which, she and her son rushed there. She tried to intervene on which, the accused pushed her and inflicted a lathi blow on her head. Her father-in-law Shri Punja Ram came at the spot whereafter Pancha Ram ran away. Her husband was beaten by Pancha Ram owing to a stepney. The defence counsel tried to harp upon some contradictions in the evidence of the witness wherein, she alleged that the incident took place in front of her father-in-law’s house and not in the back side. However, this contradiction is absolutely trivial and inconsequential. The fact remains that the incident took place in the courtyard of Shri Punja Ram’s house. The evidence of the witness regarding the assault made by the accused on Ramesh Kumar and herself remains unimpeached. 10. Manohar (PW.2), the first informant gave categoric evidence stating that he heard the cries of his father on which, he, his mother and his grand-father Punja Ram ran out and saw the accused assaulting Shri Ramesh Kumar by a lathi. The witness could not be shaken from his version in the examination-in-chief despite prolonged cross-examination. Punja Ram (PW.8) also supported the prosecution case and his evidence is also reliable. 11. The defence came out with a theory that a sudden quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and in the midst thereof, Shri Ramesh Kumar fell down and received injuries due to stones lying on the ground. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took this very plea. 11. The defence came out with a theory that a sudden quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and in the midst thereof, Shri Ramesh Kumar fell down and received injuries due to stones lying on the ground. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took this very plea. The defence witnesses Ramesh Kumar (DW.1) and Gokal Ram (DW.2) also gave evidence stating that a quarrel took place between Ramesh who was in an inebriated condition and Pancha Ram and during the course thereof, both grappled with each other. Ramesh Kumar fell down and received injury on his head due to stones, which resulted in excessive bleeding and Shri Ramesh Kumar expired. 12. On a perusal of the testimony of the medical jurist Dr. Mukesh (PW.7), it becomes clear that the injuries which were noted by the doctor were lacerated wounds and bruises behind the ear and on the chest area. The dimensions of the bruises on the chest were noted as 12 x 4 cms. By no stretch of imagination, such bruises could have been caused by fall on a stone. No suggestion was given to Dr. Mukesh (PW.7) that injuries suffered by Ramesh Kumar could be caused by falling on hard surface. The doctor stated that on opening the body, the right parietal bone was fractured. The left side ribs were fractured. Heart and pericardium were ruptured. Thus it is clear that repeated blows of lathi were inflicted by the accused to the deceased with great force causing excessive damage to vital body organs viz. brain, ribs, heart and pericardium. Hence, the case of the appellant is covered by Clauses firstly and secondly of Section 300 IPC. 13. Now, we proceed to discuss the precedents cited by learned counsel Shri Rajesh Kumar. In the case of Ananta Kamilya (supra), the facts revealed that the incident took place at the spur of moment. During altercation, the accused lifted a lathi lying on the spot and inflicted a single blow thereof to the deceased. In these circumstances, Hon’ble the Supreme Court altered the conviction of the accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC holding that the case fell under Exception 4th to Section 300 IPC. In the present case, multiple injuries were caused by the accused to the deceased on his vital body parts without any premeditation. In these circumstances, Hon’ble the Supreme Court altered the conviction of the accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC holding that the case fell under Exception 4th to Section 300 IPC. In the present case, multiple injuries were caused by the accused to the deceased on his vital body parts without any premeditation. Thus, the said judgment does not help the cause of the appellant. 14. In the case of Jugut Ram (supra), the accused inflicted a solitary blow on the head of the deceased. Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that the assault was not pre-meditated. The incident occurred in a heat of passion due to a land dispute. The deceased expired on the following day of the assault. Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the peculiar facts of the case and altered the conviction of the accused therein from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. The facts of the said case are also distinguishable from the case at hand. 15. In the case of Magni Ram Balai (supra) after appreciating the evidence available on record, Division Bench of this Court held that it was not possible to identify the assailant who inflicted particular fatal injury to the deceased and in those circumstances, the conviction was altered from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part I/34 IPC. The situation in the case at hand is otherwise, because it is a case of repeated injuries by a single accused on the vital body parts of the deceased. 16. In the case of Bher Singh Purohit (supra), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that genesis of occurrence was suppressed. The incident occurred all of sudden and without premeditation and in those peculiar facts, the conviction of the accused was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. The facts of the said case are also distinguishable from the case at hand. 17. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in an apropos manner and rightly held the accused appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused appellant without any provocation, inflicted multiple lathi blows on the head and chest of the deceased causing fracture of the right parietal bone and the ribs. The accused appellant without any provocation, inflicted multiple lathi blows on the head and chest of the deceased causing fracture of the right parietal bone and the ribs. The blows on the chest were so severe that the heart and the pericardium were ruptured. Case of the appellant is not covered by any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC and hence, the offence cannot be toned down from Section 302 IPC. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2019 which does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. The appeal fails and is thus, dismissed as being devoid of merit. 18. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.