ORDER : 1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved of the judgment dated 17.10.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.40/1991, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with the fine of Rs.100/-. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:- 3. F.I.R. No.34/1991 (Ex.P/1) dated 23.01.1991 came to be registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on the basis of an oral report submitted by Shri Mukhtyar Singh (P.W.1) alleging inter alia that he and his two brothers, namely, Shri Ganga Singh and Shri Modan Singh, used to reside together in the same house with their parents. On the previous two evenings, the informant had stayed back at the tube well for watering the fields and his brother Shri Modan Singh went home. He returned to the field in the morning of 23.01.1991 at about 9.00 o’clock. The pump installed in the tubewell malfunctioned and thus, both the brothers were dismantling the same. At about 11.00-11.30 a.m., Nakshtra Singh, grand son of the informant’s uncle, came there and told that his aunt (informant’s wife) and uncle Ganga Singh had fought with each other and that Ganga Singh had given a blow of satt to his aunt. On hearing so, the informant and Modan Singh immediately rushed to the village. They reached home at about 12.00 o’clock and they saw their mother Jal Kaur and Laxmi (sister-in-law of the informant) and numerous other persons had collected in their home. The informant’s mother told him that his wife was cleaning utensils in the courtyard when Ganga Singh gave the blow of a sabarkatta (a sharp implement) to her due to which she expired. The informant noticed the dead body of his wife Smt. Amarjeet Kaur covered with a Chadar lying in the chowk and lot of blood was spilled around. His brother Ganga Singh was nowhere to be seen. He arranged transport and then approached the police station for lodging the report. After registration of the FIR, investigation was undertaken. The dead body of Smt. Amerjeet Kaur was picked up from the spot and was sent to the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh for autopsy. His brother Ganga Singh was nowhere to be seen. He arranged transport and then approached the police station for lodging the report. After registration of the FIR, investigation was undertaken. The dead body of Smt. Amerjeet Kaur was picked up from the spot and was sent to the Government Hospital, Hanumangarh for autopsy. The medical jurist took note of two incised wounds and two lacerated wounds on the body of the deceased. The occipetal bone and both the parietal bones were fractured as a result of the injuries Nos. 1 and 2, which caused brain damage leading to the death of the victim. The injuries Nos.1 and 4 were opined to have been caused by a sharp weapon whereas the injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were opined as having been caused by a blunt weapon. The accused appellant was arrested. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, the weapon of offence was recovered. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The recovered articles i.e. blood stained soil, clothes and weapon of offence were forwarded to the FSL for comparison. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, which being Sessions triable, the case was committed to and then transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh for trial. Charge was framed against the accused for the said offence, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents so as to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same and claimed that he did not commit the offence. He stated that in all probability, the victim was painting the roof and she slipped from the ladder and fell down on the chopper machine and thereby received the injuries. Two witnesses were examined in defence. 4. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above by the impugned judgment dated 17.10.1992, which is assailed in this appeal. 5. Two witnesses were examined in defence. 4. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above by the impugned judgment dated 17.10.1992, which is assailed in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel Shri Sisodia, representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the material prosecution witnesses Shri Mukhtyar Singh, the first informant (P.W.1), Smt. Jal Kaur (P.W.2) and Shri Nakshatra Singh (P.W.3) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The presence of the alleged eye-witness Smt. Laxmi (P.W.4), sister of the deceased, at the place of incident is unnatural and she is not a reliable witness. There are significant contradictions in the evidence of Smt. Laxmi. No other tangible evidence was led by the prosecution so as to bring home the charge against the appellant. The witnesses Shri Mukhtyar Singh, Smt. Jal Kaur and Nakshatra Singh, who were admittedly present at the spot, gave affirmative evidence to the effect that Smt. Amarjeet Kaur slipped down from the ladder and fell on the chopping machine and received the fatal injuries accidentally. He urged that the recovery of the sabarkatta made at the instance of the appellant is fabricated. The defence witness Shri Modan Singh (D.W.1) also corroborated the theory regarding the accidental death of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. His alternative submission was that there was no animosity whatsoever between the appellant and the deceased, who was his Bhabhi, and thus, the incident if at all took place, at the spur of the moment without any premeditation on a trivial issue and thus, the offence deservs to be toned down to Section 304 Part I IPC. He placed reliance on this Court’ judgment in the case of Nand Lal vs. The State of Rajasthan (DB Criminal Appeal No.392/1991 decided on 16.11.2022) and contended that the appellant, who has remained in custody for more than three years, is entitled to seek toning down of the offence from one under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I or II IPC with a corresponding reduction in sentence. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Sisodia. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel Shri Sisodia. He submitted that the appellant had returned from the field, where he saw that Laxmi, sister of the deceased Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, had come to visit without his prior permission. Being enraged by this trivial circumstance and without any provocation, the accused picked up the sharp implement Sabarkatta and gave repeated blows thereof from the sharp side as well as the blunt side on the head and other vital body parts of the deceased leading to her instantaneous death at the spot. He urged that the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance on the evidence of Smt. Laxmi (sister of the deceased), as her evidence is convincing and establishes the culpability of the appellant for the offence of murder. Learned Public prosecutor further submitted that Shri Mukhtyar Singh (P.W.1), Smt. Jal Kaur (P.W.2) and Shri Nakshatra (P.W.3) Singh are close relatives of the accused appellant, being his brother, mother and nephew respectively, and the defence witness Modan Singh (D.W.1) is the brother of the accused, and thus, their allegiance to the accused is explainable. Shri Mukhtyar Singh himself lodged the FIR, but thereafter turned hostile, which fact clearly establishes that the defence had manipulated the evidence of the material witnesses. He further submitted that it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses which is relevant for deciding the facts in issue. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, as Smt. Laxmi (P.W. 4) is a witness of sterling worth and since her evidence establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all manner of doubt, the same does not require any corroboration and conviction of the accused can be recorded on her sole testimony. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the argument advanced by the learned defence counsel for toning down the offence is also misconceived because it is not a case wherein any grave and sudden provocation was given to the accused by the deceased. The lady was cleaning the utensils during her routine household chores, at which point of time, the accused came home and confronted with the deceased as to why her sister had come visiting without permission. The lady was cleaning the utensils during her routine household chores, at which point of time, the accused came home and confronted with the deceased as to why her sister had come visiting without permission. Unduly enraged by this trivial issue, the accused picked up the sharp implement and gave repeated blows thereof on the head and the other vital body parts of the victim. Her occipetal bone and the parietal bones on both the sides were fractured because the blows were inflicted with great force. The injuries were so severe that they caused extensive brain damage leading to instantaneous death of the victim at the spot. Learned Public Prosecutor, thus, implored the Court to affirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the appeal. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar, perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 8. The accused appellant has been charged with the murder of his sister-in-law Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. The three brothers, namely, Ganga Singh (the appellant herein), Mukhtyar Singh (husband of the appellant) and Modan Singh, used to reside in the same house with their parents. It is an admitted position that on the fateful day, the witness Mst. Laxmi (P.W.4) had come to meet her sister deceased Smt. Amarjeet at her matrimonial home. This fact is mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/1). The accused came from the field and on noticing the presence of Laxmi, he started questioning the deceased as to how she had allowed her sister to come to their home without permission. Amarjeet Kaur replied that she could not be restrained from meeting her own sister. On hearing this, the accused got infuriated and picked up a Sabarkatta (Dantli), a sharp agricultural implement and gave two to three blows thereof on the head of the victim. He then tried to assault Smt. Laxmi too, who ran away to save her life. She rushed to Gurudev and Punnu and told them of the incident. All returned back to the home of Amarjeet Kaur and thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. Laxmi gave positive evidence to this effect in her examination in chief. She categorically stated that she herself saw the accused assaulting and killing his sister. She rushed to Gurudev and Punnu and told them of the incident. All returned back to the home of Amarjeet Kaur and thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. Laxmi gave positive evidence to this effect in her examination in chief. She categorically stated that she herself saw the accused assaulting and killing his sister. In cross-examination, the witness stated that the accused became infuriated with Smt. Amarjeet Kaur because the witness had come to their home to meet the deceased without permission. On going through the extensive cross-examination conducted from Smt. Laxmi, we do not find any infirmity therein, which can impeach her credibility. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that Laxmi is a reliable witness and the trial court was perfectly justified in believing her evidence to be clinching and not requiring any corroboration. 9. The dead body of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was subjected to autopsy by Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (P.W.7), who examined the deceased and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/8) taking note of the following wounds :- (1) Incised wound 2 inch x 3/4 inch x bone deep and the bone was fractured on the middle of occipital region. The brain matter was coming out of the wound. (2) Lacerated wound 1-1/2 inch x 1/4 inch x bone deep, lateral to injury No.1 on the left side. (3) Lacerated wound 3/4 inch x 1/4 inch x bone deep in the form of three wounds near the injuries Nos.1 and 2. (4) Incised wound 1-1/2 inch x 1/4 inch x bone deep over right eyebrow. 10. Internal bleeding was noticed in the brain at the site of the injury. The doctor noted that injuries Nos.1 and 4 were caused by sharp weapon and the injuries Nos.2 and 3 were caused by blunt weapon. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination, the doctor stated that if the victim fell on a sharp object from a height of 15 to 20 feet, injuries Nos.1 and 2 could be caused. However, on a court question, the jurist explained that all the injuries could not be caused in a single fall. Apparently, thus, the defence theory that the deceased received the injuries as a result of accidental fall on a fodder cutting machine is fallacious and unbelievable. 11. However, on a court question, the jurist explained that all the injuries could not be caused in a single fall. Apparently, thus, the defence theory that the deceased received the injuries as a result of accidental fall on a fodder cutting machine is fallacious and unbelievable. 11. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the site inspection plan (Ex.P/2) prepared by the Investigating Officer Hardeep Singh, ASI (P.W.10) on the very day of the incident, i.e. 23.01.1991. In this site inspection plan, there is no reference to the presence of any fodder cutting machine or other sharp implement, from which the deceased could have received the injuries in the manner stated by the defence. It is a pertinent case in the FIR and as stated by the witness Laxmi that Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was cleaning utensils when the accused inflicted the fatal injuries to her. As per the Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/3), just near to the dead body of the victim, some utensils were lying and her hands were also soiled by the sand used for cleaning utensils. Apparently, thus, the statement of Smt. Laxmi gets thorough corroboration from the Panchnama Lash (Ex.P/3). 12. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that neither the version of hostile witnesses Mukhtyar Singh (P.W.1), Smt. Jal Kaur (P.W.2) and Nakshatra Singh (P.W.3) nor the testimony of the defence witness Modan Singh (D.W.1), wherein they stated that the victim fell down while painting the roof and received the injuries by the fodder cutting machine is reliable or acceptable. The theory so put forth is absolutely flimsy and is not corroborated by any reliable piece of evidence either direct or circumstantial. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the testimony of Smt. Laxmi for holding the appellant guilty of causing injuries by Sabarkatta (Dantli) to the deceased Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. 13. Now we come to the argument advanced by the defence counsel for toning down the offence. His contention was that the incident took place all of a sudden without any provocation or premeditation and that the accused did not act in a cruel manner and thus, the case deserves to be toned down to one under Section 304 Part I or II IPC. His contention was that the incident took place all of a sudden without any provocation or premeditation and that the accused did not act in a cruel manner and thus, the case deserves to be toned down to one under Section 304 Part I or II IPC. In this regard, we may note here that the defence did not even barely suggest that the deceased gave any provocation to the accused. Laxmi, sister-in-law of the deceased, had come to visit her. The accused returned home from the field and became enraged on seeing Laxmi’s presence in their house. He questioned Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on this aspect and who retorted that she was free to meet her sister and rightfully so. We are of the firm view that Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was absolutely justified and had a right to call her sister to visit her and the accused, who was the brother-in-law of the deceased, had no business to protest against the visit of Laxmi to meet her sister. Thus, no provocation whatsoever was offered to the accused what to talk of grave and sudden provocation by either the deceased or the witness Laxmi, which could justify the aggression of the accused in inflicting repeated forceful blows of sharp weapon to his sister-in-law. Thus, the act of the accused does not fall under any of the exceptions provided under Section 300 IPC warranting alteration/toning down of the charge from one under Section 302 IPC. The facts and circumstances discussed by this court in the case of Nandlal (supra) are totally distinguishable and hence, do not apply to the scenario at hand. 14. Consequently, we are of the firm view that the trial court discussed the evidence available on record in an apropos manner and in placing reliance upon the evidence of Smt. Laxmi to hold the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The impugned judgment dated 17.10.1992 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality whatsoever warranting interference. 15. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken back in custody and will be committed to prison for serving out the sentence. 16. The record be returned to the trial court.