JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred claiming the following relief : “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Churu may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellant may kindly be ordered to be acquitted.” 2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (SC/ST Act Cases) (Sessions Judge), Churu, in Special Sessions Case No.23/2014 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sher Mohammed @ Bangali), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below : Offence under Section Sentence Fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.2000/- 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act Life Imprisonment Rs.2000/- 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 09.04.2014, Pawan Kumar (complainant) submitted, in Government Hospital, Ratangarh, a Parcha Bayan before the Police Station, Ratangarh, to the effect that during the day at around 2:00 pm, he (complainant) and one Jitendra @ Kalu, who was stated to be his brother (uncle's son), both came from their houses to market town Padihara Gandhi Chowk and were standing near one Durga Sansi's shop, and Farooq Teli's son (whose name was not known) was also standing near Jitendra @ Kalu, and joking with him, while abusing Jitendra @ Kalu jokingly. Sher Mohammed @ Bangali (accused-appellant), who was also standing nearby, asked Jitendra @ Kalu, as to how did he abuse the accused-appellant, whereupon, Jitendra @ Kalu said that he did not abuse the accused-appellant; Jitendra also said that he was indulged in joking conversations with Farukh Teli’s son. In the meantime, the accused-appellant picked up a scissor from Durga Sansi's shop and started hitting Jitendra @ Kalu hard with the said scissor, due to which Jitendra @ Kalu fell down. At that time, Durga Sansi and 2-3 other persons were also standing there. Upon seeing Jitendra falling, the complainant rushed towards home and informed his family about the said incident, whereupon Jitendra @ Kalu was brought to Ratangarh Government Hospital, but he died on way to the hospital. At that time, Durga Sansi and 2-3 other persons were also standing there. Upon seeing Jitendra falling, the complainant rushed towards home and informed his family about the said incident, whereupon Jitendra @ Kalu was brought to Ratangarh Government Hospital, but he died on way to the hospital. It was also stated that the accused-appellant had caused murder of Jitendra @ Kalu by stabbing him with scissor, and thereafter, fled away from the scene. 4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR bearing No.139/2014 was registered for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, and the investigation accordingly commenced. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet. 5. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellant under the aforementioned provisions of law, and the trial accordingly commenced thereafter. 6. During the course of trial, the evidence of 18 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 19 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; whereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused-appellant pleaded innocence and his false implication in the criminal case in question. 7. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.2018, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that entire incident took place due to sudden altercation between the deceased and the accused-appellant, during course whereof the accused-appellant took scissor (weapon of murder) and attacked the deceased, and the said fact was admitted by PW. 1 - Pawan Kumar, who filed the written report (Ex.P/1). 8.1. It was further submitted that PW. 15-Prem Singh (investigating officer) stated that the incident took place due to sudden and grave provocation and there was no prior preparation or intention on the part of the accused for causing murder of the deceased. It was also submitted that there was no prior enmity between the deceased and the accused-appellant. 8.2. 8.1. It was further submitted that PW. 15-Prem Singh (investigating officer) stated that the incident took place due to sudden and grave provocation and there was no prior preparation or intention on the part of the accused for causing murder of the deceased. It was also submitted that there was no prior enmity between the deceased and the accused-appellant. 8.2. It was further submitted that in view of the fact that there was no prior intention or preparation and the fact that the incident took place due to sudden and grave provocation, the present case falls under the exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, and thus, it was not a case of murder, but comes under the term “culpable homicide”. It was also submitted that the accused-appellant has been in custody since the date of arrest and his total custody period is of 10 years 2 months & 24 days till date. 8.2.1. It was further submitted that the accused-appellant’s sentence deserves to be converted under Section 304 Part II, i.e. punishment for culpable homicide, and thus, his sentence may be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by him, and he may be released accordingly. 8.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1565 of 2002, decided on 25.08.2010 by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench); and (b) Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1987, decided on 26.03.2010 by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench). 9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant, while submitting that the accused-appellant caused the death of the deceased, which fact was supported by the eye witnesses present at the time of incident, and have completely supported the prosecution story. 9.1. It was further submitted that the accused-appellant caused in total 14 injuries on vital parts of the deceased’s body, which resulted into his death, and therefore, it is clear that the accused-appellant was having a clear intention to cause murder of the deceased. 9.2. 9.1. It was further submitted that the accused-appellant caused in total 14 injuries on vital parts of the deceased’s body, which resulted into his death, and therefore, it is clear that the accused-appellant was having a clear intention to cause murder of the deceased. 9.2. It was also submitted that the deceased did not provoke the accused-appellant in any manner, but the accused-appellant attacked the deceased with scissor and caused his death, which clearly falls under the definition of ‘Murder’ so provided in Section 300, and not under the culpable homicide. 9.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs Kanhaiya Lal (Criminal Appeal No. 645/2019, decided on 10.04.2019). 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 11. This Court observes that the incident in question had happened on 09.04.2014 at around 2:00 pm and the FIR was registered on the same day at around 4:15 PM, therefore, the FIR was lodged in time. 12. This Court further observes that there are four eye witnesses to the incident in question, i.e. PW.1-Pawan, PW.2-Shamsudeen, PW.3- Durga, PW.6- Kasam. 12.1 This Court also observes that PW.1 is the son of uncle of the deceased, and stated in his testimony that he and the deceased were standing at the shop of PW.3, and PW-6 and deceased were indulged in joking talks with each other; at that time the accused-appellant asked the deceased as to why he abused the accused-appellant, which the deceased denied; however, suddenly, the accused took the scissor and attacked the deceased, as a result whereof the deceased fell on the ground; whereupon the deceased was taken to the hospital, but he died on way to the hospital. 12.2. This Court further observes that PW.2 stated in the testimony that he saw the deceased and accused-appellant fighting and the accused-appellant attacked the deceased with scissor, which was however, intervened. During such attack, injury was caused on the hand of PW-2, which was reflected in the injury report (Ex.P/7). This Court also observes that PW.3 and PW.6 also rendered similar depositions, thus, the depositions of all the four eye witnesses were having no material contradiction. 13. During such attack, injury was caused on the hand of PW-2, which was reflected in the injury report (Ex.P/7). This Court also observes that PW.3 and PW.6 also rendered similar depositions, thus, the depositions of all the four eye witnesses were having no material contradiction. 13. This Court further observes that none of the eye witnesses deposed anything relating to hurling of abuses by the deceased, nor anything was deposed which could show that the deceased provoked the accused-appellant in any manner; thus, once it is clear that the deceased and the accused-appellant did not even talk before the incident in quesetion, then the exception of Section 300 IPC i.e. sudden provocation is not applicable in the present case, and further, the said theory is also not substantiated by the evidence on record. 14. This Court also observes that PW. 15-Prem Singh (investigating officer) stated in his testimony that as per the information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the scissor (weapon of murder) was recovered from a Kabaristan, and a Fard (Ex.P/13) was prepared in the presence of PW. 12-Kalyanram (witness). 15. This Court also observes that as per the FSL report (Ex.P/19), human blood was obtained from the scissor (weapon) in question. The blood was obtained from the deceased’s clothes and from the place of incident as well as the scissor (weapon) in question and the same was having common human blood group. Therefore, the ground that the scissor was recovered from the place where any person can go, does not stand, because the human blood obtained from the scissor (weapon of murder), place of incident and the clothes of the deceased was found to be of same blood group and the accused-appellant himself gave the information as well as the recovery was made in the presence of an independent witness. 16. This Court further observes that PW.13-Dr. Ravindra Kadela stated in his testimony that a Board was constituted for the postmortem of the deceased and he is part of the said Board. He further stated that total 14 injuries were caused on the deceased’s body and most of the injuries were caused on vital parts; the injuries were sufficient to cause death and the same was mentioned in Ex.P/11-Postmortem report. 17. He further stated that total 14 injuries were caused on the deceased’s body and most of the injuries were caused on vital parts; the injuries were sufficient to cause death and the same was mentioned in Ex.P/11-Postmortem report. 17. This Court also observes that the accused-appellant caused in total 14 injuries to the deceased on vital parts, which were sufficient to cause death. PW.-2 who intervened the fight between the deceased and the accused-appellant, also sustained injuries, and therefore, the entire incident when seen conjointly with the conduct of the accused-appellant clearly shows that the accused-appellant fulfills the essential elements of Section 300 IPC and he was having a clear intention to cause death of the deceased, and that there was no such sudden and grave provocation on the part of the deceased, as claimed in defence by the accused-appellant. 18. Thus, looking into the overall evidence including documentary as well as oral evidence available on record, this Court does not find any scope for interfering with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court as the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity, more particularly, in light of the fact that the impugned judgment of conviction was passed after duly considering the entire evidence and material placed on record before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and conviction of the accused-appellant deserves to be upheld. 19. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by learned Trial Court is upheld and the instant appeal is accordingly dismissed. The record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. All pending applications stand disposed of.