JUDGMENT : Munnuri Laxman, J. 1. This criminal appeal assails the judgment of conviction dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore on the file of Sessions Case No.35/2021 (C.I.S. No.51/ 2018), wherein and whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment of 15 days. 2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 Ghewaram, who is uncle of the deceased-Dileep (grand-son of his sister) lodged the complaint under Exhibit-P/1 on 15.02.2018. The report shows that he was told by his sister, PW-3 Champa Devi that she received a phone call from PW-19 Sanju informing that the deceased-Dileep was killed by Shanti Lal by slitting the throat by sharp edged object and fled away from the scene of the offence. On such information, they went to scene of the offence situated near the FCI godown and found the deceased succumbed to the slit injury on his neck. On the basis of such report, an FIR No.30/2018 (Exhibit-P/2) was registered against the accused-appellant/convict at Police Station Kotwali Jalore for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The police after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The Investigation reveals that the deceased-Dileep and PW-19 Sanju left the house of PW-2 & 3 (Bhorki Devi & Smt. Champa Devi) at about 6:00 p.m. on motorcycle and while they were having paanipuri, they received a phone call from the accused-appellant/ convict. Both of them made conversation with the accused on mobile phone and thereafter, they picked up the accused, who borrowed two hundred rupees from PW-19 Sanju and purchased a beer bottle. All of them went behind the FCI godown where they consumed the beer. In the meanwhile, the accused told PW-19 Sanju that he had to talk something personal with the deceased so asked him to go away a little. PW-19 Sanju went behind the bushes and heard the noise of breaking of the bottle. He found the accused slitting the deceased with broken beer bottle and running away from the scene of the offence. He immediately informed PW-3-Smt. Champa Devi about the incident. PWs-1, 2 & 3 rushed to the scene of the offence. Thereafter, they lodged the report. 4. He found the accused slitting the deceased with broken beer bottle and running away from the scene of the offence. He immediately informed PW-3-Smt. Champa Devi about the incident. PWs-1, 2 & 3 rushed to the scene of the offence. Thereafter, they lodged the report. 4. The accused was supplied with copies of charge-sheet and on the basis of the material available on record, he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses in support of its case and has relied upon 30 documents (Exhibits P/1 to P/30). In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating evidence against him. However, he did not produce any defence evidence. 6. The trial court on appreciation of evidence available on record, found that the prosecution established the case against the appellant/convict for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant to the terms indicated herein-above. Hence, the present appeal. 7. The evidence of PW-10, the doctor who conducted the postmortem and issued PM report (Exhibit-P/12), clearly establishes that the deceased sustained cut injuries on the throat & chin and the death was on account of slit injury on the neck. The above medical evidence clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 8. Now, the question before this Court is as to whether the prosecution could able to establish that the appellant was responsible for causing such slit injury to the deceased. The prosecution evidence is mainly based on PW-19 Sanju (eyewitness), the last seen evidence of PWs-4 & 9 (Raju & Kana Ram) and the incriminating evidence found on the clothes of the accused i.e. ‘B’ blood group, which is similar to the blood group on the deceased’s clothes and the clothes of PW-19-Sanju. They also relied upon the disclosure statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-convict has contended that the trial court while appreciating the evidence on record gravely erred in not appreciating many contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 19. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-convict has contended that the trial court while appreciating the evidence on record gravely erred in not appreciating many contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 19. It is also submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR and, further, the statements of the crucial witnesses i.e. PWs-2 & 3 were also recorded at a belated stage. The statement of eyewitness was also not immediately recorded. It is also contended that the evidence of PW-19 clearly shows that he was also a suspect for causing murder of the deceased and therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon so as to convict the appellant. 10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if it is assumed that the appellant has allegedly inflicted injuries, the evidence on record lacks the motive for killing the deceased and the incident was the result of a sudden quarrel without any premeditation. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is unsustainable and requires to be altered into 304 Part II of IPC. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (1) Madhusudan Stapathy & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1994 SC 474 , (2) Bishnupada Sarkar & Anr. Vs. State of West Benghal, reported in 2012 (11) SCC 597 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of (3) Sohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2024 (2) RLW 1638 (Raj.). 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has justified the conviction of the appellant and contended that the minor discrepancies found in the prosecution witnesses are insignificant. The material witness clearly deposed that it is the accused, who has slit the deceased with the broken beer bottle and fled away from the scene of the offence. It is also submitted that the evidence of PW-4 and PW-9 clearly goes to show that all three persons i.e. deceased, accused and PW-19 were seen together coming on the motorcycle and were proceeding towards the bushes near the FCI godown. When they returned, they found the gathering and they came to know that it was Dileep, who was murdered. It is also submitted that the evidence of PW-4 and PW-9 clearly goes to show that all three persons i.e. deceased, accused and PW-19 were seen together coming on the motorcycle and were proceeding towards the bushes near the FCI godown. When they returned, they found the gathering and they came to know that it was Dileep, who was murdered. These last seen evidence clearly corroborates the presence of accused and PW-19 with the deceased immediately prior to the alleged incident. Apart from that, the presence of the same blood group on the clothes of the deceased, appellant and PW-19 clearly ensures the presence of all three together immediately prior to the incident. 13. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the clothes of accused-appellant were found having stains of human blood ‘B’ group and he did not explain how ‘B’ blood group was found on his clothes, which is similar blood group to that of the deceased. However, the presence of blood group ‘B’ on the clothes of PW-19 Sanju has been properly explained by him stating that when he saw the accused slitting the throat of the deceased, he rushed to the deceased and took him into his lap. PW-19 Sanju was the cousin brother of the deceased and his conduct taking the deceased in his lap was natural. These explanations further corroborated with immediate call made by him to PWs-1, 2 & 3. Lastly, it is contended that though there is no motive for the commission of offence, but when the eyewitness own account was there, motive has no relevance. The eyewitness categorically stated that it was the accused-appellant who committed the murder. It is further submitted that merely because the police initially suspected PW-19 for death of the deceased, it cannot be said that his evidence has to be discarded. There was immediate response from PW-19 in reporting the incident to PWs-1, 2 & 3. The above evidence was rightly considered by the court below and the appellant was rightly convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, which requires no interference. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and carefully gone through the record. 15. The close scrutiny of the evidence on record shows that there are minor contradictions with regard to the evidence of PWs 1, 2 & 3. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and carefully gone through the record. 15. The close scrutiny of the evidence on record shows that there are minor contradictions with regard to the evidence of PWs 1, 2 & 3. PW-1 Ghewa Ram stated that the report Exhibit-P/1 was lodged at the spot. However, the evidence of police witnesses shows that it was lodged at the hospital. The evidence of PW-1 also shows that PW-3 Champa Devi did not receive the call from PW-19 Sanju but PW-3 stated that she received a phone call from PW-19. There is no clarity in the complaint submitted by PW-1 Ghewa Ram with regard to the weapon by which the throat of the deceased was slit. He only said that it was slit with sharp edged weapon and there is no specific mention of using the broken beer bottle to slit the neck of the deceased. 16. PW-1 Ghewa Ram in his statement stated that a broken beer bottle was found lying on the scene of the offence. The seizure memo also shows that the broken beer bottle was recovered from scene of the offence. Indisputably, it was blood stained. Merely because there are minor contradictions and lack of naming the exact weapon in the initial report, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. The evidence of PW-3, grand-mother of the deceased, clearly shows that PW-1 and the deceased left from the home on motorcycle. The evidence of PW-19 shows that he received a phone call from the accused and on his calling, he along with the deceased went on the motorcycle and picked up the accused. Accused borrowed money from him and with that money, he bought beer bottle and all of them went near the bushes behind the FCI godown. The presence of all three together have also been supported by independent witnesses PW-4 & PW-9 (Raju and Kana Ram). PW-4 identified the presence of accused and the deceased but he could not identify PW-19 Sanju. PW-9 clearly stated that when he along with PW-4 Raju went in search of his cow, they saw Dileep, Shantilal and Sanju going on the motorcycle towards the bushes behind FCI godowns. When they returned within an hour, they noticed that Dileep was murdered. PW-4 identified the presence of accused and the deceased but he could not identify PW-19 Sanju. PW-9 clearly stated that when he along with PW-4 Raju went in search of his cow, they saw Dileep, Shantilal and Sanju going on the motorcycle towards the bushes behind FCI godowns. When they returned within an hour, they noticed that Dileep was murdered. The gap in between the last scene and immediate after incident clearly establishes live link in between the time of incident and the presence of all the three together. The presence of all three together can also be established by presence of blood group ‘B’ found on the clothes of deceased, accused and PW-19. This means all these three persons were present at the scene of occurrence. 17. The First Information Report (Exhibit-P/2) reflects that the written report (Exhibit-P/1) was received at about 00:39 hrs. on 16.02.2018. The incident occurred in between 7 pm to 8 pm on 15.02.2018. The report was lodged by uncle of the deceased who visited the scene of offence after the phone call made by PW-19. The distance between the place of incident to the Police Station is about 4 kms. The deceased was shifted to the hospital, therefore, PWs-1, 2 & 3 first went to hospital. The victim party hails from a rural background and they are not much aware about the procedural formalities in lodging the report. They already stuck in the grief on account of demise of the deceased. All these things took some time to lodge a report. The delay in lodging the FIR is not so much. There is only 4 hours’ delay. There cannot be any general principle that whenever there is a delay in lodging an FIR, the case of prosecution become suspect. In every kind of delay, it cannot be assumed that there is cloud of suspicion on the case set up by the prosecution. It will depends upon the facts of each case. Sometimes long delay can be condoned, if there is no motive for implicating the accused and there is plausible reason. As seen from the evidence of the present case, PWs-1, 2 & 3 consistently disclosed that PW-19 informed on phone about the incident and the role of the appellant. In response to such a phone call only, PWs-1, 2 & 3 proceeded to the scene of the offence. As seen from the evidence of the present case, PWs-1, 2 & 3 consistently disclosed that PW-19 informed on phone about the incident and the role of the appellant. In response to such a phone call only, PWs-1, 2 & 3 proceeded to the scene of the offence. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that mere delay of 4 hours in lodging the report cannot be said that cloud of suspicion is created over the case of prosecution. Therefore, such a contention is negatived. 18. The evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3 & 19 clearly goes to show that the statements of PWs-1, 2 & 3 were recorded immediately after the incident. The statement of PW-19 was recorded on 16.02.2018. There is no impeachment of evidence of PWs-1, 2 & 3 with regard to date of recording the statement. Similarly, the evidence of PW-19 was also not impeached. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the statements were not belatedly recorded as claimed by the appellant. The statements of the witnesses were recorded immediately after the incident and there was no delay in recording statement of crucial witness. Therefore, such a contention is also rejected. 19. Now, the question is whether the appellant has committed offence or it was PW-19. The first phone call to PW-1 and PW-3 goes to show that it was the appellant who slit the deceased with broken beer bottle and fled away from the scene of the offence. The evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3 clearly shows that when all three of them reached at the scene of the offence, the deceased was with PW-19 Sanju and the accused was not present. In case, PW-19 had committed the offence, the immediate response of the appellant was to inform either the family members of the deceased or the police about the commission of offence. His conduct of running away from the scene of the offence would demolish his defence that the injuries could have been inflicted by PW-19. Further, he failed to justify how human blood group of ‘B’ was found on his clothes. It is not his claim that it is his blood group. His conduct of running away from the scene of the offence would demolish his defence that the injuries could have been inflicted by PW-19. Further, he failed to justify how human blood group of ‘B’ was found on his clothes. It is not his claim that it is his blood group. The presence of ‘B’ blood group on the clothes of the deceased and the clothes of PW-19 clearly goes to establish that it was deceased’s blood group on the clothes of PW-19, which was plausibly explained by the witness. However, such a plausible explanation is not coming from the accused except setting up defence that murder could have been committed by PW-19 Sanju. Therefore, his defence that murder could have been committed by PW-19 has not been clearly substantiated. The evidence of PW-19 clearly goes to show that it was the appellant who inflicted a slit injury to the deceased from the broken bottle and fled away from the scene of the offence. To this extent, findings of the court below cannot be found to be faulted. 20. A close scrutiny of judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant cited above shows that the facts thereunder are on different footings and the weapon used were also different and the nature of injuries inflicted are also different. Therefore, they are not of much relevance. 21. Now, the question is whether acts of the appellant could be said to be falling under any of the Exceptions created under Section 300 of IPC. 22. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has rightly contended that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive of the offence. It is also not in dispute that there is no premeditation for causing the incident. It appears that the beer bottle was brought by them to drink beer altogether. In fact, they altogether drunk. Accused asked PW-19 to leave to some distant so that they could secretly talk and meanwhile, within a short time, there was some noise of breaking bottle and PW-19 seen slitting the throat of the deceased with the broken bottle by the appellant. The incident was occurred in a sudden quarrel. There is clear absence of any premeditation and lack of motive. A close scrutiny of the evidence also indicates that the appellant had not acted in any cruel manner. It was an incident of sudden rage. The incident was occurred in a sudden quarrel. There is clear absence of any premeditation and lack of motive. A close scrutiny of the evidence also indicates that the appellant had not acted in any cruel manner. It was an incident of sudden rage. The accused had an intention to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause death and such act of the accused falls under Exception (4) to Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is required to be modified into offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. 23. Now, the question is whether the sentence is required to be modified or not. 24. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ahsan Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 648 in a similar kind of incident has held as follows:- “14. It is thus clear that the incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. The evidence would also not show that the accused-Appellant had either taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. We therefore find that the present case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. 15. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to one under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight (08) years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.” 25. In the present case, the evidence on record shows that that the appellant was 19 years of age at the time of alleged incident and the deceased was aged 18 years. The incident occurred at the very tender age. In fact, they were friends and there was no premeditation in implementing the offence. The incident occurred all of a sudden though inflicted cut-throat injury with broken bottle but the same was in sudden rage when the appellant was of tender age. The appellant has already undergone sentence for 6 years and 6 months because he is in custody since 16.02.2018. The incident occurred all of a sudden though inflicted cut-throat injury with broken bottle but the same was in sudden rage when the appellant was of tender age. The appellant has already undergone sentence for 6 years and 6 months because he is in custody since 16.02.2018. Considering the same, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to the imprisonment already undergone. However, fine amount and default sentence awarded by the court below are maintained. Such fine amount shall be paid to the family members of the deceased. If the petitioner is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 26. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the above extent.