JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment, dated 14.10.2009, passed in S.C.No.85 of 2008 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam. 2. Appellant is the sole accused. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 427 and 304 II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). By his judgment, dated 14.10.2009, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Srikakulam found appellant/sole accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 427 IPC and found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 II IPC, accordingly convicted him and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of part of the said fine, appellant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six(6) months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid to PW.1, who is wife of deceased, towards compensation in terms of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused filed the present Criminal Appeal. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:- There are civil disputes between the appellant and one Anakapalli Sanyasi Nadu (hereinafter referred to, as 'the deceased') with regard to drawing of irrigation water to their fields from Gorja. While the matter stood thus, on 16.09.2007 at about 7.15 hours, when the deceased went to his fields for attending agricultural works, at that time, the accused, whose fields also located by the side of the fields of the deceased, damaged the bunds of the fields of the deceased, for which an altercation took place between both of them. During that galata, appellant beat the deceased with hands and legs and also with an iron agricultural implement on the head of the deceased, leading to causing of bleeding injury. Later, on the complaint of the deceased, Ponduru Police registered a case in Cr.No.126 of 2007 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 427 IPC. The injured-deceased was admitted in the hospital and later succumbed to the injuries while undertaking treatment. Later, the police altered the Section of law from Sections 324, 323, 427 IPC to 302 IPC. The police, after conducting investigation, filed a charge sheet against the appellant/accused. 4. The injured-deceased was admitted in the hospital and later succumbed to the injuries while undertaking treatment. Later, the police altered the Section of law from Sections 324, 323, 427 IPC to 302 IPC. The police, after conducting investigation, filed a charge sheet against the appellant/accused. 4. The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. 5. On appearance of appellant/accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Division, Srikakulam. Later, the case was taken on file as S.C.No.85 of 2008 and made over to the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam. 6. On appearance of appellant/accused, charges under Sections 302 and 427 IPC were framed, read over the contents and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. On behalf of the prosecution Pws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.19 besides M.O.1 were marked. 8. After closure of prosecution evidence, appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explained the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. On behalf of defence Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the appellant not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 427 IPC but found him of the offence punishable under Section 304 II IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution failed to prove that there were civil disputes between the deceased and the appellant by producing relevant documents. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that as on today the age of the appellant is 80 years and he is on death-bed owing to old-age ailments and requested this court to reduce the punishment to the extent of the period of imprisonment already undergone him. 11. This Court perused the entire material available on record. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that as on today the age of the appellant is 80 years and he is on death-bed owing to old-age ailments and requested this court to reduce the punishment to the extent of the period of imprisonment already undergone him. 11. This Court perused the entire material available on record. As could be seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they categorically stated that the deceased died as he was beaten by the appellant/accused in connection with land issue. According to P.W.4, who is the direct witness to the alleged incident, he categorically stated that he witnessed the galata in the fields of the deceased and the appellant and he also witnessed the deceased being beaten up by appellant. Further, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.9, who is none other than the Doctor, and who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he stated that the cause of death is owing to a head injury. 12. Under Section 300 IPC, except in the cases excepted therein, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or secondly if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or thirdly, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or fourthly, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Where culpable homicide falls under any one of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC and none of the exceptions applies, the culpable homicide is murder and is punishable under Section 302 IPC. Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC would be applicable if all the four conditions laid down are satisfied viz. Where culpable homicide falls under any one of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC and none of the exceptions applies, the culpable homicide is murder and is punishable under Section 302 IPC. Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC would be applicable if all the four conditions laid down are satisfied viz. (1) absence of premeditation; (2) there must be a sudden fight; (3) the killing must be in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; (4) the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 13. In the case on hand, admittedly, there were civil disputes between the appellant and the deceased. On the fateful day, when the deceased was attending his agricultural works, an altercation took place between him and the appellant on the allegation that the appellant damaged bunds of the fields of the deceased. During that altercation, the appellant bet the deceased with hands and legs and also with an iron agricultural implement on the hand of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained bleeding injury. In a spur of moment, the altercation appears to have taken place. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant also lodged a police report against the deceased, basing on which a case in Crime No.127 of 2007 of Ponduru Police Station was registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Therefore, in a fit of anger, as a quarrel ensued preceding the incident, the appellant/accused lost control and gave a blow on the deceased, without any premeditation. It is not a pre-planned attack. Further, the appellant has not taken any undue advantage of the situation. Therefore from the facts of the case, it can be said that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. However, though there is no premeditation to cause the death of the deceased, at the same time the accused must be having knowledge that giving a blow on the vital part i.e. head, would cause death. A man is presumed by law to know the ordinary and natural as well as necessary consequences of his act. Therefore the act committed by the accused squarely falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. It is not an intentional act so as to bring the accused under the purview of Part-I of Section 304 IPC. A man is presumed by law to know the ordinary and natural as well as necessary consequences of his act. Therefore the act committed by the accused squarely falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. It is not an intentional act so as to bring the accused under the purview of Part-I of Section 304 IPC. Since the accused must be having knowledge that his act is likely to cause the death of the deceased, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 14. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the judgment of the learned trial court is sustainable and unambiguous and this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Court below with regard to conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 15. As regards sentence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the appellant is 80 years old and he is on death-bed owing to old-age ailments and prays to take a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment, by confining the same to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Considering the facts and circumstances and the age and health condition of the appellant/accused, which are, in the considered opinion of the Court, mitigating circumstances of the case to take a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. 16. In the result, the conviction recorded in the impugned judgment against the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II is confirmed, however, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused, while maintaining the fine amount and the default sentence. As directed by the trial Court, out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1, who is wife of deceased, towards compensation in terms of Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/appellant shall stand cancelled. With the above modification in sentence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.