JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, in Sessions Case No.18/2016 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding the controversy are that on 19.05.2016, complainant- Arjunlal submitted a written report (Ex-1) before the Police Station- Sumerpur to the effect that his sister's family was residing in Sumerpur. It was further reported that the complainant’s sister had recently passed away. The report indicated that the complainant’s nephew (hereinafter referred to as "the accused appellant") persistently demanded money from the complainant’s brother-in-law, Sakha Ram (deceased). He consistently refused to fulfill these monetary demands. As a result, the accused allegedly assaulted Sakha Ram. On the night of 18.05.2016, at approximately 11:00 PM, deceased- Sakha Ram and the accused were consuming alcohol. Subsequently, at around 01:00 AM, a heated altercation ensued between the complainant’s brother-in-law and the accused. During this altercation, the accused committed the murder of Sakha Ram. Approximately at 01:30 AM, the accused informed the complainant that he had murdered his father and subsequently absconded from the scene. The complainant immediately proceeded to his brother-in-law’s residence, where he was informed by the assembled witnesses that accused appellant-Ganpat had inflicted fatal injuries upon his father, Sakha Ram. On the said oral report, Police registered the FIR No.217/2016 against the accused-appellant and started investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. Thereafter, learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 IPC to the accused appellant. He denied the charge and sought trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case. 6. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined. 7. He denied the charge and sought trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also got exhibited relevant documents in support of its case. 6. The accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, no witness was examined. 7. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, vide judgment dated 26.08.2019 convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal. 8. Mr. JVS Deora, learned counsel representing the accused appellant, has submitted that the appellant lacked any premeditated intent to cause harm to the deceased. He contends that the act of assault was spontaneous and occurred in a state of sudden provocation. Furthermore, he asserts that the appellant possessed neither motive nor intention to cause the death of the deceased. Consequently, he respectfully requests that the appellant not be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, but rather under Section 304 PART I of the IPC. Additionally, counsel highlights that the incident took place in the year 2016, and the appellant has been in custody since 19.05.2016. He has already served more than nine years of imprisonment, including remission. In light of these facts, he respectfully prays that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be suitably reduced to the period already served. 9. Per-contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that, in the present case, the accused-appellant committed the murder of his father by inflicting a fatal blow to the neck. The medical evidence, including the injury report and post-mortem examination findings, unequivocally corroborates the commission of the offence by the accused-appellant. Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor respectfully prays for the dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties made at bar and perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the case. 11. Admittedly, the accused-appellant and the deceased- Sakha Ram, shared a filial relationship as son and father. It is evident from the record that the accused-appellant was habituated to quarrelling with his father, often over demands for money to consume alcohol. On the date of the incident, a quarrel once again ensued between the two, during which the accused-appellant inflicted a blow on the neck of the deceased using a pair of scissors. Dr. It is evident from the record that the accused-appellant was habituated to quarrelling with his father, often over demands for money to consume alcohol. On the date of the incident, a quarrel once again ensued between the two, during which the accused-appellant inflicted a blow on the neck of the deceased using a pair of scissors. Dr. Praveen Arora (PW-6), who conducted the post- mortem examination, deposed that a single injury was present on the neck of the deceased, and that said injury was the direct and proximate cause of death. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon i.e. a pair of scissors, was duly effected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation, thus lending corroboration to the prosecution's case. 12. A cumulative reading of the ocular and medical evidence unambiguously establishes that the death of Sakha Ram was caused by the accused-appellant. However, the pivotal question which arises for judicial consideration is whether the accused- appellant had the requisite intention to cause the death of his father, or whether the act was committed without premeditation and under a sudden provocation. 13. To assess the presence or absence of intent, the testimonies of material witnesses must be scrutinized, namely PW-1 Arjun Lal (complainant), PW-8 Kiran, PW-9 Pushpa, PW-10 Suraj, and PW- 11 Vagaram (an independent neighbour). These witnesses consistently deposed that frequent altercations occurred between the accused-appellant and the deceased on account of money demanded for alcohol. PW-1 specifically stated that, immediately after the incident, the accused-appellant came to his house and voluntarily disclosed that he had killed his father during a quarrel. He further explained that the incident occurred suddenly, in the heat of the moment, and that he had struck his father with the scissors during the course of that quarrel. The sequence of events, coupled with the spontaneous disclosure made by the accused- appellant, strongly suggests that the act was not premeditated. The infliction of a single blow, albeit fatal, during a sudden altercation without any prior intent or preparation, militates against the conclusion that the accused-appellant harboured a deliberate intention to kill. 14. In light of these facts, this Court is persuaded to conclude that while the act of the accused was unlawful and resulted in the death of the deceased, the circumstances do not indicate a clear intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 14. In light of these facts, this Court is persuaded to conclude that while the act of the accused was unlawful and resulted in the death of the deceased, the circumstances do not indicate a clear intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Instead, the act appears to have been committed under a sudden provocation and in the heat of passion, without premeditation. 15. Therefore, the question arise for consideration is whether the case of appellant falls squarely within the ambit of Section 304 PART I of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the specific intent to cause death. This interpretation is also consistent with the jurisprudential distinction drawn between Section 302 IPC and Section 304 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrels between close relations. 16. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 300 of IPC which reads as under:- "300. Murder--.Except in the case hereinafter excepted, 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. Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......... ......x.....xx.....xx..... x.......… Exception 4--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. .........." 17. The thin line difference between the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 PART I , IPC has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various authoritative pronouncements:- 18. In the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja vs State Of A.P. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 444 , Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:- “Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302 , are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 PART I /II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302 . It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302 , are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 PART I /II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302 . The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention.” 19. In the case of Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 9 SCC 462 , while altering the conviction of the accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 PART I , IPC, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “20. In order to hold whether an offence would fall under Section 302 . In the case of Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 9 SCC 462 , while altering the conviction of the accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 PART I , IPC, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “20. In order to hold whether an offence would fall under Section 302 . or Section 304 Part 1 IPC, the courts have to be extremely cautious in examining whether the same falls under Section 300 IPC which states whether a culpable homicide is murder, or would it fall under its five Exceptions which lay down when culpable homicide is not murder and in this category further b lays down that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self-control by giving sudden provocation causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. 21. While examining the case of the appellant in the light of the settled legal position that culpable homicide would not amount to murder if the c offender was deprived of the power of self-control on account of grave and sudden provocation, I am of the view that the appellant's case will have to be treated to be a case falling under the Fourth Exception of Section 300 and hence would be a case under Section 304 PART I of the Penal Code for more than one reason deduced from the evidence on record. 22. In the first place, the deceased Laxmi Devi had been cutting grass for d fodder in the field of the appellant Ajit Singh and when Ajit Singh reprimanded the deceased and her companion not to spoil his kinnu crop, the deceased started an altercation with the appellant and abused him which provoked the appellant Ajit Singh to order his companion Anil Kumar (since acquitted) to bring kassi (spade) which instruction was carried out by Anil Kumar and thereafter Ajit Singh inflicted two blows on the deceased Laxmi Devi. However, she did not die instantly and was taken to the hospital where she underwent treatment for four days and finally succumbed to the injuries. However, she did not die instantly and was taken to the hospital where she underwent treatment for four days and finally succumbed to the injuries. From this it can be safely inferred that although the appellant Ajit Singh had the intention and knowledge to cause grievous injury on the deceased which could have resulted into the death of the deceased, yet it cannot be inferred without doubt that the intention of the appellant Ajit Singh was necessarily to cause death and not merely to cause grievous hurt as he did not inflict repeated blows on the deceased and the deceased in fact had survived for four days after the assault. In addition to this, it has also come in evidence that PW 6 informant had chased the appellant but the appellant did not pursue by entering into further scuffle with the prosecution party. Besides this, the case of the prosecution regarding common intention to commit murder already g stands negatived by the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order as the plea of common intention to commit murder is no longer existing since the co- accused Anil Kumar was acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 /34 IPC by the High Court. Thus, the common intention to kill the deceased will have to be treated as missing in the prosecution case and only individual liability of the appellant giving fatal blows will determine whether the charge would be sustained under Section 302 IPC or would it fall under Section 304 PART I IPC. 23. On an analysis of the case of the prosecution in the light of the evidence on record, I am clearly of the view that the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained but considering the intensity and gravity of the assault which led finally to the death of the victim Laxmi Devi he would certainly be held guilty under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and hence I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the same is altered to his conviction under Section 304 PART I IPC. Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment shall be reduced to a period of ten years under Section 304 PART I IPC. Thus, the appeal stands partly allowed to this extent.” 20. Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment shall be reduced to a period of ten years under Section 304 PART I IPC. Thus, the appeal stands partly allowed to this extent.” 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in the case of Goverdhan vs State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2025) 3 SCC 378 , has observed as under:- “116.It is also noticeable that the circumstances under which the assault took place and the reason for causing the injuries by the appellants and the motive behind their assault has not come out clearly. Even the sole eyewitness, Lata Bai (PW 10), the mother of the deceased testified that her son was having visiting terms with the accused persons as they were residing in the same locality and she cannot tell why the quarrel occurred suddenly. It has not been established clearly that it was premeditated and the assault was pre-planned with the intention to kill the deceased. Any prior enmity between the appellants and the deceased has not been established. Thus, the motive for committing the crime has not been clearly established and proved. 117. However, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had caused the death of the deceased fully knowing that the bodily injuries caused by the appellants were likely to cause death as the appellants were armed with deadly weapons, we are inclined to convert the conviction of the appellants from Section 302IPC to Part I of Section 304IPC. Accordingly, we convict the appellants under Part I of Section 304 IPC.” 21. Upon examination of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the postmortem report indicates that the neck injury was identified as the fatal and the primary cause of death. 22. Furthermore, the circumstances under which the assault occurred, including the motivations behind causing the injuries, there is no evidence to suggest that the assault was premeditated or carried out with a deliberate plan to kill the deceased. The absence of evidence indicating premeditation is a significant factor. Considering the absence of proof of premeditation, including the lack of undue advantage or cruelty on the part of the appellant, as well as the fact that the assault was the result of a sudden altercation between the parties, the act can be characterized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, aligning with the provisions of Section 304 PART I of the IPC. This court is of the opinion that the actions of the accused demonstrated a reckless disregard for human life rather than an outright intention to murder. The nature and extent of the injuries, coupled with the circumstances of the incident, support this conclusion. 23. In view of the aforesaid aspects and upon assessment of evidence, we are of the considered opinion that it is improbable to believe that the accused appellant intentionally and with deliberate motive caused the death of the deceased. Furthermore, the circumstances and the nature of the incident do not substantiate the claim of deliberate homicide. The evidence suggests that the act may have been unintentional or a result of unforeseen circumstances, rather than a calculated efforts to cause death. Therefore, based on these considerations this Court finds it difficult to ascribe full culpability to the accused appellant for causing the death intentionally and the finding of guilt recorded by learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law because there is a clear absence of pre-meditation or motive to kill deceased- Sakha Ram and it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the prayer of accused appellant to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 PART I , IPC. 24. Resultantly, the conviction and sentences passed against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is quashed and set aside and hereby altered to the offence punishable under Section 304 PART I , IPC. To that extent, the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur in Sessions Case No.18/2016 is hereby modified. 25. However, considering the fact that the appellant has already undergone the incarnation for more than nine years including the remission and the appellant is still in judicial custody since his arrest. Thus, while maintaining conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 304 PART I IPC, his sentence for the said offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount is hereby waived, if not deposited. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 26. Resultantly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. 27. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.