JUDGMENT : [Manish Choudhury, J] 1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] is directed against a Judgment & Order dated 20.09.2014 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in Sessions Case no. 172[T] of 2012. By the Judgment & Order dated 20.09.2014, the Trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant on two counts, that is, for committing offences under Section 302 , INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] and Section 323 , IPC. For the offence under Section 302 , IPC, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months. For the offence under Section 323 , IPC, the accused-appellant has been imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The investigation was set into motion on institution of a First Information Report [FIR] by the informant, Smti. Sefali Rajbor [P.W.1] on 14.08.2011 before the Officer In-Charge, Phillobari Police Station. In the FIR, the informant who was a resident of Krishnapur, had inter alia alleged that on 12.08.2011, her neighbour, Ranglal Bhumij, that is, the accused-appellant started quarrelling with them and assaulted them without a cause. The informant further stated that the accused-appellant assaulted her in the evening and as a result, her left hand was broken. The informant further alleged that Lalu Karmakar and her younger brother, Kanu Karmakar were also assaulted. Lalu Karmakar sustained injury on his hand. Her brother, Kanu Karmakar was assaulted when he came to disengage them from the scuffle and due to the injury sustained, Kanu Karmakar passed away previous night. 3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Phillobari Police Station registered it as Phillobari Police Station Case no. 25/2011 under Sections 325 /302, IPC [corresponding G.R. Case no. 1021/2011] and decided to take up the investigation of the case himself. 4. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] conducted inquest proceedings on the deadbody of the deceased, Kanu Karmakar in the house of Birgu Rajbhar [P.W.7] on 14.08.2011. 25/2011 under Sections 325 /302, IPC [corresponding G.R. Case no. 1021/2011] and decided to take up the investigation of the case himself. 4. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] conducted inquest proceedings on the deadbody of the deceased, Kanu Karmakar in the house of Birgu Rajbhar [P.W.7] on 14.08.2011. The I.O. also sent the informant, P.W.1 who claimed to have sustained injury in the incident, to Phillobari State Dispensary on 14.08.2011 for medical examination and P.W.1 was examined by P.W.9, the Medical & Health Officer, Phillobari State Dispensary on 14.08.2011. After the inquest proceedings, the deadbody of Kanu Karmakar was sent to Tinsukia Civil Hospital for post- mortem examination. The I.O. drew up a Sketch Map of the place of occurrence [Ext.-5] and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 , CrPC. After collecting the Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report and completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 02/2012 on 31.01.2012 finding a prima facie case against the accused-appellant for committing the offences under Sections 325 /302, IPC. 5. On submission of the Charge-Sheet, the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia issued process for appearance of the accused-appellant. On receipt of the process, the accused-appellant who was earlier granted bail on 18.01.2012, appeared before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia on 18.07.2012. On that day, the copies were furnished to the accused-appellant in compliance of the provisions of Section 207 , CrPC. Finding the offence under Section 302 , IPC exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia committed the case records of G.R. Case no. 1021/2011 to the Court of Sessions, Tinsukia by an Order of Commitment dated 18.07.2012. The learned Public Prosecutor was notified accordingly. As the accused-appellant prayed for allowing him to remain on bail, the same was allowed with a direction to the accused-appellant to appear before the Court of Sessions on 03.08.2012. 6. On receipt of the case records of G.R. Case no. 1021/2011, the Court of learned Sessions Judge [‘the Trial Court’] registered the same as Sessions Case no. 172[T] of 2012. The prosecution case was opened by the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. On receipt of the case records of G.R. Case no. 1021/2011, the Court of learned Sessions Judge [‘the Trial Court’] registered the same as Sessions Case no. 172[T] of 2012. The prosecution case was opened by the learned Public Prosecutor. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel; and upon perusal of the materials on record; the Trial Court framed charges under Section 323 , IPC and Section 302 , IPC against the accused-appellant on 19.09.2012. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined ten nos. of prosecution witnesses to bring home the charges against the accused- appellant. After closure of the evidence from the prosecution side, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 , CrPC wherein the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution side, was placed before the accused-appellant for his explanation. The case of the accused- appellant was falsity in the prosecution case. When the accused-appellant was asked whether he would adduce defence evidence, he answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, the defence side adduced witnesses evidence through three, D.W.1 to D.W.3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court returned the verdict of guilt by the Judgment & Order dated 20.09.2014. Hence, the present criminal appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent State. 9. Mr. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that the version projected in the FIR lodged on 14.08.2011 was different than the case sought to be established by the prosecution during the course of the trial. He has submitted that the death of the deceased was in the house of Birgu Rajbhar [P.W.7], who is the husband of the informant [P.W.1]. The death of the deceased was without any medical treatment in a health facility. Rather, it has emerged from the evidence on record that the deceased was treated by a quack. He has submitted that the death of the deceased was in the house of Birgu Rajbhar [P.W.7], who is the husband of the informant [P.W.1]. The death of the deceased was without any medical treatment in a health facility. Rather, it has emerged from the evidence on record that the deceased was treated by a quack. He has submitted that contrary to the testimony of P.W.1 that she suffered fracture in her left hand, it has emerged from the evidence of the treating doctor, P.W.9 that the injury sustained by the informant [P.W.1] was only a lacerated injury and the nature of injury was simple. Though Lalu Karmakar [P.W.2] in his testimony, deposed that he was assaulted by a bamboo stick during the incident, but no medical evidence as regards his injury was brought on record. It is his submission that neither P.W.1 nor P.W.3 had seen who had assaulted Kanu Karmakar. From the evidence on record, it has emerged that the prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.3 along with the deceased, Kanu Karmakar had gone to the house of the accused-appellant on 12.08.2011 to question the accused-appellant as to why P.W.3 was assaulted by him along with his associates in the morning hours on that day. Mr. Chakravarty has, thus, submitted that it was not the accused-appellant who had come to the place of occurrence with any intention to assault any of the prosecution witnesses. Rather, it was P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and the deceased who had gone to the house of the accused- appellant to question and confront him. In view of their arrival, the family members of the accused-appellant came out and there was sudden quarrel between the two sides and in the scuffle, Kanu Karmakar might have received some injury. It is his contention that from the medical evidence, it can be seen that the deceased sustained only one injury on his person and he died after two days of the incident on 14.08.2011 without any proper medical treatment. The Autopsy Doctor in the PME Report [Ext.-2] opined that the injury was sustained by blunt force impact. He has, thus, contended that, by no stretch, one can reach a conclusion that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one. The Autopsy Doctor in the PME Report [Ext.-2] opined that the injury was sustained by blunt force impact. He has, thus, contended that, by no stretch, one can reach a conclusion that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one. In the alternative, he has submitted that even if it is assumed that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one then also, it cannot be termed as a case of murder. He has further contended that had the deceased been treated in a proper health facility, the deceased might have survived. With such submissions, Mr. Chakravarty has called for interference with the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 10. Au contraire, Ms. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that the Autopsy Doctor [P.W.6] had clearly opined in the PME Report [Ext.-2] that the death of the deceased had resulted due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from injury sustained and the death was homicidal in nature. The deceased had sustained the injury on a vital part of the body as he sustained fracture on the frontal bone of the left parietal bone. Ms. Bhuyan has further submitted that as the victim had died a homicidal death, his death after two days from the date of sustaining the head injury is immaterial. Ms. Bhuyan has further submitted that it has emerged from the evidence on record that the accused-appellant had assaulted not only the deceased but the two other persons, P.W.1 & P.W.3 and therefore, there was clear intention on the part of the accused-appellant to cause injury on the deceased on the vital part of his body. 11. We have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence/materials on record, available in the case records of Sessions Case no. 172[T] of 2012, in original. 12. As discussed above, during the course of the trial, the prosecution side and the defence side examined the following witnesses :- Prosecution Witness 1. P.W.1 Smti. Sefali Rajbor - Informant 2. P.W.2 Sri Lalu Karmakar 3. P.W.3 Sri Bhola Gowala 4. P.W.4 Sri Parmatma Thakur 5. P.W.5 Sri Mishilal Karmakar 6. P.W.6 Dr. Nirod Kr. Borah 7. P.W.7 Sri Birgu Rajbhar 8. P.W.8 Sri Sukhram Tanti 9. P.W.9 Dr. Prakash Gupta – M.O. 10. P.W.10 Sri Prafulla Kr. P.W.1 Smti. Sefali Rajbor - Informant 2. P.W.2 Sri Lalu Karmakar 3. P.W.3 Sri Bhola Gowala 4. P.W.4 Sri Parmatma Thakur 5. P.W.5 Sri Mishilal Karmakar 6. P.W.6 Dr. Nirod Kr. Borah 7. P.W.7 Sri Birgu Rajbhar 8. P.W.8 Sri Sukhram Tanti 9. P.W.9 Dr. Prakash Gupta – M.O. 10. P.W.10 Sri Prafulla Kr. Deka – I.O. Defence Witness 1. D.W.1 Smti. Moneswari Bhumij 2. D.W.2 Sri Rajendra Bhagat 3. D.W.3 Sri Abhimanu Chouhan The documentary evidence exhibited by the prosecution during the course of the trial are as follows :- Prosecution Exhibits 1. Exhibit-1 Inquest Report 2. Exhibit-2 Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report 3. Exhibit-3 Medical Report 4. Exhibit-4 FIR 5. Exhibit-5 Sketch Map 6. Exhibit-6 Charge-Sheet 13. The informant-P.W.1, deposed that the accused-appellant is the son of the daughter of her maternal uncle and their neighbor, and the deceased is her younger brother, who died last year. As regards the incident, P.W.1 stated that at around 03-00 p.m. on the date of the occurrence, her grandchild, Bhola [P.W.3] came to her to allege that the accused-appellant and his younger brother, Aghunu had assaulted him. Having heard the same, P.W.1 stated to have told P.W.3 not to engage in any quarrel further with the accused-appellant. Then, she decided to meet the accused-appellant to tell him also not to engage in any further quarrel. When she went there to him the accused-appellant, his parents, younger sister and younger brother came and beat her up with a stick on the road and as a result of such beating, her left hand was broken and she lost her consciousness. She was thereafter, brought back to her house. Later on, she received medical treatment. P.W.1 further stated that the accused persons also assaulted her younger brother, Kanai @ Kanu Karmakar causing grievous injuries on his person. P.W.1 deposed that subsequently Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai died at her house before he was taken to hospital. When she lodged the FIR, Police personnel came to her house to take the deadbody of Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai for post-mortem examination. 13.1. During cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that she did not remember the date of occurrence. She stated that she lodged the FIR when Police personnel came to her house on receipt of information from villagers about the death of Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai. 13.1. During cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that she did not remember the date of occurrence. She stated that she lodged the FIR when Police personnel came to her house on receipt of information from villagers about the death of Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai. She denied suggestions that her hand was not broken and that Kanai Karmakar @ Kanu was in her house since before suffering from illness. P.W.1 had, however, admitted that she told the Police that she did not know who assaulted her younger brother, Kanai Karmakar @ Kanu. 14. P.W.2, Lalu Karmakar is a cousin of the accused-appellant and a nephew of the deceased. In his evidence-in-chief, P.W.2 stated that at around 07-00 p.m. on the date of the occurrence, he heard a commotion from the house of her aunt, P.W.1, who is the wife of his father’s elder brother. Going there, he came to know that the accused-appellant had assaulted P.W.1 and as a result, P.W.1’s left hand was broken. Then, he and P.W.3 went to the house of the accused-appellant to ask why he had assaulted P.W.1. But, the accused-appellant and his family members surrounded him to assault with a bamboo stick and in the process, he sustained injury near the right elbow. Bhola [P.W.3] who accompanied him had, however, managed to run away and escaped from being assaulted. P.W.2 further deposed that the accused- appellant had assaulted the deceased with a bamboo stick and he fell on the road. P.W.2 further stated that the accused-appellant also assaulted his aunt, P.W.1 in front of one Bhadram Chouhan’s [not a witness] house. It was P.W.8, Sukhram Tanti who took Kanai Karmakar @ Kanu to the house of P.W.1 but Kanai Karmakar @ Kanu died after two days on 14 th of the month. P.W.2 did not remember in which month the occurrence took place. He further stated that as no one was available at that time, Kanai Karmakar @ Kanu could not be taken to any doctor or hospital for treatment. 14.1. In cross-examination, P.W.2 denied a suggestion that he did not tell Police that the accused-appellant and the members of his family had assaulted him. He stated that he was assaulted at about 08-00/09-00 p.m. and he received 3/4 blows on his hand and on back. On being assaulted, he ran away to his house. 14.1. In cross-examination, P.W.2 denied a suggestion that he did not tell Police that the accused-appellant and the members of his family had assaulted him. He stated that he was assaulted at about 08-00/09-00 p.m. and he received 3/4 blows on his hand and on back. On being assaulted, he ran away to his house. P.W.2 further stated that when he was being assaulted, Kanai Karmakar @ Kanu reached near the house of one Malibhagat. P.W.2 stated to have witnessed the accused-appellant assaulting Kanai Karmakar @ Kanu while he was running away from the place and denied a suggestion given by the defence on that aspect. P.W.2 also denied a suggestion that as Kanai Karmakar @ Kanu had not sustained any injury, he did not undergo any medical treatment. 15. P.W.3, Bhola Gowala deposed that he knew the accused-appellant and the deceased, who was his granduncle. Regarding the incident which occurred one year earlier, P.W.3 stated that on that day, the accused-appellant hit him on the head and he told his grandmother, P.W.1 about the assault made on him by the accused-appellant. Then P.W.1, his maternal uncle [P.W.2] and Kanai Karmakar along with him went to the house of the accused-appellant to question him about the assault. But, before they could ask the accused- appellant anything about the assault, the accused-appellant and 3-4 members of his family assaulted all of them with bamboo sticks and firewoods. P.W.3 stated that though he did not receive any beating, P.W.2 sustained injuries. Both of them fled away from the place of occurrence. Later on, the accused persons assaulted P.W.1 and Kanu Karmakar. He further stated that P.W.1 got her hand fractured. Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai sustaining injury at the hand of the accused-appellant fell on the road and was lying there. P.W.1 was taken for medical treatment in the next morning whereas Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai was treated by doctor in the house itself. Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai died two days after in the house of P.W.1. According to P.W.3, he and Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai went to the Police Station on the date of the incident itself to inform about the incident verbally. The Police, in turn, told them that they could have lodged a written FIR. The written FIR was lodged only on the date of death of Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai. 15.1. According to P.W.3, he and Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai went to the Police Station on the date of the incident itself to inform about the incident verbally. The Police, in turn, told them that they could have lodged a written FIR. The written FIR was lodged only on the date of death of Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai. 15.1. During cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that four of them went together to the house of the accused-appellant to question him about the assault accused-appellant had made on him [P.W.3]. He stated that when assaulted by the accused-appellant and his family members, all of them ran away to different directions and he did not see who assaulted Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai. Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai was provided treatment by a doctor with surname Singh who was from their village only and the doctor administered saline and injection to Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai. P.W.3 denied a suggestion that owing to his illness, Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai was receiving treatment in the house of P.W.1 and the accused-appellant did not cause any injury by making assault on him. 16. P.W.4, Paramatma Thakur knew the deceased, the accused-appellant and P.W.1. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.4 deposed that on the date of the incident, he was not in his house and he learnt about the incident only from his wife. On the following day, he learnt about the death of Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai. P.W.4 exhibited the Inquest Report as Ext.-1 and identified his signature therein as Ext.-1[1]. He, however, stated that Police personnel came and took his signature on a sheet of paper and he did not go to see the deadbody of the deceased. The defence side declined to cross-examine P.W.4. 17. P.W.5, Misilal Karmakar is the elder brother of the deceased. P.W.5 stated that the accused-appellant is his nephew being the son of his sister. P.W.5 testified that at about 08-00 a.m. on the date of the incident, he came to know that Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai was lying in the house of P.W.7 in a critical condition. Going there, he saw Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai lying in an injured condition with blackened marks of injuries all over his person. He met P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the house of P.W.7 and they told him that the accused- appellant had caused the injury to Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai by assaulting him with stick. Going there, he saw Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai lying in an injured condition with blackened marks of injuries all over his person. He met P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the house of P.W.7 and they told him that the accused- appellant had caused the injury to Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai by assaulting him with stick. P.W.5 further deposed that though Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai was treated by a quack doctor he died on the following day. Police personnel came and after examining the deadbody, they prepared some documents and took the deadbody for post-mortem examination. The Police personnel took his signature on a sheet of paper and he exhibited the Inquest Report as Ext.-1 with his signature therein as Ext.-1[2]. P.W.5 stated that he did not know the reason why the accused-appellant assaulted Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai. 17.1. During cross-examination, P.W.5 stated that Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai did not die for receiving treatment by a quack doctor and the death was due to sustaining injury in the incident of assault. 18. P.W.6 Dr. Nirod Kumar Borah was, on 14.08.2011, serving as the Senior Medical & Health Officer at Tinsukia Civil Hospital. On that day, he performed the post-mortem examination on the deadbody of Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai, who was brought by a Police constable and a relative, P.W.5. P.W.6 deposed to the effect that on examination of the deadbody of the deceased, he found the following :- A male deadbody of average built brown complexioned having two and half inch long gray black hail, wearing a white towel only. Rigor mortis present. Contusion of the head on the frontal area of 3 cm X 5 cm is seen. On dissection blood is seen under scalp. A linear fracture of 10 cm is found on the frontal bone extending up to left parietal bone. 32 ml of clotted blood is found in extra durel space. About 60 ml of blood in the subdurel space is seen. Frontal lobe of brain is congested with blood ventricles are free of blood. In stomach contains partially digested food mixed with 105 ml of fluid, contents smells alcohol. Other organs were found normal and healthy. P.W.6 further testified that in his opinion, he opined that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from injury sustained. He opined that the injuries were caused by blunt force impact and they were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. Other organs were found normal and healthy. P.W.6 further testified that in his opinion, he opined that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from injury sustained. He opined that the injuries were caused by blunt force impact and they were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. He further opined that the death was 12-18 hours earlier from the post-mortem examination. P.W.6 exhibited the PME Report as Ext.-2 with his signature therein as Ext.-2[1] apart from the Inquest Report [Ext.-1]. The defence had, however, declined to cross-examine P.W.6. 19. P.W.7, Birgu Rajbhar is the husband of P.W.1 and the deceased is his brother-in-law. In his testimony, P.W.7 stated that he knew the accused, who is the son of his sister-in-law. He stated that he did not know how Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai died as at that time, he was at another place. It was on receipt of a massage from P.W.1 through P.W.3, he came to learn about a fight between P.W.1 and the accused-appellant. He stated that as the deceased was also present at the time of such fight and sustained injuries in the fight, he succumbed to his injuries subsequently. When he came to the house, he saw the deadbody of the deceased lying on the floor with injuries on the head, chest and abdomen of the deceased. 19.1. During cross-examination, he stated that he could not say whether the deceased was present in the fight as he did not see it. He, however, stated that the deceased was not keeping well for quite some time. 20. P.W.8, Sukhram Tanti who is the co-villager of the accused-appellant, the informant and the deceased, deposed to the effect that the deceased was suffering from illness. But few days prior to his death, there was a quarrel between the accused-appellant, P.W.3 and others. Subsequently, the deceased died in the house of Birgu Rajbhar [P.W.7]. 20.1. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that he was present at the time of quarrel which took place in the courtyard of the accused-appellant. At the time of the incident, Manoj Chouhan, his father and Rajendra Bhagat [not a witness] were also present and he did not witness presence of the deceased at the place of occurrence. 20.1. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that he was present at the time of quarrel which took place in the courtyard of the accused-appellant. At the time of the incident, Manoj Chouhan, his father and Rajendra Bhagat [not a witness] were also present and he did not witness presence of the deceased at the place of occurrence. P.W.8 further stated that Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai was suffering from illness since about fifteen days prior to his death and he stated about his illness before the Police when his statement was taken. 21. P.W.9, Dr. Prakash Gupta was, on 14.08.2011, serving as Senior Medical & Health Officer-1 at Phillobari State Dispensary. It was on that day at around 03-00 p.m., he examined P.W.1. P.W.9 stated that on examination, he found one lacerated injury on the left forearm which was approximately 2 cm length, 2 mm breadth and 2 mm depth. He advised X-ray of the left forearm of P.W.1. P.W 9 deposed that the injury sustained by P.W.1 was simple in nature and was caused by blunt hard object. He exhibited the Medical Examination Report as Ext.-3 and his signature therein as Ext.-3[1]. 22. From the evidence on record including the testimony of the witnesses, it has emerged that the incident had occurred on 12.08.2011 and the deceased, Kanu Karmakar expired on 14.08.2011. It was on 14.08.2011, the FIR was lodged. The deceased, Kanu Karmakar @ Kanai breathed his last in the house of informant-P.W.1, Smti Sefali Rajbhor and her husband, Birgu Rajbhar [P.W.7]. It was after the death of the deceased, Police personnel from Phillobari Police Station visited the house of P.W.1 and P.W.7 and found the dead body on a bed. At first, the I.O. conducted the inquest proceeding in the house of P.W.1 and P.W.7 on 14.08.2011 and prepared an Inquest Report [Ext.-1]. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to Tinsukia Civil Hospital for Post Mortem Examination [PME]. The Post Mortem Examination was performed at Tinsukia Civil Hospital on 14.08.2011 itself by the Senior Medical & Health Officer [P.W.6]. 23. As per the testimony of P.W.6 and the PME Report [Ext.-2], there was contusion of the head on the frontal area of 3 cm X 5.5 cm and on dissection, blood was found under scalp. A liner fracture of 10 cm was found on the frontal bone extended up to left parietal bone. 23. As per the testimony of P.W.6 and the PME Report [Ext.-2], there was contusion of the head on the frontal area of 3 cm X 5.5 cm and on dissection, blood was found under scalp. A liner fracture of 10 cm was found on the frontal bone extended up to left parietal bone. It was opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries sustained and the injuries were caused by blunt force impact and were ante-mortem in nature. The death which occurred 12-18 hours earlier, was not opined to be homicidal in nature. 24. It was P.W.2, Lalu Karmakar who testified that he saw the accused assaulting the deceased. P.W.3 stated that he did not know who assaulted the deceased with a bamboo stick. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell on the road. Subsequently, the deceased was taken to the house of the P.W.1 wherein he was stated to be treated by a village doctor, who administered saline and injection to the deceased. The deceased was not given treatment in any health facility during the period from 12.08.2011 to 14.08.2011. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the deceased died after two days after assault; and he died after a lapse of two days without any medical treatment in a proper health facility; and was only receiving treatment from a village doctor; the injuries sustained might not be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It has been urged that had the deceased been provided proper medical treatment, the possibility of the deceased surviving could not be ruled out. It is not readily acceptable that where death occurs after a lapse of few days, the injuries which had caused death would take out the offence out of purview of culpable homicide. Each case is to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case. The important aspect of consideration is the nature of injuries and whether the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to lead to death. The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention may not be a relevant factor in a particular case. 25. The important aspect of consideration is the nature of injuries and whether the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to lead to death. The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention may not be a relevant factor in a particular case. 25. In this connection, the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prasad Pradhan and another vs. The State of Chattisgarh , [2023]1 SCR 241, can be referred to : 25. During the hearing, the appellants' counsel had urged that Vrindawan died 20 days after the attack, and the lapse of such a time shows that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On this aspect, there are several judgments, which emphasise that such a lapse of time, would not per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the offender's liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. In Om Parkash v. State of Punjab [Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, [1992] 4 SCC 212 : 1992 SCC [Cri] 848] , the death occurred 13 days after the attack; the accused was convicted of murder. Similarly, in Patel Hiralal Joitaram v. State of Gujarat [Patel Hiralal Joitaram v. State of Gujarat, [2002] 1 SCC 22 : 2002 SCC [Cri] 1] , the death occurred a fortnight after the attack, and in Sudershan Kumar [Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi, [1975] 3 SCC 831 : 1975 SCC [Cri] 250] , the death occurred 12 days after the attack. 26. There can be no stereotypical assumption or formula that where death occurs after a lapse of some time, the injuries [which might have caused the death], the offence is one of culpable homicide. Every case has its unique fact situation. However, what is important is the nature of injury, and whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death. The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor in this case, because the doctor who conducted the post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardiorespiratory failures, as a result of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased. Thus, the injuries and the death were closely and directly linked. 26. The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor in this case, because the doctor who conducted the post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardiorespiratory failures, as a result of the injuries inflicted upon the deceased. Thus, the injuries and the death were closely and directly linked. 26. Coming back to the facts of the case in hand, it is evident from the testimony of the Autopsy Doctor [P.W.6] and the PME Report [Ext.-2] that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries sustained and the injuries were caused by blunt force impact and were ante- mortem in nature. The death was opined to be homicidal in nature. Therefore, not giving proper medical attention or otherwise is also not a relevant factor in the present case also, because of the Autopsy Doctor opining that the death was homicidal in nature and the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage from the ante-mortem injuries sustained. 27. The issue which has, therefore, arrived is whether, as contended on behalf of the accused, the case of the accused is not of murder as the facts on record point towards the factors required to bring into the operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 , IPC. 28. Culpable homicide is the genus and the offence of murder is its species, meaning thereby, all murders are culpable homicides but all culpable homicides are not murders. To bring in a case of culpable homicide within the scope and ambit of murder, the conditions of any of the clauses prescribed in Section 300 , IPC, that is, either firstly or secondly or thirdly or fourthly, are required to be satisfied. Section 300 , IPC reads as under :- 300. To bring in a case of culpable homicide within the scope and ambit of murder, the conditions of any of the clauses prescribed in Section 300 , IPC, that is, either firstly or secondly or thirdly or fourthly, are required to be satisfied. Section 300 , IPC reads as under :- 300. Murder — Except in the cases 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. 29. There are also five exceptions provided in Section 300 , IPC. If an offence despite fulfilling all the conditions of any of the clauses stated therein, comes within any of the exceptions then the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under the first part of Section 304 , IPC. 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. The above exception is subject to the following provisos :- Firstly. – That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly.— That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.— That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Secondly.— That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.— That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.— Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Exception 2.— Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Exception 3.— Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. 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. Exception 5.— Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. 30. Explanation.— It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5.— Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. 30. 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 premeditation; [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. 31. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as from the defence witnesses, it has been established that it was P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and the deceased who after an incident which occurred in the morning hours of the day on 12.08.2011 leading to the beating of P.W.3, proceeded towards the house of the accused in the evening hours of the day itself to question and confront the accused as to why he had beaten P.W.3. The place of occurrence was nearer to the house of the accused than the houses of these prosecution witnesses and the deceased. It was at that moment, the accused and his family members confronted P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and the deceased. The accused confronted them holding bamboo stick in his hand. 32. There was quarrel between the two sides at first and thereafter, a fight ensued. As the side of the accused got an upper hand in the process, all four of them, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and the deceased tried to ran away in different directions. The accused confronted them holding bamboo stick in his hand. 32. There was quarrel between the two sides at first and thereafter, a fight ensued. As the side of the accused got an upper hand in the process, all four of them, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and the deceased tried to ran away in different directions. It was in such situation, the accused inflicted the blow on the deceased and as a result, the deceased fell on the road. There is nothing on record that other than one blow on the head of the deceased which is obviously on a vital part, no other injury was inflicted on the deceased. The injury though resulted in contusion on the head leading to a fracture appears to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 33. Exception 4 of Section 300 , IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The exception is founded upon absence of pre-meditation. In order to bring in a case within Exception 4, there must be evidence to the effect that there was heat of passion which clouded man's sober reason and urged him to do deeds which he would not have otherwise done. There had to be a provocation and it is not necessary that the injury done is a direct consequence of that provocation. For Exception 4, there has to be no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused [a] without premeditation, [b] in a sudden fight; [c] without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and [d] the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4, all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. The word, ‘fight’ occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 , IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. To bring a case within Exception 4, all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. The word, ‘fight’ occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 , IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'. In this connection, reference to the decision in Dhiraj Gorakhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat , [2003] 9 SCC 322 , can be made. 34. From the evidence on record, it has emerged that there was no pre-meditation on the part of the accused as it was the P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and the deceased who proceeded towards the house of the accused at first to confront him. The accused did not come to their places. A sudden quarrel followed by a sudden fight ensued between the two sides thereafter. In the process, the accused gave a blow on the head of the deceased with a bamboo stick. But other than one blow, the accused did not inflict any further blow on the deceased. 35. From the above discussion made and the reasons assigned therein, we are of the considered view that the case is one which comes within the scope and ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 , IPC. But other than one blow, the accused did not inflict any further blow on the deceased. 35. From the above discussion made and the reasons assigned therein, we are of the considered view that the case is one which comes within the scope and ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 , IPC. As the accused had caused such bodily injury, which led to the death of the deceased after two days, and such death was caused by the accused without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the accused having taken undue advantage or acting in a cruel and unusual manner, he is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under first part of Section 304 , IPC. Thus, the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 , IPC is not found sustainable in law. We, therefore, hold the accused-appellant to be guilty for the offence under the first part of Section 304 , IPC. His conviction under Section 302 , IPC is, therefore, set aside and modified accordingly. 36. Having held the accused-appellant guilty of the offence under the first part of Section 304 , IPC and taking into account the obtaining facts and circumstances in its entirety including the facts that at the time of committing the offence the accused-appellant was a youth of about 25 years of age with no criminal antecedents, we are of the considered view that the sentence is required to be altered as per the first part of Section 304 , IPC. It is stated at the Bar that the accused-appellant has spent more than eleven years in incarceration, as on date, while undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment, as ordered by the Trial Court. 37. In so far as the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 323 , IPC is concerned for committing the offence of hurt to the informant, P.W.1, the testimony of P.W.1 supported by the medical evidence adduced in the form of testimony of P.W.9 and the medical examination report [Ext.-3] is found convincing and reliable. In presence of such evidence, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant calls for no interference. 38. In presence of such evidence, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant calls for no interference. 38. We are also of the considered view that the period already spent by the accused-appellant in incarceration till date will sub-serve the ends of justice against his conviction under Section 304 , IPC. There is, however, no alteration as regards the amount of fine to be paid by him and the order as regards fine as passed by the Trial Court, is maintained. 39. The instant appeal stands party allowed to the extent indicated above. 40. The jurisdictional District Legal Services Authority is to consider the matter of granting appropriate compensation to the victim in terms of the provisions contained in Section 357A, CrPC and the extant Victim Compensation Scheme, framed thereunder. 41. The records of the Trial Court are to be sent back forthwith.