ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. 1. By way of filing this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, in Sessions Case No. 111/2022 arising out of FIR No. 18/2022, Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed hereinbelow. 2. The brief facts emerging from the record indicate that complainant Shri Kanaram (PW-09) lodged a written report (Ex.P-10) at Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur on 08.01.2022, stating that on 07.01.2022 at about 11:00 p.m., while he was at his house, he heard loud cries coming from the direction of the house of his elder brother, Hemera s/o Dalu Gameti (aged 40 years). On hearing the noise, he along with his elder brother Jota Gameti, neighbour Panna, and his sister-in-law Bhanwari Bai went towards Hemera’s house, where they saw his nephew Tara Gameti assaulting Hemera. Out of fear, Hemera moved towards the hand pump located near Mahadevji temple, but Tara allegedly followed him with a lathi and inflicted multiple blows indiscriminately on his head and body, causing Hemera to fall unconscious near the hand pump. When they approached, they noticed excessive bleeding and found that Hemera had died on the spot. 3. It was further stated that Tara Gameti would frequently quarrel and fight with Hemera over trivial issues and that the death had occurred due to the beating allegedly given by him. As it was late at night and no means of transportation were available, the complainant could not report the matter immediately. On the basis of this written report, FIR No.18/2022 (Ex.P-14) was registered for offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC , and investigation commenced. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 08.03.2022 before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, Udaipur for offences under and 302 , and the case being triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. 4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing on charge, framed, read, and explained the charges under Sections 341 and 302 IPC to the accused on 10.05.2022, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The learned Trial Court, after hearing on charge, framed, read, and explained the charges under Sections 341 and 302 IPC to the accused on 10.05.2022, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited several documents, whereafter the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the allegations and claimed false implication, and the defence also exhibited documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5. Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the learned Trial Court vide Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2023 convicted the appellant for the said offences, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon a comprehensive appraisal of the evidence adduced at trial, the material on record, and the surrounding circumstances, the following aspects emerge for due consideration: Evaluation of Ocular Testimony and Factual Matrix 6. The prosecution’s case primarily rests on the ocular version of PW-9 Kanaram (informant), PW-11 Jota Ram (brother of the deceased), PW-12 Panna (uncle of the deceased), and PW-14 Bhanwari (wife of the deceased and mother of the accused). Out of these, PW-9 and PW-11 are the only witnesses who claim to have actually seen the accused chasing and assaulting the deceased. PW-12 and PW-14 reached thereafter and are not eyewitnesses to the act of assault. 7. PW-9 Kanaram deposed that upon hearing an alarm at about 11:00 p.m. on the night of the incident, he, along with PW- 11 Jota, PW-12 Panna, and PW-14 Bhanwari, moved towards the direction of Hemera’s house. He saw the deceased running towards the Mahadevji temple and the accused Tara Chand following him with a lathi. Near the hand pump, the accused is alleged to have inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased, who collapsed and died on the spot. Although PW- 9 admitted during cross-examination that it was a dark night and visibility was limited, he consistently affirmed that he identified the accused by voice and proximity. His account is materially corroborated by PW-11. 8. PW-11 Jota Ram similarly stated that he saw his brother fleeing and the accused following him with a lathi. He further stated that he witnessed the actual blow delivered near the hand pump. His account is materially corroborated by PW-11. 8. PW-11 Jota Ram similarly stated that he saw his brother fleeing and the accused following him with a lathi. He further stated that he witnessed the actual blow delivered near the hand pump. The fact that PW-12 and PW-14 reached the location shortly after the assault and found the deceased lying lifeless further strengthens the immediacy, proximity, and credibility of the circumstances forming the chain leading up to the death. 9. PW-12 Panna, although not an eyewitness to the assault, confirmed that both father and son frequently quarreled, and that upon reaching the spot, he saw Hemera lying dead. PW- 14 Bhanwari, the wife of the deceased, clarified that she was not present at the moment of the assault, but she admitted longstanding domestic discord, habitual drunkenness of the deceased, and recurring quarrels between father and son. Her testimony, though partly hearsay regarding the assault, reinforces the existence of sudden provocation and chronic tension between the two. Medical Evidence and Nature of Injury 10. PW-17 Dr. Shantilal Choubisa conducted the postmortem on 08.01.2022 and reported one major lacerated wound measuring 20 cm × 10 cm × 5 cm over the left temporal region, accompanied by fractures of the parietal and temporal bones, mandibular fracture, and nasal bone fractures, along with intracranial bleeding and edema. The doctor ruled out injuries on any other part of the body. He opined that the death was caused due to excessive hemorrhage leading to cardio-pulmonary arrest. He also categorically stated that the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon. 11. The absence of repeated blows, absence of injuries on other parts of the body, and the spontaneous nature of the incident have significant bearing on the intention and mental element of the accused. Assessment of Intention (Mens Rea) and Surrounding Circumstances 12. The essential question is whether the accused possessed the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, so as to attract Section 302 IPC . Several critical circumstances emerge: • The accused and the deceased were father and son, residing in a remote tribal region, with no access to basic amenities, and were admittedly habitual drinkers, involved in frequent domestic quarrels. • The incident took place at night, triggered by a sudden fight; no pre-meditation or preparation is evident. Several critical circumstances emerge: • The accused and the deceased were father and son, residing in a remote tribal region, with no access to basic amenities, and were admittedly habitual drinkers, involved in frequent domestic quarrels. • The incident took place at night, triggered by a sudden fight; no pre-meditation or preparation is evident. • PW-14 disclosed that the deceased was often violent, used to beat the accused and the family after consuming liquor, and that earlier on the same day the deceased had consumed alcohol heavily. • The accused is shown to be illiterate, culturally and socially vulnerable, belonging to an Adivasi community, with limited ability to regulate emotions during sudden provocations. • The presence of only one blow, albeit fatal, strongly militates against a pre-conceived intent to kill. • The genesis of the incident appears to be a sudden loss of self-control during a domestic quarrel. 13. Thus, while the blow was forceful enough to cause death, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to cause the death of the deceased. The mental element that can be attributed is that the accused had knowledge that such a blow on the head is likely to cause death, but there is no convincing evidence of a deliberate intention to cause death. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC 14.The evidence clearly satisfies the 4 components of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC , namely: (i) the act was committed without premeditation; (ii) it occurred in a sudden fight; (iii) it was done in the heat of passion; and (iv) the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. 15.In this context, firstly, even if the prosecution evidence is taken at its highest and accepted at face value in an uncontroverted form, nothing emerges to suggest that the occurrence was premeditated. The very nature of the incident, as borne out from the record, is spontaneous and imminently sudden. Premeditation is ordinarily inferable where inimical relations exist, or where there is some antecedent dispute, conflicting interest, settled enmity, or any discernible motive. All these elements are conspicuously absent in the present case. 16.Secondly, the material, when evaluated on its face value, indicates that the deceased, being habitually intoxicated and quarrelsome, would frequently abuse and provoke the accused. Premeditation is ordinarily inferable where inimical relations exist, or where there is some antecedent dispute, conflicting interest, settled enmity, or any discernible motive. All these elements are conspicuously absent in the present case. 16.Secondly, the material, when evaluated on its face value, indicates that the deceased, being habitually intoxicated and quarrelsome, would frequently abuse and provoke the accused. It appears that on the fateful night as well, inebriation and provocation triggered a sudden loss of mental equilibrium in the accused, leading to the infliction of the single blow. The fight was sudden; it was not a case where an extended or continuous altercation had been unfolding. 17.Thirdly, the testimony of PW-14 Bhanwari Devi unmistakably suggests that the assault was delivered in a state of sheer anger, reinforcing that the act was committed in the heat of passion. There was no motive or pre-existing design, and as discussed hereinabove, the absence of any preparatory conduct fortifies the inference that the assault was a product of a momentary emotional eruption rather than a calculated decision. 18.Fourthly and importantly, although the accused was armed with a lathi and there was nobody present at the scene who could restrain, overpower, or deter him, he nevertheless inflicted only a single blow. He could have, had he so intended, delivered multiple blows on other parts of the deceased’s body, but he did not. This conduct demonstrates that the accused neither took undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The manner of assault was confined, limited, and proportionate to the sudden provocation that erupted without warning. 19.The case therefore does not squarely fall within the ambit of murder under Section 302 IPC . Rather, given the nature of the assault and the mental element, the offence is more appropriately categorized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II , where knowledge but not intention can be imputed. Conclusion and Sentence 20. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a holistic appreciation of the ocular evidence, medical testimony, surrounding circumstances, and the mental element attributable to the accused, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. Conclusion and Sentence 20. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a holistic appreciation of the ocular evidence, medical testimony, surrounding circumstances, and the mental element attributable to the accused, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel between the father and son, without premeditation, and in the heat of passion, wherein the appellant inflicted a single lathi-blow on a vital part of the body. He did not act in unusual manner nor did he misuse his position of dominance . Although the said blow proved fatal, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed the intention to cause the death of the deceased or such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 21.The circumstances, however, indicate that the appellant had knowledge that such a forceful blow could likely result in death. The case, therefore, squarely falls within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as defined under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC , and is punishable under Section 304 Part II . 22.Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC , as recorded by the learned Trial Court, is hereby set aside, and he is instead convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II . While determining the appropriate sentence, this Court has taken into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, including the fact that the accused and the deceased were father and son, residing in a remote tribal region with limited access to basic amenities, and were admittedly habitual drinkers who often engaged in domestic quarrels. The material on record further reflects that the accused is illiterate, culturally and socially vulnerable, belonging to an Adivasi community, and has limited emotional regulation during sudden provocations. These factors, coupled with the circumstance that the incident arose out of a sudden altercation in a domestic setting and that the appellant has himself suffered the loss of his father, warrant a degree of judicial compassion. These factors, coupled with the circumstance that the incident arose out of a sudden altercation in a domestic setting and that the appellant has himself suffered the loss of his father, warrant a degree of judicial compassion. 23.In view of the aforesaid mitigating factors, and considering the absence of premeditation, this Court is of the view that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven (07) years (from the date of his arrest i.e., 08.01.2022) would adequately meet the ends of justice. The sentence is accordingly modified to that extent. 24.In above terms, the instant appeal is disposed of. 25.A copy of this order shall be sent to the trial court. 26.The record be sent back forthwith. 27.All applications pending (if any) stands disposed of.