SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellant having been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh District Ajmer under section 302ipc has preferred this appeal. THE conviction of appellant is principally founded on the ocular evidence of Laxman (Pw. 1), Man Singh (Pw. 4), Gheesu (Pw. 5) and Dev Kishan (Pw. 8 ). THE facts emerging from the evidence of these four witnesses coupled with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses may be stated as follows:
(2.) ON December 6, 1999 after the informant Laxman (Pw. 1) and the appellant picked up quarrel, Bhanwar Lal (deceased), the maternal grand father of Laxman, had gone to the market to meet Ram Niwas (father of appellant) who was found standing on the road in front of a shop, when Ram Niwas and Bhanwar Lal had altercations, appellant suddenly appeared and inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of Bhanwar Lal who was removed to the hospital where he died. As per postmortem report Ex. P-13 following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Stab wound 1 1/2 x 1/2 x upto parietal cavity at left Hypochondral region of abdomen. 2. Spleen-there is tear of 1" x 1/2 x 1/2 on lateral aspect of spleen with clots & blood over it. Dr. P. C. Patni (Pw. 15), who conducted autopsy on the dead body, deposed that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to spleenic injury. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that there was no previous ill-will between the parties and the appellant was not the one who had started the quarrel but the deceased himself came to the father of appellant and abused him. Appellant thus acted in a heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation and inflicted a solitary blows hence Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was clearly attracted. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor argued that the Trial Court had rightly held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual manner and was not entitled to the benefit of said exception. To invoke Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC four requirements must be satisfied:- (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. In the present case the deceased himself had gone to the father of appellant and after hot exchanges, the appellant in a fit of anger inflicted solitary blow with knife. His act was sudden and unpremeditated and he did not take undue advantage of the situation. Finding his father surrounded by the deceased and his grand son Laxman, the appellant appears to have lost his temper and committed crime. Taking an overall view of the incident we are inclined to think that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exception relied upon. For these reasons, we dispose of the instant appeal in the following terms:- (1) We partly allow the appeal of appellant Hanuman. Instead of Section 302, we convict him under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. In default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The impugned judgment of learned Trial Court stands modified as indicated above. .;