JUDGMENT

 Special leave granted.

2. The appellant was convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for causing the death of Jeet Singh on May 22, 1983 at about 11.00 a.m. in the field of the deceased. The Rajasthan High Court confirmed the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1984. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the deceased and the appellant are neighbouring owners of lands. There was an altercation between them due to the appellant throwing soil into the lands of the deceased from Dali (strip of land dividing the two fields of the deceased and the appellant). Thereon the deceased went to the appellant to persuade him not to throw the soil into their field and to have the matter settled amicably through negotiations and if need be by measuring the lands, yet the appellant was annoyed with the conduct of the deceased and his sons PW. 1 and PW-2 and son-in-law PW-3. At the instigation of his son by name Pappu (who was a Juvenile offender and was dealt with separately), the appellant inflicted with Kassi (spade, sharp-edged cutting instrument) on the head of the deceased and with its impact the deceased fell down. Thereafter the appellant inflicted two more injuries. When PWs-1 to 3 raised alarm, the accused ran away. PWs- 1 to 3 went near Jeet Singh and found him dead with bleeding injuries on head, neck and back. PW-1 went and lodged at the police station the report Ex P- 1 narrating the entire prosecution case. At the trial PWs-1 to 3 Were examined as direct witnesses whose evidence was believed by both the Courts below as natural witnesses and the appellant was convicted for the offence of murder. We found no infirmity in the assessment of the evidence, though the counsel for the appellant attempt to argue the case in that behalf. However, notice was issued to the State on the nature of the offence and the State has appeared.

3. We have heard the counsel on both sides. During post-mortem the doctor found the following three injuries on the dead body :

1. Incised wound 11 cm x 2-1/ 2 cm x 5 cm on the right parietal occipital area. Bone fractured Dura matter was seen from the wound.

2. Incised wound 15 cm x 6 cm x 5 cm on the right scapular area bone fractured.

3. Incised wound 13 cm x 10 cm x 12 cm on the right side of neck. All vessels of the right side neck were cut cervical vertebrae 4 and 5 along with the spinal cord was cut through and larynx and right side of mandible cut.

4. The witnesses have stated that when the appellant caused the first injury on the head, the deceased fell down and thereafter the appellant inflicted the other two injuries while the deceased was lying on the ground. The incised injury on the parietal occipital region was the first injury. The doctor found that by the third injury on the right side of the neck the vessels on the right side of the neck, were completely cut, cervical vertebra along with spinal cord were cut through larynx and also right side of mandible. According to him, the third injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

5. The contention of the learned counsel is that the appellant committed the offence on the spur of moment when quarrel ensued between the appellant and the deceased, when the appellant was prevented to spread the soil in his field. So in heat of passion and on the spur of moment without premeditation the appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased. He had no intention to cause particular injuries, though later on proved to be fatal. Since he had no intention to cause such injury as is likely to cause the death and there was no pre-meditation, nor intention to kill, the case would fall under Exception (4) to S. 300, I.P.C. Even otherwise no offence of murder has been made out. Therefore, it is only culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under S. 304, Part II, I.P.C. Having given our anxious consideration and the facts and circumstances do indicate that there are no merits in