The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and the distinction between intention and knowledge in the context of Section 304 IPC.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Present appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment dated 05.11.2014 and the order on sentence dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case 37/2011, FIR 55/2011 Police Station Harsh Vihar by which the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Both the appeals have been heard together and common arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the parties and thus, both the appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Trial Court, unfolds as under:

“2. Brief facts, as per prosecution are that on 10.04.2011 at about 9.50 p.m a PCR call vide DD No.8A, was received in the Police Station to the effect that “at D4, Block, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar, one lady along with her friend has killed her husband. Since 8.00 p.m dead body is lying here”. SI Shailender along with Ct. Subhash were sent to the spot and SHO, ATO, I29 also reached at the spot, where at house no. 138, dead body of one person aged about 40 years was found lying on floor, whose named was revealed as Ram Prasad @ Babban, S/o Late Kishan Lal, R/o B4/138, Gali No.5, Harsh Vihar, Delhi. The family members and relatives of the deceased were collected there. Dead body was randomly (sarsari) searched and no visible injury was found on the body of deceased, which could be resulted into unnatural death. By the order of SHO PS Harsh Vihar, inquest proceedings U/s 174 Cr.P.C were initiated by SI Yogender Singh, who on 11.04.2011 got conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased at GTB Hospital and thereafter, handed over the dead body of deceased to its claimant. On 18.04.2011 SI collected the Postmortem Report no.447/11 of deceased from GTB Hospital, wherein doctor opined the cause of death “shock as a result of ante mortem injury to head produced by blunt force impact”. Viscera was preserved on the request of IO. IO made his endorsement on DD No.8A and got registered the FIR of instant case and inquiry was conducted from family members. Photographs of the scene of crime were got photographed through Crime Team, spot was inspected, rough Site Plan was prepared, statements of the eye witnesses i.e. Vicky and Nicky, son and daughter of deceased respectively were recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C and later on their statements U/s 164 Cr.P.C were also got recorded through Ld. MM, wherein they stated that “their mother and father used to quarrel with each other. Their mother used to call Udaiveer @ Pappu, their neighbour, in the house, which was objected by their father. On 09.04.2011, when heater was not running, their mother called Pappu at their house for repair of electricity and asked for match box. When their father objected to the coming of said Pappu, his father started giving beatings to their mother and also started abusing to Pappu in the name of mother and sister. Their mother while praising Pappu, asked their father as to why he is abusing Pappu, in the meantime Pappu came in the house and caught hold of their father from behind. Their mother picked up the cricket bat and hit with it on the head of their father, resultantly their father get down on the floor. With the help of Pappu, their mother laid down their father on the cot and tried to make him