The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 Part I IPC due to the sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Alwar dated 26.8.2003 who thereby convicted the accused - appellant Lallu Ram for offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000, in default whereof, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and also 5 convicted him for offence under section 447 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. A trifle incident of two children plucking two flowers of mustard, while they were coming from school to their house, from the agriculture field of the 10 accused Lallu Ram led to the unfortunate incident of altercation between the two families and eventual death of Manglya.

3. Three accused namely, accused - appellant Lallu Ram, Maniya Ram and Mst. Sharda were charge sheeted for the incident. Though the other two were acquitted, the accused - appellant alone was convicted, who is up in the appeal before us against the aforesaid judgement.

4. Pappu Ram (PW 1) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) to SHO, PS. Malakhera on 5.12.2002 with regard to incident of 4.12.2002 inter alia alleging that around 4.30 PM on the previous day, his two small children Ramesh and Braj Lal were coming from their school towards their house. On the way % adjacent to the agriculture field of the complainant party, Maniya Ram S/o Lallu Ram, Lallu Ram S/o Kala, Mst. Sharda W/o Maniya Ram and Mst. Bhauti W/o Lallu Ram, all by caste Mali, resident of Village Barkhera started beating them. On hearing their hue and cry, the informant, his aunt Laxmi W/o Ramjilal, Dholi W/o Mangtu, Manglya S/o Narayan rushed there. They forbade 2 the accused, which further infuriated them, who were armed with lathi and tanchiya. They started beating Laxmi, Dholi and Manglya. Lallu Ram inflicted a blow by tanchiya on the head of his father Manglya and on the right hand of Laxmi, whereas Maniya Ram hit Mst. Dholi with fist and kicks. On hearing their hue and cry, Mangtu Ram S/o Khairati and Ramotar S/o Ramjilal and certain : other persons came there and saved them. His father Manglya has been referred to Government Hospital, Alwar. It is therefore prayed in the complaint that the action may be taken against the culprits.

5. A regular first information report was registered with Police Station Malakhera for offence under section 341/323 IPC and injured were medically examined. Manglya who was admitted in Government Hospital, Alwar, was further referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. However he died during treatment on 7.12.2002 at Jaipur and the offence under section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC was also added. The police after investigation filed challan against the three accused named above for offence u/ss. 323, 341 and 302/34 of IPC. The case was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions whereform it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Alwar. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused - appellant for offence u/Ss. 302, 447 and 323/34 and for offence u/Ss. 323/34 and 457 against co - accused Maniya Ram and Sharda. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution In support of its case produced 18 witnesses and exhibited as many as 20 documents. The accused In their examination under Section 313 Cr.Rp. denied every circumstance put to them and alleged false implication. The accused In their defence produced three witnesses and exhibited five documents. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial acquitted the other accused, but convicted the accused - appellant Lallu Ram. Hence this appeal.

6. Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri K.R. Rao for the accused - appellant argued that accused - appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken a categorical defence that the complainant pa