The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.

H.S. Grewal, J.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.06.2004 and 03.06.2004 respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in case F.I.R. No.128 dated 06.07.2001, registered at Police Station Tosham, whereby they have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Raj Kumar s/o Bir Singh had recorded his statement to the effect that his family had 10-12 goats which they used to tether in their plot. In front of their plot, the house of the appellants was situated. On 05.07.2001 at about 09:00 P.M., he and his father-Bir Singh went to their plot to look after the goats. When they reached in front of the house of the appellants, they were sitting there. Appellant No.2-Ram Singh came there and asked his father not to tie the goats at that place because a foul smell spread up to his house. Bir Singh replied that he was tying the goats in his own plot and asked where else he should take them. At this, Ram Singh started abusing Ram Singh. In the meantime, another appellant-Ram Kishan came there with a lathi and said that he would teach Bir Singh a lesson for abusing him. Then, Ram Singh (appellant No.2) caught his father, whereas Ram Kishan (appellant No.1) gave a lathi blow on the head of his father. He gave another lathi blow on the forehead of his father near the right eye and as a result thereof, his father fell down. The complainant made a noise ‘Bachao Bachao’ and on hearing the noise, his brother-Anil and Ruli Ram(uncle) also arrived there, and upon seeing them, the appellants ran away.

3. The complainant further stated that he had taken his father to General Hospital, Bhiwani and got him admitted there. On the morning of 06.07.2001, the doctors referred his father to PGIMS, Rohtak, where he died at about 09:00 A.M. due to the injuries caused by the appellants.

4. After recording the statement of the complainant-Raj Kumar, Sub Inspector Suraj Mal made his endorsement thereon and sent the papers to the police station where FIR was recorded. The inquest proceedings were prepared. The dead body was dispatched for post mortem examination and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. He had inspected the place of occurrence and taken into possession the blood stained earth which was converted into sealed parcel.

5. On 07.07.2001, the appellants were arrested. On the basis of disclosure of Ram Kishan (appellant No.1), lathi was recovered from the disclosed place which was taken into possession and sent for forensic examination.

6. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the appellants and charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court had erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 302 /34 IPC as the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of murder. Learned counsel further submits that it is a case of blind murder and the appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity and village faction. Learned counsel further submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the sequence of events, the number of blows and the presence of certain witnesses at the spot which cast