The prosecution story in brief is that there was some dispute regarding damage of auto of Sunil Vishwakarma between Sunil (appellant no.1) and deceased Panju alias Santosh on 8.5.2003 around 6:00 O'Clock in the morning, the appellant no.1 Sunil had gone to the house of the deceased and told him that he had damaged his auto, therefore, he demanded money from him.Deceased replied that he did not damage the auto and he would not pay the money.There were heated exchange of words between both the persons in this regard.On the next day, at around 6:30 in the morning when deceased was going to open his shop, appellant Sunil and his sisters co-appellants Sushila and Asha had beaten the deceased by lathis.He fell down.After hearing cry of the deceased, other persons came on the spot.The report of incident was lodged by Neeraj, brother of the 11deceased, at the police station.At that time, I was preparing tea.The deceased told the appellant that he had not damaged the auto, therefore, he would not pay the money.There was a quarrel between them and Sunil had slapped the deceased.Thereafter I went inside the house to take tea.When I came out from the house after taking tea, I heard the sound of Panju and thereafter Neeraj, my father-in-law, Ajay, Vijay had rushed at the spot and we heard cry of the deceased, which was coming from the field of Jagidsh Patel.Then we had seen that the appellant No.1 and his two sisters had been beating 4 Cr.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.the deceased by lathis.Thereafter, we had taken the body of the deceased beneath a mango tree and Neeraj had gone to lodge the report at police station.Neeraj Kumar Pathak (P.W.4), who is the brother of the deceased, deposed that Sunil had dashed the auto with a wall.However, he was demanding money from Santosh.On the next day, at around 6:00 O' Clock appellant Sunil came in his auto, he had told the deceased that he had damaged his auto, hence, he would pay the money.Deceased replied that he had not damaged the auto, hence, he would not pay the money.At that time, he had slapped the deceased and ran away.At around 6-6:30 when deceased was going to open the shop, I heard the cry of deceased.I along with Ram Sunder Verma, Ajay and Vijay went on the spot and we had seen appellants Sunil, Asha and Sushila had been beating the deceased.Thereafter, I went to lodge the report.Dehati Nalishi Ex.P.2, and Dehati Marg Ex.P.3, were registered.I signed the same.Thereafter, I signed Panchanama Ex.Hiralal Patel (P.W.6) deposed that when I was in the house, I had heard the cry of Neeraj.Thereafter, I came out from the house and had seen that the appellants were running towards the field of Jagdish Patel.Sunita Patnaha (P.W.1), Sub-Inspector, deposed that on 8.5.2003 I was posted at City Kotwali, Rewa and Sub- Inspector R.K.Mishra registered a Dehati Nalishi, which was recorded on the basis of report of Neeraj.On the basis of Dehati Nalish, FIR was registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Rewa vide Ex.I signed the same.Arun Kumar Gautam (P.W.2) deposed that on 8.5.2003 I was posted as Constable at Police Station Civil Lines, Rewa.Dehati Nalish was registered and marg was also recorded.14. R.K.Mishra (P.W.9), who is the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 8.5.2003 I was posted as Sub-Inspector at City Kotwali, Rewa.On the aforesaid date, near about 7:30 in the morning Neeraj S/o Rajendra submitted a report against the appellant.Dehati Nalishi was prepared, which is Ex.I prepared Panchanama of dead-body, which is Ex.P.5 and spot map, which is Ex.I inquired from the appellants about the incident and on their memorandums, Ex.I also seized plain earth and red earth from the spot vide seizure memo, Ex.Accused persons were arrested on 8.5.2003 vide Exs.15. PW-3 Geeta Verma and PW-4 Neeraj Kumar Pathak are eye-witnesses of the case.As per the deposition of PW- 3, she had heard the voice of the deceased and thereafter, she had seen that Sunil and his sisters namely Sushila and Asha had been beating the deceased by lathies.In her cross- examination, she admitted the fact that at the time of incident, marriage of appellant No.1-Sunil was to be performed and the family members had been making arrangements for the marriage.Accused's sisters had come to participate in the marriage.Dehati marg was recorded and on the basis of aforesaid marg, first information report was recorded.The police conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet against all the three accused persons.The appellants abjured their guilt They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case.The trial court, after trial, held the appellants guilty for commission of offence 3 Cr.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.punishable under section 302 of IPC and awarded the sentence of life.The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the trial court has committed an error of law in holding the appellants guilty for commission of offence.In alternate, the learned Senior counsel has submitted that the offence alleged against the appellant Sunil could be under section 304-I of IPC and the offence against appellant nos.2 and 3 could be 323 of IPC.Contrary to this, the learned counsel for State has submitted that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.The trial court has appreciated the evidence properly.Prosecution examined total 9 witnesses and appellants examined 2 witnesses in their defence.Geeta Verma (P.W.3) deposed that Sunil had come to the house of deceased with his auto and he had made a demand of money from the deceased about the damage of auto.I had only seen Sunil along with lathi.I had not seen any other person.Ram Sunder Verma (P.W.7) deposed the same facts that I had heard the sound of Neeraj.I reached on the spot and saw that appellants had been beating the deceased.Thereafter, they ran away from the spot.Deceased was found dead.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.Thereafter, I had taken the report to the City Kotwali and on that basis FIR was registered.Dr. V.K.Sharma (P.W.8) deposed that on 8.5.2003 I was posted as Instructor in the Forensic Department at S.S.Medical College, Rewa.I had performed the post mortem of deceased.I had noticed following injuries on the person of the body of the deceased:-One abrasion 2.5 x 1 cm on the left side of the neck .One abrasion 10 x 8 cm on the left side of the neck.Injuries 10 x 8 cm, 10 x 4 cm and 12 x 4 cm on the below chest.One bruise 1 x 1 cm at upper side of right hand.One bruise 6 . 4 cm on left side of the upper armOne swelling and injury 5 x 4 cm on temporal region."A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.On internal examination, I noticed hematoma 5 x 12 cm on the head.There was a fracture of temporal and parietal bone of the head.I had given opinion that the deceased was died due to injuries suffered by him on his head.P.2 and I signed the same.Thereafter I visited the place of incident and a marg intimation, Ex.P.2, was sent.The distance between the residence of the PW-3 and the residence of the accused Sunil is 200 meters.She 7 Cr.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.further admitted that before half an our of the incident, there was a dispute between Sunil and deceased in regard to damage of auto.PW-4 Neeraj Kumar Pathak is the brother of the deceased.As per his evidence, he was going to open his shop and then he had heard the cry of the deceased 'save me.' Thereafter, he reached at the place and he had seen that accused persons had been beating the deceased.The report of the incident was lodged at the police station.In his cross-examination, he admitted the fact that the distance between the houses of Sunil and Panju is about 300 meters.He further admitted the fact that appellant No.2-Sushila used to live at Kharhari and appellant No.3-Asha at Dhanpuri.Both had come to attend the marriage.17. PW-5 Shri Krishna Kori is neighbor of the deceased.He deposed that after hearing the cry, he came out form his house and he had seen that Sunil was running towards his house with lathi and deceased had received injuries.He denied the fact in his cross-examination that he had seen Sushila and Asha running from the spot.18. PW-6 Heeralal Patel deposed that he had seen all the three accused persons running from the spot.Same facts have been deposed by PW-7 Ramsundar Verma.The doctor (PW-8), who performed autopsy of the deceased deposed that he had noticed six injuries on the person of the body of the deceased.There was an injury on the left temporal region of the head and on internal examination, there was hematoma on temporal parietal 8 Cr.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.There was fracture of parietal bone also.He opined that the deceased died due to injuries suffered by him on the head.The evidence of doctor establishes the fact that the deceased was not beaten by three persons namely Sushila, Asha and Sunil.As per the prosecution case, there was a quarrel between the appellant No. 1-Sunil and the deceased because the appellant No. 1 made a demand from the deceased to pay the money because deceased had damaged his auto.It is also a fact that the marriage of the appellant No.1-Sunil was fixed and the appellants No.2 and 3 had come to attend the marriage and preparations of the marriage of the appellant No.1 was going on in the house.It is unbelievable that two female members will accompany a male member with lathies to beat the deceased.The evidence depicts that the appellants No.2 and 3 have been roped in and falsely implicated with the case.The trial Court, in our opinion, has committed an error in holding the appellants No.2 and 3 guilty for the offence.In regard to appellant No.1 there is evidence that he had inflicted one injury on vital part of the person of deceased i.e. on the head and other injuries on non-vital parts.The doctor in his evidence opined that cause of death was the injury which was on the head of the deceased.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun and another vs State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 3 SCC 247 has 9 Cr.He had come at the residence of the deceased, which is at a distance of near about 300 meters from the residence of the appellant No.1, and asked the deceased that why he had damaged his auto and directed him to pay the money.Thereafter, there was quarrel.That time the appellant No.1-Sunil had given blows of lathi on the person of the body of the deceased.One blow landed on the head of the deceased, which was the cause of death of the deceased.Thus, the incident occurred due to sudden altercation and the appellant No.1 had not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel manner.Hence, in our opinion, in view of the evidence on record, exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC is applicable.Hence, the offence committed by the appellant No.1-Sunil would a be a case of Section 304 part I of IPC.A.No.1504/2004 Sunil & others Vs.State of M.P.Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants No.2- Sushila Vishwakrma and appellant No.3-Asha Vishwakarma is hereby allowed.They are acquitted form the charge under Section 302 of IPC.They are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.The Appeal filed by the appellant No.1-Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma is partly allowed.Hence, he has completed actual jail sentence of near about 13 and half years.

Cited provisions: Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code