the scene of the incident panchanama at Exh. 8 and by referring to the evidence of PW 1 – Dashrath, has urged before us that the gate of the Company was on the eastern side and, therefore, it would be impossible for PW 5 – Ranjanabai to have witnessed the incident while standing outside her room. Mr. Karnik, learned counsel for the appellant has further urged before us that in the light of the fact that Ranjanabai is a solitary witness, the evidence is not of such quality as would inspire the confidence of the court for its implicit acceptance. In the alternative, it is urged by Mr. Karnik, learned counsel for the appellant, that the assault on deceased by the appellant was not a premeditated assault and it was on account of a sudden quarrel and, therefore, exception 4 of Section 300 would apply and the appellant would, at the most, be liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The learned APP has urged before us that the assault on the deceased, though may have been in the heat of the quarrel between them, yet the appellant had inflicted the injuries to deceased which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and the appellant had acted with cruelty by inflicting 3 to 4 blows of the wooden rod.
