back side of a heavier lethal weapon is equally dangerous as that of the front portion of the weapon. Further, a weapon axe, could be effortlessly handled in a situation like this only from its reverse side. Moreover, if a weapon like an axe is raised to launch an attack from its front side, there is every possibility for missing the target. But when the reverse portion of an axe is used, there is always lesser chance of missing the target. In our opinion, the accused had consciously used the reverse side knowing full well that it would completely damage the head portion of the victim. At any rate, the nature of weapon used by the accused speaks volumes of his intention to do away with the deceased at one stroke. It is to be borne in mind that the accused cannot canvass for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in all cases where there was only a solitary injury caused by him. 10. On a thorough scrutiny of the facts of this case we find that the accused was not armed with any weapon at the time when he was spotted by the unfortunate deceased Bahadur Singh. Having abused Bahadur Singh, he had gone downstairs of his house and selected a more cruel weapon and emerged at the scene of occurrence and launched the fatal attack on Bahadur Singh. The evidence on record would go to establish that the deceased was above 45 years and the accused-appellant was just above 28 years. The deceased was not a match to the accused-appellant. The evidence on record would go to establish that Bahadur Singh had gone to the terrace portion of his house carrying a cot for the purpose of sleeping during night. Never was he armed with any weapon. An unarmed victim had been targeted mercilessly by the accused who was armed with lethal weapon, namely, axe.
