Short Note : 1. On 31-5-1974, Fakira alias Buddha was driving a truck loaded with stones. On the way another truck, came behind this truck which was being driven by Gorelal (P.W. 5). It was alleged that Gorelal by blowing the horn wanted the truck driven by Buddba to give side to him so that he could pass and go ahead but Buddha did not give side. However, after a short distance, Gorelal overtook the truck driven by Buddha in such manner that Buddha had to stop his truck. The two appellants, at that time, were said to have been in the truck driven by Gorelal. They got down from the truck and appellant AJaisingh gave some filthy abuses and asked Buddha as to why Buddha had not given side and stopped the truck earlier. When Buddha objected to this behaviour, appellant Ajaisingh whipped out his knife, but Buddha caught hold of the hand of appellant Ajaisingh, At this appellant Ajaisingh called out the other appellant for help. Appellant Dadulle Singh inflicted repeated stab wounds on Buddha. As a result of this, Buddha loosened his grip of appellant Ajaisingh's hand. At that moment, appellant Ajaisingh inflected a stab wound on Buddha and both appellants ran away. Appellants had challenged their conviction under section 307, IPC. 2. Held: The prosecution has not led any evidence to show that appellant Dadulle had any intention or motive to murder Buddha There was no enimity in between them either. On a consideration of the circumstances, it is quite clear that on a very trifling matter the quarrel started in between Buddha and appellant Ajaisingh. As is the prosecution evidence, Buddha had caught hold of the hand of appellant Ajaisingh. Appellant Dadulle had tried to open the driver's side door of the truck, but he failed. The attempt of appellant Dadulle appears to be only to see that Buddha would release the hand of appellant Ajaisingh. The Additional Sessions Judge in the deposition of Buddha (P W, 1) has at the end made a note that Fakira was a tall man of very sound health, Thus in the circumstances, in stabing appellant Dadulle cannot be said to have had the motive to kill him and, therefore, no intention to murder or to cause any injury which may result in the death of Buddha could be inferred. That apart, Dr. That apart, Dr. Gupta (P.W. 10) was not questioned at all as to whether the injury or any of them on the body of Buddha could have resulted in his death. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the benefit has to go to appellant Dadulle. For these reasons, the conviction of appellant Dadulle for an offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be upheld. He is however guilty for an offence under section 326 of the Indian renal Code. Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 , relied on. Jai Narain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 1764 , referred to. Appeal partly allowed.