Short Note : 1. Appellant had been convicted under section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for killing his wife by setting fire on her after pouring kerosene on 11.9.1973. 2. The appellant must thank himself for being let out for a lesser offence when he should have been convicted for the offence of murder, but in the absence of State appeal the matter cannot be reopened. The learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the case is not covered by any of the clauses to section 300 IPC. This is clearly wrong. It is settled that since no special knowledge is needed to know that one may cause death by burning if he sets fire to the clothes of a person it is obvious that the accused must have known that he was running the risk of causing the death of the victim or such bodily injury as was likely to cause her death. As he had no excuse for incurring that risk, the offence must be taken to fall within fourthly of section 300, Penal Code, in other words, his offence was culpable homicide amounting to murder even if he did not intend causing the death. He committed an act so imminently dangerous that it was in all probability likely to cause death or to result in an injury that was likely to cause death. State of M.P. vs. Rampershad, AIR 1968 SC 881 relied on. Appeal dismissed.