Judgment Singaravelu, J.-The appellant herein has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge (IX Additional), Madras, for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of one Murugan at 10-30 p.m. on 7th September, 1980, at Canal Bank Road, Namasivayapuram, Choolaimedu and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hence the appeal. 2. The following facts are gathered from the records of the case. The appellant is a young boy aged about 19 years and a washerman by profession. Deceased Murugan was also a wasierman residing in the same place. There is an oven for steam washing the clothes near the place of occurrence. The deceased was residing at East Namasivayapuram and the appellant was residing at West Namasivayapuram, and there is just a small road dividing East and West Namasivayapuram. It appears that the oven is common and the deceased was also making use of that oven for steam washing the clothes. Nevertheless, this was objected to by the appellant on the ground that the deceased need not come to that oven and he can wash clothes somewhere else. This objection was brought to the notice of the brother of the appellant by the deceased and he took the appellant to task and asked him to keep quiet. Therefore, there was some bitterness between the two on account of this. 3. On the date of occurrence i.e., on 7th September, 1980, a1 about 10.30 p.m.., deceased Murugan was lying outside his house after night-meals at the place marked in the sketch Exhibit P-11. At that time, a girl P.W. 4 Nagu, who is also residing in the same locality, was proceeding to get tea, and Murugan, who was lying, sarcastically remarked whether she was going in search of the accused insinuating thereby that she was going in search of her lover. P.W. 4 did not answer and went away, but the appellant himself was loitering somewhere near the temple and when he learnt that the deceased taunted her as aforesaid, the appellant immediately came to the place where the deceased was lying and challenged him stating that he was always making fun of him and that he will stab his and tear his abdomen. So saying, the appellant took a knife from his waist and stabbed Murugan on his left chest. This was witness by P.W. 1, wife of the deceased and also by P.Ws. So saying, the appellant took a knife from his waist and stabbed Murugan on his left chest. This was witness by P.W. 1, wife of the deceased and also by P.Ws. 2 and 3, who are all neighbours. When the witnesses ran to the scene, the appellant slipped away (with the knife and the victim died almost instantaneously. 4. P.W. 1, wife of the deceased, then went to Choolaimedu Police Station at 10.50 p.m., and gave the first information report, Exhibit P-1 to P.W.9. This was registered under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and investigation immediately started by sending express reports to the higher officials. Meanwhile, the accused ran to Kodambakkam police station and surrendered himself before the police informing them about the occurrence. The Investigating Officer P.W. 9 proceeded to the scene of occurrence within a short-while and then proceeded to Kodambakkam Police Station where the appellant had taken shelter. The appellant was interrogated and he made a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P-2. In pursuance of the same, the appellant took the police party to a house near Choolaimedu and took out M.O. 5 knife from a thorn bush which was recovered by the police under a mahazar Exhibit P-3 attested by a local witness, P. W. 7 and another. The Investigating Officer then returned to the scene of occurrence and after preparing the observation mahazar and conducting inquest over the dead body from 12.30 a.m. and 3.15 a.m. sent the dead body to the General Hospital for autopsy. P.W. 151 also seized the blood stained clothes M.Os. 1 to 4. M.Os. 1 to 5 were sent for chemical examination through Court and they revealed human blood stains. 5. P.W. 13, Dr. Balakrishna Rao, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicines, conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased on 8th March, 1980, and found on him a stab injury on the left side of the chest measuring 3.5 X 1 X 15 cm. cutting the lobe of left lung and piering the left side of the chest and also the pulmonary artery and bronchus (wind pipe) on the left side. According to the Doctor, the deceased would have died as a result of the stab injury to the heart, and left lung. Exhibit P-13 is the post mortem certificate. He opined that the knife M.O 5 could have caused the injury on the deceased. 6. According to the Doctor, the deceased would have died as a result of the stab injury to the heart, and left lung. Exhibit P-13 is the post mortem certificate. He opined that the knife M.O 5 could have caused the injury on the deceased. 6. The accused was sent by the police for examination of the injury on his person and P.W. 14 examined him and found an incised wound ¾" in length on the index finger on the right hand. The injury was simple and Exhibit P-14 is the extract from the accident register. According to the Doctor, if a person holds a knife M. O. 5 and assaults another, such an injury could have been caused. 7. As already stated, the appellant was arrested by P.W. 15 on 7th September, 1980, itself at 11.15 p.m. and after completing the investigation, P.W. 15 laid charge sheet against the appellant. 8. When the appellant was questioned under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, he pleaded not guilty and stated that he did not stab Murugan. 9. Mr. N. Doraiswami, learned Counsel engaged by the Madras District Committee for Legal Aid and Advice argued the case of the appellant before us. 10. Now, we have three eye witnesses for the occurrence. P.W. 1 Muniammal is none else than the wife of the victim, who is a resident of Namasivayapuram, very close to the residents of the appellant. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are also residents of that locality and they are also washermen by profession. They all have stated that on the night in question, they saw the appellant coming to the place where Murugan was lying and after a short altercation, the appellant stabbed Murugan on his chest with M.O. 5 and left the scene. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are not chance witnesses and they are competent to speak to the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge, accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and found that the appellant was responsible for the assault on the deceased. 11. The medical evidence furnished by P.W. 13 also fits in with the evidence of the eye witnesses. There was absolutely no delay in laying the complaint. The occurrence was at 10.30 p.m. and the first information report was laid at 10.50 p.m. itself. 1 to 3 and found that the appellant was responsible for the assault on the deceased. 11. The medical evidence furnished by P.W. 13 also fits in with the evidence of the eye witnesses. There was absolutely no delay in laying the complaint. The occurrence was at 10.30 p.m. and the first information report was laid at 10.50 p.m. itself. The appellant himself has been apprehended at Kodambakkam police station at 11.15 p.m. The inquest started at 12.30 a.m., the same night and therefore everything was done very promptly. 12. With reference to the reason for this assault, we have the evidence that the appellant and the deceased were not on cordial terms, since the appellant had objected to the deceased using the oven near the river bed. The immediate provocation was that the deceased taunted a girl P.W. 4 by asking whether she was going in search of her lover. All these factors taken together clearly show that the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased by stabbing him with a knife, M.O. 5. 13. But, the more important point for consideration is, whether the offence would come under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Doraiswami learned Counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that this is a case of inflicting a single stab and it was not a pre-meditated attack with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. The learned Counsel cited several rulings of the Supreme Court before us and they are as follows: In Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab1, the Supreme Court has held that in a case of a single stab after a short quarrel, section 302 cannot be attracted, since the accused could not be said to have had the intention to commit the murder of the deceased. In that case also, there was no pre-meditation and it was like a hit and run. Hari Ram v. State of Haryana2, was also a case of a single stab dealt in the heat of altercation and intention to kill was not apparent. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, is not proper and that the offence would properly come under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, is not proper and that the offence would properly come under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. In Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana3, the Supreme Court observed that whether the offence would fall under section 302 or under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, would depend upon the intention or the absence of intention to cause death. The nature of the intention must be gathered from the kind of weapon used and the circumstances attendant upon that case. In that case, the Supreme Court held that on the totality of the evidence before it, it would not be possible to come to the conclusion that when the appellant struck the deceased with the blunt side of a gandhala, he intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injury was caused in the heat of the moment without pre-meditation and therefore it was held that that case was covered by Exception IV to section 300, Indian Penal Code. 14. Applying these principles to the facts of our case, we are of opinion that the ratio found in these case; is applicable to the case on hand. Here is a case where there was no premeditation. The deceased was lying after his night-meal at 10-30 a.m. and there was no confrontation between the appellant and the deceased. It was just by accident that ‘the girl P.W. 4 passed that side and the deceased happened to mock at her. The appellant himself who is a young boy aged 19 years, was standing some where near that place, and when he heard this, he immediately rushed and in a heat of fury and passion, he dealt one single below on the chest of the deceased, which proved to be fatal. Taking all the factors into consideration, we are of opinion that the conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained and that it would be proper to convict the appellant only under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code. 15. Before parting with this case, we would like to point out that in this case, the appellant was examined by the Doctor, P.W. 14, immediately after the occurrence and an injury, was found on his person. 15. Before parting with this case, we would like to point out that in this case, the appellant was examined by the Doctor, P.W. 14, immediately after the occurrence and an injury, was found on his person. In explaining that injury, the appellant told the Doctor, P.W. 14 that the came was caused while he stabbed deceased Murugan a little while earlier. This part of the statement found in Exhibit P-14 was shut out by the learned trial Judge as inadmissible in evidence. This in our opinion, is erroneous. In N. Padayachi v. State of Tamil Nadu1, it has been held that the statement of an accused before a Doctor even though he was in custody of the police, is admissible in evidence however incriminating it may be. The Supreme Court pointed out that the statement of the appellant (accused) does not amount to a confession and that it is only an admission of fact, no doubt an incriminating fact, which establishes the presence of the accused at the time of the occurrence. The Supreme Court further observed that an admission of a fact, however incriminating, but not by itself establishing the guilt of the maker of such admission, would not amount to confession within the meaning of sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act. Of course, now that this portion has been shut out from the evidence, we are not looking into that portion for the purpose of the case and this observation is made only for future guidance of the Sessions Judges and the Public Prosecutors. 16. The result of our discussion is that the conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, is modified and the appellant is convicted under section 304,. Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. To the above extent, the appeal will stand allowed and will stand dismissed in other respects.