B. K. BEHERA, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent stood charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) with having committed the murder of his uncle Chendali Gadnaik (to be described hereinafter as Tthe deceasedt) by means of lathi (Dhaura Kila used in the cart) on December 17, 1978 in village Kadapada in the district of Sambalpur. The trial court has held at a fact that one blow dealt by the respondent on the head of the deceased by the lathi he was holding caused his death. It, however, found that the charge under section 302 of the Code had not been brought home to the respondent and the case would come within the purview of section 304 Part II of the Code, the respondent having committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder without any intention to cause the death of the deceased and on being provoked by the latter on the spur of the moment. The respondent has been convicted under section 304 Part II of the Code and has been released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The State is in appeal. ( 2 ) APPEARING for the State, Mr. P. K. Mohanty has submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the charge under section 302 of the Code had been established and therefore, the trial court went wrong by improperly convicting the respondent under section 304 Part II of the Code. None has appeared for the respondent at the hearing. ( 3 ) AS would be clear from the evidence and the impugned judgment, the occurrence had taken place in most unfortunate circumstances. The respondent had challenged Gurubari Bewa (P. W. 4) as to why she had picked up quarrels with his mother. At this, the deceased who was sitting nearby took exception to such conduct on the part of the respondent and asked him not to misbehave. A quarrel ensued and on the spur of the moment and without plan or premeditation, the respondent went inside the house, abruptly brought a Dhaura Kila and dealt but one blow on the head of the deceased which unfortunately proved fatal. A quarrel ensued and on the spur of the moment and without plan or premeditation, the respondent went inside the house, abruptly brought a Dhaura Kila and dealt but one blow on the head of the deceased which unfortunately proved fatal. ( 4 ) IT cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that when one blows is given and death is caused, the offence would not amount to murder It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case coupled with the conduct of the assailant preceding, attending and following the assault and also on the weapon used and the seat of assault. In the instant case, after a sudden quarrel and without any thought, the respondent, being utterly enraged at the grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased by taking exception to the conduct of the respondent in taking another person to task for misbehaving with his mother, went inside the house, brought out an instrument and dealt but one blow on the head of the deceased. It cannot reasonably be said that the respondent had the intention of causing the death of the deceased or causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause his death. He can, however, be attributed with the knowledge that by his act, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. The order of conviction passed against the respondent under section 304 Part II of the Code cannot be said to be illegal or unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) IN similar cases, orders of conviction have been recorded under section 304 Part II of the Code. In this connection, reference may be made to the following cases: Mirza Hidayatullah Baig v. State of Maharashtra1 Shankar v. State of Madhya Pradesh Jagrup Singh v. The State of Haryana Ranbir Singh v. State of Punjab Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab Han Ram v. State of Haryana Jawahar Lal and another v. State of Punjab Tholan v. State of Tamil Nodu Lachhman Dhublia v. The State Maringa Kondh alias Krupeti v. The State Krushna Chandra Sahu v. State Mandangi Samburu v. State Sarbeswar Malik v. The State and Sukuram Khadia v. State. ( 6 ) THERE is no ground for interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed. .