Judgment O.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. THIS is an appeal by Zahid Ali, who was convicted by Sessions Judge, Mainpuri under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by his order dated 3-8-77. 2. THE charge against the appellant was that on 22nd October 1976 at about 1 p. m. in Mohalla Chhapatti, police station Kotwali in the town of Mainpuri, he committed murder of Jamil alias Bhalle. THE occurrence is said to have taken place while Jamil was going to the market and was passing in front of the house of Smt. Sappa. It is alleged that the appellant suddenly came out from the house of his sister Smt. Sappa and gave a single knife blow on the abdomen of Jamil. He then took out the knife and ran away. THE occurrence is said to have been witnessed by PW 2 Shahab Uddin and PW 3 Latif. THE first information report of this occurrence was lodged by Mazhar Hussain, brother of the deceased at police station Kotwali which was at a distance of five furlongs from the spot, soon after this occurrence at .2.05 p. m. As regards the motive, it was alleged in the first information report that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased two days back. Soon after this occurrence, informant Mazhar Hussain had taken the deceased to the Hospital where he was medically examined by Dr. B. K. Misra PW 4 at 1.30 p. m. and was found to have received the following injury :- "Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1.6 cm x abdomen cavity deep on the front of the abdomen at 1 cm. from the umbilicus at 1 O'clock position. The wound was slightly oblique, otherwise it was vertically placed. The margins were clean cut and sharp. The wound was spindle shaped. Fresh bleeding was present. Omentum was coming out of the wound." The injury was fresh and was caused by some sharp edged and pointed weapon. This was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. General condition was poor. The patient was in shock and in condition of peripheral vascular collapse. Pulse was 14 per minute. The blood pressure was 90/60. The patient was sinking. Dr. Misra dressed the wound, gave life saving drugs and made arrangements for the supply of oxygen. 3. SOON thereafter at 1.35 p. m. Dr. B. K. Misra sent letter Ex. The patient was in shock and in condition of peripheral vascular collapse. Pulse was 14 per minute. The blood pressure was 90/60. The patient was sinking. Dr. Misra dressed the wound, gave life saving drugs and made arrangements for the supply of oxygen. 3. SOON thereafter at 1.35 p. m. Dr. B. K. Misra sent letter Ex. Ka-5 to Sri P. D. Khare, Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate, Mainpuri PW 5 who arrived at the hospital at 1.45 p. m. and recorded the dying declaration of injured Jamil alias Bhalle which was Ex. Ka-4. In this dying declaration, Jamil stated that at about 1.30 a. m. when he was going from his house for ' Par Bandhane ' and had reached near the house of Gajju. in Mohalla Chhapatti that Zahid Ali stabbed in his abdomen with a knife beneath the Neem tree. Regarding motive he stated that the accused had no particular enmity with him but he used to ask his nephews to move about with a pistol and learn the art of quarrelling and lighting. Whereupon he objected and protested is to why he was misguiding his nephews and teaching them bad habits and on this account Zahid Ali had started feeling inimical towards him. 4. ON the basis of the report lodged by PW 1 Mazhar Hussain at 2.05 p. m. on that day a case under section 324 IPC was registered against the appellant and investigation was entrusted to S. I. Vikram Singh PW 9. He interrogated the informant at the police station and went to the spot where he recorded the statements of Latif and Shahabuddin, inspected the spot and prepared site-plan Ex. Ka-14. He searched for the accused but he was not found. He then went to the District Hospital bit Jamil alias Bhalle had succumbed to his injuries on the same day at 4.45 p.m. At about 6.30 p.m. the Investigating Officer prepared inquest report and other papers and sent the dead body for postmortem-examination. The autopsy was performed by Dr. I. S. Tomar on the next day i.e. 23-10-76 at 1 p. m. He found that the deceased was aged about 22 years and was of average built. He found the following ante-mortem injury :- "Stab wound 2.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. s abdominal cavity deep over left side abdomen, 1 cm. away from umbilicus at 1 O'clock position. Margins were clean cut. He found the following ante-mortem injury :- "Stab wound 2.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. s abdominal cavity deep over left side abdomen, 1 cm. away from umbilicus at 1 O'clock position. Margins were clean cut. Upper angle was sharp and lower angle was blunt. There was tapering upwards. It was placed vertically. A piece of omentum was coming out from the wound." On internal examination the doctor found that the abdominal wall was cut through and through under the injury. The peritoneum was cut and punctured under the injury. The cavity contained about 5 Lbs of blood. The abdomen was cut and punctured through anterior and posterior wall in lower part of stomach. It was empty. Root of mesentery was cut and a huge blood clot was present in mesentary. The small intestine was full. The mesentery of transverse colon was cut and a huge clot of blood was present inside the mesentery. The large intestine was half full. The pancreas were cat and punctured at lower side. In the opinion of doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury (vide post-mortem report Ex. Ka-10). 5. S. I. Vikram Singh could not succeed in his efforts to arrest the accused till 31-1-77 when he was transferred and the investigation was taken up by S. I. Ram Swarup Gautam PW 8. The accused had surrendered in court on 25-1-77. The Investigating Officer then submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka-9 against the accused on 29-3-77. 6. OUT of the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, only two viz PW 2 Shahabuddin and PW 3 Latif are eye witnesses of this occurrence who have fully supported the prosecution case. PW 2 Shahabuddin Sirajuddin alias Gajju whose house is close to the house of Smt. S-s the son of the north and has been shown in the site-plan. The evidence skppa towards accused used to live in the house of Smt. Sappa, who was his sister, ows that the is also a resident of the same Mohalla. According to these with of PW 3 Latif returning from the Bazar at about 1 or 1.30 p. m. when they sajes they were giving a knife blow to Jamil and then ran away towards the mosquav the accused According to them this occurrence took place on the Rasta in from in the north, of Smt. Sappa and Gajju. According to these with of PW 3 Latif returning from the Bazar at about 1 or 1.30 p. m. when they sajes they were giving a knife blow to Jamil and then ran away towards the mosquav the accused According to them this occurrence took place on the Rasta in from in the north, of Smt. Sappa and Gajju. As the accused was arnied with a knife) of the house make any attempt to catch hold of him of to has him on acc they did not PW 1 Mazhar Hussain is informant of this-case is brother of vunt of tear. His house was at a distance of about 40 or 50 steps from the place opsmlmm He is not an eye witness of this occurrence. He gave evidence regarding motive and stated that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and deceased about two or three days prior to this occurrence, He was at his house when this occurrence took place. On hearing the alarm he reached the spot and found his brother lying on the way with knife injury on the abdomen. Witnesses Shahab- uddin, Latif and Mohammad Shah, who were present there told him how accused Zahid Ali had stabbed his brother with a knife. This witness then took his injured brother to the hospital and then went to the Kotwali where he lodged the first information report. The accused pleaded not guilty. In his statement before the court he gave his age as 16-17 years but the Sessions Judge made a note that he appeared to be about 18-20 years old. He admitted that Smt. Sappa was his sister but denied that he lived there. He denied the prosecution version regarding the motive as well as the occurrence. According to him he lived in Mohalla Hajipur in the town of Firozabad where he was doing that job of cutting glass bangles. He stated that he was a witness against Mazhar Hussain in a case under section 107/117 Cr. P.C. As regards the witnesses, he deposed that he had no enmity with them and he did not know why they were deposing against him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. 7. He stated that he was a witness against Mazhar Hussain in a case under section 107/117 Cr. P.C. As regards the witnesses, he deposed that he had no enmity with them and he did not know why they were deposing against him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. 7. THE learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution witnesses and held that the prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of the two eye witnesses and the dying declaration and further corroborated by medical evidence and other attending circumstances. In his opinion the dying declaration alone was sufficient to fix the guilt of the accused. Accordingly he convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 302 IPC as mentioned above. 8. LEARNED counsel for the appellant raised two contentions before us. In the first place it was urged that the prosecution witnesses were not reliable, the motive alleged by the prosecution was very weak and flimsy and that the prosecution version as narrated in -the first information report and supported by the prosecution witnesses did not tally with the version given in the dying declaration and hence it could not be said with any amount of certainty that this murder had been committed by the appellant. Secondly, it was contended that even if the prosecution version was to be believed the appellant cannot be held guilty for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 IPC but it would only be a case of culpable homicide punishable under Part II of section 304 IPC. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the entire material on the record. We do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This was a case in which the occurrence had taken place in broad-day-light on a road. There were two eye witnesses who fully supported the prosecution case. They were entiely independent and reliable and no axe to grind against the accused. Even the accused did not allege any amity with them. There was no reason why these independent and reliable witnesses would have un-necessarily come forward to implicate the appellant in case of this nature. The first information report had been lodged soon after the occurrence without any delay. Even the accused did not allege any amity with them. There was no reason why these independent and reliable witnesses would have un-necessarily come forward to implicate the appellant in case of this nature. The first information report had been lodged soon after the occurrence without any delay. The injured was first taken to the Hospital who his injuries were examined at 1.30 p. m. and his dying declaration was recorded at 1.45 p. m. in which he clearly stated that he had been stabbed by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge rightly observed that the dying declaration alne was sufficient to fix the guilt of the accused. The mere fact that there we slight difference regarding the motive as stated by the deceased in his dying declaration and as mentioned in the first information report does not throw any dobt on the veracity of the prosecution case regarding the occurrence itself'.' The deceased gave the details as to why the accused had started feeling inimical towards him while the first information report which was lodged by the brother of the deceased simply recites that some quarrel had taken place between his brother and the accused. There was no discrepancy in the two versions and in a case of this nature it was immaterial that the motive was not very strong. Much depends on the nature and mental bent up of the accused. Some people start feeling grudge on trifling matters and go to the extent of committing heinous crimes. Moreover when there is eye witness testimony and dying declaration or the deceased recorded shortly before his death, it becomes immaterial as to whether the motive for the crime was strong or weak one. We find ourselves entirely in agreement with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the occurrence had taken place at the time and place and in the manner alleged by the prosecution and that it was the appellant who stabbed Jamil alias Bhalle in the abdomen, as. a result of which he died after about three hours of the stabbing. 9. THE main question for determination before us is as to whether the offence committed by the appellant was one of murder punishable under section 302 IPC or whether it was an offence of culpable homicide punishable under section 304 IPC. a result of which he died after about three hours of the stabbing. 9. THE main question for determination before us is as to whether the offence committed by the appellant was one of murder punishable under section 302 IPC or whether it was an offence of culpable homicide punishable under section 304 IPC. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that it was a case of single knife injury and that the motive alleged by the prosecution was also flimsy and as no attempt was made to inflict a second blow, it cannot be said that the appellant gave the knife blow which caused the death of Jamil with the intention of causing death. According to him the fact of the appellant was not covered within any of the Four clauses of section 300 IPC and consequently he could not be convicted for the offence of murder under section 302 IPC but could only be convicted for the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Part II of section 304 IPC. 10. IN support of his contention he relied upon certain rulings of the Supreme Court and this Court. Having carefully considered the rulings cited at the Bar and having carefully considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that none of the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The manner in which the appellant gave the knife blow and the force with which the same was given clearly indicates that the said blow was given with the intention of causing death. It is noteworthy that this blow was not given on the spur of the moment or in a sudden quarrel but this was a pre-meditated assault in which the appellant attacked the victim who was defenceless and was passing by the road without the least provocation. On seeing Jamil alias Bhalle passing in front of the house the appellant suddenly emerged out of the house armed with a knife in his hand, ran towards him and gave a single knife blow on a vital part of the body viz. On seeing Jamil alias Bhalle passing in front of the house the appellant suddenly emerged out of the house armed with a knife in his hand, ran towards him and gave a single knife blow on a vital part of the body viz. abdomen with such force that the abdominal wall, the peritoneum and the abdomen were cut and punctured through and through, the mesentery and transverse colon and the pancreas were also cut and punctured and the deceased died in the hospital after about three hours of the occurrence. As such it cannot be said that the appellant had no intention to cause death or such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the victim. 11. WE now proceed to distinguish the rulings cited on behalf of the appellant and show how they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In AIR 1958 SC 465 Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab and AIR 1968 SC 867 Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration, the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court were considering the scope and applicability of clause ' Thirdly ' of section 300 IPC which deals with a case where "the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death". These decisions do not deal with a case where the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, which is covered by First clause of section 300 IPC. In para 9 of the judgment in Virsa Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court itself observed that" if there was an intention to inflict an injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the intention is to kill and in that event, the "thirdly" would be unnecessary because the act would fall under the first part of the section, namely- "If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death." 12. IN the present case there is no question of the applicability of the third part of "thirdly" of section 300 [PC because the act of the appellant was clearly covered by the first part of section 300 IPC inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the case as also the medical evidence clearly indicate that the appellant gave the knife blow with the intention of causing death. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jawahar Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 284 . This decision is also of no help to the appellant inasmuch as in that case the accused had no malice against the deceased and had also no quarrel with him and the solitary knife blow had been given in the back-ground of a trivial quarrel with another person. In that case Sardari Lal had raised Lalkaras and exhorted the appellants to catch hold of Amrik Singh whereupon appellant Jawahar Lal gave a dagger blow on the chest of Darshan Singh. The present case is, however, distinguishable inasmuch as the assault in this case was premeditated and the appellant had rushed out at the deceased by surprise and had given him a deadly knife blow on the abdomen. 13. RELIANCE was also placed on Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 463 . That was also a case of sudden quarrel on the spur of moment arising out of trivial reason on chance meeting of the parties and there was no premeditation or malice. Consequently this decision is also of no help to the appellant. Similar was the case with Sheo Prasad v. State of U. P., 1985 A. Cr. R. 81 in which a single knife blow was given in the course of a sudden quarrel without any premeditation and there was no intention to cause that injury although the same was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. That was also a case where attempt was being made to bring the case within section 300 Thirdly ' as the case was not covered within the first part of section 300 IPC. Lastly Rameshwar v. State of U. P., 1986 A. Cr. R. 421 was also a case where the assault was made all of sudden and the same was not premeditated. Lastly Rameshwar v. State of U. P., 1986 A. Cr. R. 421 was also a case where the assault was made all of sudden and the same was not premeditated. Thus, none of the rulings cited on behalf of the appellant is applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. IN our opinion the case was clearly covered by the First part of section 300 IPC inasmuch as the act of the appellant was premeditated and it was an unprovocated and cowardly assault upon a defenceless person passing by the road. IN Suraj Prasad v. King Emperor, a Division Bench of the Oudh Chief Court held that where the accused committed an unprovocated and cowardly assault upon the deceased rushing out at him by surprise and striking him one blow alone upon the head with a laflhi and the blow fractured the skull of the deceased, the offence was murder. Similarly in Sheo Prasad v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Oudh 174 it was held that where the accused using his spear as lathi gives a violent blow over the head which has the result of fracturing the skull of the deceased and killing him on the spot, the offence committed was murder. It was however, observed that where the offence was not premeditated the court could refuse to pass capital sentence. The case at hand stands on a strong footing inasmuch as the assault in this case was also premeditated inasmuch as the appellant came out from the house and suddenly stabbed the deceased in the abdomen, without any provocation or' altercation. IN Kantibhai Dalsukhbhai Patel v. State of Gujrat, 1980 Cr. A.R. 88 (SC) the appellant had given a single blow on the head of the deceased which caused an extensive injury resulting in fracture of the skull. HONOURABLE Supreme Court held that the appellant was rightly convicted under section 302 instead of section 304 IPC. For the reasons given above we are fully convinced that the single knife blow given by the appellant was; premeditated and that this was a case of unprovocated and cowardly assault upon a defenceless person, which does not leave the least doubt that the knife blow was given with the intention of causing death. Consequently the offence committed by the appellant was clearly covered within the First part of section 300 IPC. Consequently the offence committed by the appellant was clearly covered within the First part of section 300 IPC. As such the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in convicting the appellant under section 302 IPC. 15. IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment inflicted on him are maintained. He is on bail. He shalil be taken into custody forth-with and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed.