K.S. LODHA, J.—Shaitan Singh has been convicted under section 302 IPC. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on 30.4.81. He has come up in appeal. 2. The only contention raised before us in this case is about the offence which can be attributed to the appellant. The fact that he had caused injuries to the deceased with a knife resulting into the death of the victim has not been disputed before us 3. In view of the limited argument raised before us we shall only state the facts relevant for that purpose. 4. The deceased Anil Kumar was employed as a helper in the New Power House, Jodhpur, where the accused Shaitan Singh was also employed as a helper and truck driver. It is alleged that at about 10 or 10 30 am on 26 6 80 when Shaitan Singh was sitting with some other persons on a cement bench in the power house, Anil Kumar came there. Anil Kumar asked the accused Shaitan Singh why he was involving him in the letter episode The story behind this accusation was that a personal latter of the accused Shaitan Singh had been opened by some one and the accused was suspecting Anil Kumar to have done so. On this some altercation took place between Shaitan Singh and Am! Kumar and they grappled and pulled at each others collars, however, at that time they are separated by other persons, who were present there. The story further is that at about 1 P.M. when Anil Kumar and one Chander Singh were sitting in the room of the Junior Engineer after having taking their meals, the accused Shaitan Singh came there. He stood by the side of Anil Kumar for a moment and then pulled out a knife from his pocket and gave a blow with it on the chest of Anil Kumar and ran away. Chander Singh raised a hue and cry that Shaitan Singh had stabbed Anil Kumar and he and some other persons ran after Shaitan Singh Shaitan Singh had by then gone out of the power house and latter he was apprehended at Shashtri Circle by Het Shanker, Superintending Engineer before whom he is said to have made a confession to the effect that he had stabbed Anil Kumar as the latter abused him. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police and investigations were started The accused was arrested. The knife was also recovered at his instance and after the investigations the challan was produced against him. He was committed to the court of the Sessions Judge and after trial he has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. As already stated above, the question raised before us is about the nature of the offence committed by the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in the circumstances of the case, the accused should not have been convicted under section 302 I. P. C. but should have been convicted only under section 304 Part II. I.P.C. He urged that in the circumstances of the case the accused cannot be said to have intended to cause the murder of Anil Kumar nor can he be said to have inflicted the injury with the intention of causing the particular injury which has been found to be fatal. 6. It may be stated here that the post mortem of the deceased had revealed the following injuries on his person:— "1. Incised wound 2.5. cm.xl c m on the sternum at the level in between 5th and 6th ribs in oblique direction. There was cut in the sternum measuring about 2.5 c m x 0.3 cm. in size in oblique direction with substernal haemotoma. There was cut in the pericardius 1.5 c m x0.2 cm. in size and pericardial sac was full of partially clotted blood about 200 ml. There was cut in the right venticular wall anteriorly measuring about 15. cm. x 0.2. c.m. in size reaching upto venticular cavity and therasic cavity contains partially clotted blood about 600-650 ml. 2. Incised wound 4 c m. x 1.5 cm. x muscle deep on the lower I/3rd left fore-arm posteriorly in transversed direction just above elbow." And, in the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to perforation of the heart. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further urged that earlier there had been altercation between the accused and the deceased and the accused also suspected the deceased to have opened his private letter on which he was infuriated and thereafter he caused only a single injury on the person of the deceased and then ran away. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further urged that earlier there had been altercation between the accused and the deceased and the accused also suspected the deceased to have opened his private letter on which he was infuriated and thereafter he caused only a single injury on the person of the deceased and then ran away. These circumstances, according to him, go to show that he did not intend to cause the death of Anil Kumar nor he inflicted the injury with an intention of causing the particular injury which has been found on the person of the deceased and was fatal. He, therefore, urges that the conviction of the appellant should be converted into one under section 304 Part II I. P. C. 8. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Kulwant Rai V. State of Punjab (1) and Jagtar Singh V. State of Punjab (2). 9. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has urged that the case clearly falls under section 300, inasmuch as, after the earlier altercation the accused had left the place and thereafter armed himself with a knife and came to the room where Anil Kumar sitting and stabbed him at the chest. This clearly goes to show that he either intended to cause his death or at least intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. He has placed reliance upon Vasanta vs. State of Maharashtra (3). 10. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions and in the circumstances of the case we are inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is true that after the earlier altercation the accused had left the place and thereafter he came to the room, where Anil Kumar was sitting, armed with a knife but this had happened in a quick succession. After the first incident, the accused had left to go to his duty and it was when he had finished his work he came to the room where Anil Kumar was sitting where he paused for some time and then gave a blow with the knife which unfortunately fell on the chest of the victim but thereafter he did not inflict any further injury and ran away. According to the doctor the other injury on his hand was simultaneously caused with the injury on the chest and was result of one blow. The fact remains that the accused was annoyed with deceased as he suspected him to have opened his private letter and even then he was arguing with the accused as to why he was falsely involving him in the letter episode. Then an altercation had taken place between them and it was thereafter that the accused had come to the room where Anil Kumar was silting and gave one knife blow on his person. The blow also does not appear to have been inflicted in any cruel manner or with great intensity as would be clear from the nature of the injury referred to above. The heart was perforated and it was on account of the shock and haemorrhage that the victim died. The case appears to be very much nearer to the case before the Honble Supreme Court in Kulwant Rais case (Supra). In that case a short quarrel preceded the assault, and only one blow with a dagger was inflicted on the victim which landed in the epigastrium area. The accused did not persist in giving any further blow and in these circumstances their Lordship observed the question is in the circumstances in which the offence came to be committed, could it ever be said that the accused intended to inflict that injury which proved to be fatal. To repeat, there was an altercation, There was no premeditation. It was something like hit and run. In such a case part 3 of S. 300 would not be attracted because it cannot be said that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. In the circumstances herein discussed, it would appear that the accused inflicted an injury which he knew to be likely to cause death and the case would accordingly fall under S. 304 Part II Penal Code." So also appears to be the case in Jagtar Singhs case (Supra). Of course, the circumstances were a little different but it was also a case of a single injury to the heart. Their Lordships observed -the circumstances in which the incident occurred would clearly negative any suggestion of premeditation. Of course, the circumstances were a little different but it was also a case of a single injury to the heart. Their Lordships observed -the circumstances in which the incident occurred would clearly negative any suggestion of premeditation. It was a sudden quarrel to some extent provoked by the deceased, that the appellant gave one blow with a knife. Could it be said that para 3 of Section 300 is attracted. We have considerable doubt about the conclusion reached by the High Court. We cannot confidentially say that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury which is shown to have caused death. There was no premeditation. There was no malice. The meeting was a chance meeting The cause of quarrel though trivial, was just sudden and in this background the appellant, a vary young man gave one blow. He could not be imputed with the intention to cause death or the intention to cause that particular injury which has proved fatal. Neither para 1 nor para 3 of Section 300 would be attracted. We are fortified in this view by the decision of this Court in Jagrup Singh V. State of Naryana. It was subsequently followed in Randhir Singh V. State of Punjab and Kulwant Rai V. State of Punjab Following the ratio of the aforementioned decisions, we are of the opinion that the appellant could not be convicted for having committed murder of the deceased Narinder Singh. His conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life are liable to be set aside. 11. The next question is what offence the apppellant is shown to have committed In a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife. The incident occurred around 1.45 noon. The quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow in the chest. In these circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likly to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Therefore, the appellant is shown to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and a sentence of imprisonment for five years will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the appellant is shown to have committed an offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and a sentence of imprisonment for five years will meet the ends of justice. It may be stated here that the present case cannot be said to be one in which there was any premeditation. As already stated above, the accused had come to the room where Anil Kumar was sitting. He had paused there for some time and he then struck a single blow with the knife he was already carrying on his person. 12 The authority relied upon by the learned public prosecutor is, in our opinion not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case after some altercation the fatal blow had been inflicted but it was observed by their Lordships, "we are, however, unable to agree with this contention because there is nothing to show that the altercation was of such a serious nature which could cause sudden provocation. Secondly, the nature of injury, namely, the stab on the chest which resulted in the fracture of the 6th rib and injured the heart and the lung and which according to the doctor was given with great force showed that it was most cruel and therefore the case squarely falls under S. 302 I.P.C." As already stated above, the injury in this case is not of such a nature. 13. For the reasons stated above, we are clearly of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant under section 302 I.P.C cannot be maintained and it must be altered to one under section 304 Part II I.P.C. Now coming to the question of sentence, the accused has already suffered more than six years r. i. and in our opinion sentence already undergone will be sufficient. 14. We, accordingly, partly allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. and instead convict him under section 304 Part II I.P.C and sentence him to the imprisonment already undergone by him. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.