JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions, Judge. Dungarpur, dated October 1. 1981, by which the accused Bhemji was convicted under sections 323, 324, 447 and 302 I.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 and to various other terms of imprisonment for the remaining charges. Aggrieved against this conviction, the accused has come up in the appeal. 2. At about 9.00 A.M. on 11.10.80, P.W. 1 Dhanji appeared at Police Station, Sagwara, and presented the written report Ex. P. 1. It was stated therein that in the preceding night the accused caused injuries to P.W. 2 Mst. Heera and P.W. 6 Mst. Amri. It was further stated therein that while the accused was trying to escape, Mst. Amri raised cries, hearing which, the deceased victim Balji and his wife Mst. Sukhi, came out of their house. The accused, while trying to escape, struck a blow of his axe on the neck of Balji. Bari fell down injured and bleeding excessively, on the spot. The police registered the case and proceeded with the investigation. The Station House Officer, arrived on the spot and inspected the site and prepared site plan. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted by Dr. Sayad, P.W. 15, the then Medical Officer-in-Charge. Government Hospital, Sagwara. The doctor found the following injuries on the victim's dead body:- "Incised wound:-Left side of neck, 11/2 above the left clavicle, size 10 X5X6 c.m. There was fracture of 7th cervical vertibrae, cartied artery and vein was cut. Laceration of neck muscles. Blood was present in wound oozing." 3. The doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorroage. The injury was stated to be ante-mortem. The post mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P. 14. The accused was arrested on the completion of investigation. The police submitted the challan against the accused in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sagwara, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges u/ss 447, 323, 324 and 302 I. P. C. against the accused, of which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He denied the whole prosecution story and stated that he was falsely implicated. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges u/ss 447, 323, 324 and 302 I. P. C. against the accused, of which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. He denied the whole prosecution story and stated that he was falsely implicated. In support of its case the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined two witnesses. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution story substantially true and the charges proved against the accused. The accused was, consequently, convicted and sentenced. 4. We have heard Mr. Niranjan Gaur and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the case file. 5. Keeping in view the direct evidence of P.W. 1 Dhanji, P.W. 2 Heera, P.W. 3 Sukhi, P.W. 6 Amri, P.W. 7 Nathu and P.W. 9 Dhanji, Mr. Gaur did not challenge the incident. He has confined his contentions only to the nature of offence made out against the appellant. It was contended by him that the prosecution has not alleged any motive. The occurrence took place while the accused was trying to escape. It was only a chance meeting that he happened to meet deceased victim. It was argued that in view of these circumstances, it cannot be gathered that the accused had any intention to cause the death of Balji. 6. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that though the accused had no intention to cause the murder, but the injury was found sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death and therefore, the offence made out is u/s 302 I.P.C. 7. We have taken the respective contentions into consideration. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence as to why the accused put Balji to death. The evidence of the eye witnesses discloses that there was no previous enmity between the deceased and the accused and it was by chance that when the accused was trying to escape, he accidently met the deceased. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the accused had any intention to commit the murder of Balji. The case, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of S. 300 I.P.C. However, as death has taken place, knowledge can be safely imputed to the accused that he did an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, though without any intention. The case, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of S. 300 I.P.C. However, as death has taken place, knowledge can be safely imputed to the accused that he did an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, though without any intention. The case, therefore, falls within the [Ind part of s. 304 I.P.C. 8. The learned Sessions Judge has directed to run the sentences consecutively, which, in our opinion, is not proper. 9. In the result, the appeal of accused Bhemji is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence u/s 302 I.P.C. are set aside and instead, he is convicted under part II of s. 304 I.P.C. and is sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and sentence under the other sections, are maintained. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by him, during investigation, enquiry and trial, will be set off against the term of sentence imposed on him.Appeal partly allowed. *******