JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12-8-85 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar convicting and sentencing the appellant as under : U/s. 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month. U/s. 324 IPC 2 years RI. 2. Salam (PW 10) filed FIR (Ex. P 15) at Police Station Sand on 12-3-1984 at about 4.45 PM alleging that on that day, he was travelling from Bhawani Mandi to Pidawa by bus. His cousin Sagir Mohd. and Mst. Jarina w/o Sagir Mohd. were also travelling in the same bus. When the bus reached Sunel Station, he (Salma) and Sagir Mohd. got dowa from the bus for drinking water. When they were going towards the Hotel for drinking water, Satfulla wet them and started abusing Sagir Mohd. and took out a knife front his pocket and inflicted knife blow on the left side of the stomach of Sagir Mohd. When Sanaa wanted to 541/Q him he also received one injury on his person. 3. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan in the court of Magistrate. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. Sessions Judge after trial, convicted the accused appellant as aforesaid. 4. In his statement under section 313 Cr. PC accused-appellant admitted that on the day of incident, he had gone to the shop of Chouthmal Kumhar to take tea. At the time when he was taking tea, Mohd. Sagir, Mohd, Salim and Mohd. Naim after getting down from 'the bus which was standing bus stop, came there. Sagir had a knife in his hand. He abused me (Sarfulla) and told that you will not be able to become a teacher in the life time and now you will become teacher in heaven". Saying this, he (Sagir) inflicted a knife blow. When Sarfulla tried to have himself and tried to catch hold of knife, he received injury on the thumb of his right hand. When Sagir again wanted to inflict another blow, he (Sarfulla) caught hold of his hand and both of them fell down and Sagir received knife injury. 5. Thus, we find that even the accused has admitted that the incident had happened and Sagir Mohd. had received injury by knife at that time. 6. When Sagir again wanted to inflict another blow, he (Sarfulla) caught hold of his hand and both of them fell down and Sagir received knife injury. 5. Thus, we find that even the accused has admitted that the incident had happened and Sagir Mohd. had received injury by knife at that time. 6. The only point to be decided in this case is whether the accused appellant is guilty of offence under section 302 IPC or some lesser offence. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant as also learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the judgment of the Sessions Judge, and the record of the case. 8. Ex. P 27 is the dying declaration recorded by Shambhu Dayal (PW 20), SDM. Sagir was examined by the Medical Jurist and his injury report is Ex P. 9 which shows that he had received two injuries viz., (i) stab wound with clean cut and averted margins oblique in direction with herniation of amentum, and (ii) stab wound with clean cut and averted margin oblique in direction with herniation of part of small intestine. Injury No. 2 was described by the Medical Jurist to be dangerous to life. Sagir was operated but he died on 24-3-1984 after 12 days and his post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Chandra Prakash (PW 6). The cause of death as given in the post-mortem report (Ex P 11) and his state was Septiceamia. In his statement, Dr. Chandra Prakash (PW 6) has stated that the death occurred due to come, and Septicaemia is caused due to virus and bacteria. He not further stated that at the time when he had noted the injuries of the deceased in Ex. P 9 there was no sign of any Septicaemia and it was caused later on. 9. Having read the prosecution evidence, we find that there is no I evidence of any motive except some old enmity. It appears that there was some exchange of hot words and it was all of a sudden that Sagir was inflicted two stab wounds by knife. Therefore, it cannot be said that the I accused appellant had any intention to cause death of the deceased Sagir. I Therefore, we can impute him that he wanted to inflict such injuries which are likely to cause death. Therefore, it cannot be said that the I accused appellant had any intention to cause death of the deceased Sagir. I Therefore, we can impute him that he wanted to inflict such injuries which are likely to cause death. Thus, he cannot be convicted under section 302 I' but he is found guilty of offence under section 304 Part IPC. He has been studying I even in jail and appeared for Second Year TDC Examination. His age had been recorded as 21 years at the time when his statement under section 313 Cr. PC was recorded. 10. Looking to the age of the accused and the fact that he had studied even in Jail and it was a sudden fight at the Bus Stand and the assault was not premeditated and there was no immediate cause, we think ends of justice will be met, if we convict the appellant Sarfulla under section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for six months. 11. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, conviction of the accused appellant under section 302 IPC is set aside but he is found guilty under section 304 Part-I IPC and is sentenced to five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. His conviction under section 324 IPC by the trial court is maintained. He is in jail. He shall undergo the sentence awarded to him. Both sentences shall run concurrently.Appeal partly allowed. *******