Judgment David Annoussamy, J. The accused appeals. He stands convicted for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code for having on 29th day of August, 1982 at about 3 P.M. at Palliadi Kattathurai road, in front of a grocery shop, committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Malkiah by stabbing him on his right chest with a pen knife. 2. The brief case of the prosecution as spelt out by P.W.1, who happens to be the brother of the deceased, is as follows: The accused is a vender of arrack. The deceased in one of his customers, who owed him some money on account of previous purchase and consumption of arrack. On 29th August, 1982 at about 2 p.m., when P.W.I and his father were walking on Palliadi Kattathurai road, his brother, the deceased was moving 10’ forward. When the deceased Malkiah was nearing the grocery shop of P.W.2, the accused approached Malkiah and scolded him, saying why after consuming arrack, he was wandering in the street without paying for the same. So saying, he ran with a knife. The deceased Malkiah said that if he demanded the money in this manner, it would not be paid back. He invited the accused to speak with respect and politeness. Then all of a sudden, the accused with the pen knife he was in possession of, stabbed Malkiah on the chest in the right part. An injury was caused. P.W.1 and his father ran to the scene of occurrence, shouting ‘do not stab’. The accused took back the pen knife and ran eastwards. Malkiah was taken by P.W.1 and his father for about 50’. As Malkiah was not in a position to walk, they laid him by the side of the road. P.W.1 went to bring a car. The car was brought about at 4 p.m. At that time P.W.1 was apprised by his father that Malkiah was already dead. There was blood-stain in the place of occurrence. P.W.1 saw pool of blood in the place where Malkiah was lying dead. P.W.I then proceeded to the police station to give a first information report to P.W.9. On 29th August, 1982 at 6.30 p.m. P.W.1 appeared before P.W.9, the Head Constable at that time and narrated what had happened. P.W.9 reduced the narration of P.W.1 into writing and got it signed by P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.I then proceeded to the police station to give a first information report to P.W.9. On 29th August, 1982 at 6.30 p.m. P.W.1 appeared before P.W.9, the Head Constable at that time and narrated what had happened. P.W.9 reduced the narration of P.W.1 into writing and got it signed by P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.9 registered a case in Crime No. 416 of 1982 for an offence under S.302, I.P.C., and sent express first information reports Ex.P.2 to the Second Class Magistrate as well as to the higher officials. 3. P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, received ExP.2 on 29th August, 1982 at 7.35 p.m. and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 8 p.m. He inspected the scene and drew an observation Mahazar Ex. P.3 and a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence Ex.P.12. At 8.30 p.m. from the scene of occurrence he collected blood stained earth M.O.4 under the Mahazar Ex.P.4 attested by P.W.7. He then collected blood-stained earth M.Os.5 and 6 from the place where the dead body was found under the mahazar Ex.P.5. He held inquest over the dead body from 9 p.m. to 12 mid-night before Panchayatdars, in the course of which he examined P.Ws.l to 5 and others. He then sent the dead body for post-mortem examination through a requisition, Ex.P.6. On 16th September, 1982 he examined the post-mortem Doctor and obtained from him the post-mortem certificate Ex.P.7. On 7th October, 1982 he caused the blood stained articles to be sent for chemical and serologist examinations through the requisition ExP.8. Upon the receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory viz., Exs. P.10 and P.11, to the effect that the articles viz., the blood-stained earth and the clothes worn by the victim contained human blood. He filed his report on 27th January, 1983 under S.173, Crl. P.C, to the effect that the accused appeared to have committed an offence under S.302, I.P.C. He could arrest the accused only later, after obtaining a warrant from the Magistrate on 3rd March, 1983 at 8 p.m. 4. Upon the committal of the accused to the Sessions Court at Kanyakumari, a charge was framed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge for an offence under S.302, I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution adduced evidence, collected in the course of investigation, consisting of 13 witnesses, 13 exhibits and 6 material objects. Upon the committal of the accused to the Sessions Court at Kanyakumari, a charge was framed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge for an offence under S.302, I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution adduced evidence, collected in the course of investigation, consisting of 13 witnesses, 13 exhibits and 6 material objects. The case of the accused when examined under S.313, Crl. P.C, was one of Complete denial. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after perusing the evidence produced before him and hearing the arguments put forth by both sides, the case being represented by an Advocate from the Legal Aid Board, found the accused guilty and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal from jail and the accused is defended by the learned Counsel appointed by the High Court Legal Aid Centre. 6. The essential elements of evidence in this case consist of abundant oral evidence. There are three eye witnesses, who have spoken consistently about the occurrence, which happened in broad daylight in a public road. P.W.11, P.W.2, P.W.4 witnessed the occurrence, P.Ws.3 and 5 are witnesses of events immediately subsequent to the occurrence. Their evidence is corroborated by the medical expert, who conducted the post-mortem examination, and who found on the body the following injuries: 1. An incised wound on the right side chest 8th intercostal space 3“below the nipple 1”x ½ “x1”; 2. Abrasions on the lateral aspect of right thigh. Internal injury corresponding to injury No.1: 1. Diaphragam right dome punctured 1“x½”. 2. Partitional cavity Blood stained fluid about 150 ml. present. Partially digested food alcohol smell present. The opinion of the Doctors was that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock from the first external injury and the corresponding internal injury. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused does not dispute the fact that the accused caused the death of Malkiah. But his case is that the act of the accused does not constitute an offence punishable under S.302, I.P.C. as held by the learned Sessions-Judge, but only an offence punishable under S.304, Part II. He relied for this purpose on a decision of the Supreme Court in Gokul v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 S.C.C.(Crl) 731: 1981 Crl. L.J. 1035 (1981) 2 S.C.C.321: 1981 L.W.(Crl.) 286: A.I.R.1981 S.C.1441. He relied for this purpose on a decision of the Supreme Court in Gokul v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 S.C.C.(Crl) 731: 1981 Crl. L.J. 1035 (1981) 2 S.C.C.321: 1981 L.W.(Crl.) 286: A.I.R.1981 S.C.1441. The decision itself is based on a earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R.1958 S.C.465. The gist of the dictum of the Court in this case is that only if an injury is held to have been intended by the assailant and is further found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would attract clause third of S.300 of the Code and that, therefore, its author would be liable to punishment under S.302 thereof. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the question was whether the particular injury which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death was an injury intended by the appellant The Supreme Court emphatically answered in negative and observed as follows: "The solitary blow given by the appellant to the deceased was on the left clavicle-a non vital part-and it would be too much to say that the appellant knew that the superior venacava would be cut as a result of that wound. Even a medical man perhaps may not have been able to judge the location of the superior venacava with any precision of the type. The fact that the venacava was cut must, therefore, be ascribed to a non-intentional or accidental circumstances." The Supreme Court referred to other decision in which is was held that although the injury which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death had resulted from a blow with a sharp-edged weapon, the same could not be said to have been intended, that the only injury which could be regarded as intentional was the superficial wound resulting directly from the blow, that the assailant could not be held guilty of an offence under S.302 of the Code and that he was, on the other hand, guilty of a lesser offence falling under Part II of S.304 thereof. 8. 8. For bringing an offence under S.300, I.P.C., the prosecution has to show that the act comes under anyone of the four clauses found in the opening portion of S.300, I.P.C. It was not the case of the prosecution that it falls under S.300, Cl.II, I.P.C. There is no evidence also to show that the accused had the intention to cause the specific injury, which was caused, so as to attract, S.300, Cl.III, I.P.C. As far as S.300, Cl. IV, I.P.C., is concerned, the specific knowledge which is required under that clause has been analysed in a decision by a Bench of this Court in Mani alias Subramaniam v. State, 1986 L.W.(Crl.) 275. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the accused was possessing the specific knowledge as contemplated under Cl.IV. In fact, the charge is that the injury was caused intentionally and, therefore, it comes under clause No.1. The intention may be proved by a variety of circumstances, like motive, location and the gravity of the injury, the weapon used, time and place of occurrence, etc. In this case the motive is very flimsy. The accused stabbed the deceased because the deceased owed a sum of Rs.15 to the accused. The weapon used was not recovered. The whole occurrence happened in broad daylight in a public place in the presence of several persons including the brother and the father of the victim. Only one single blow was given and it landed on the right chest of the deceased. P.W.2 would give some details regarding the manner in which the stab was inflicted. The accused came with the knife and asked for money in a threatening manner. To this Malkiah replied: "Please ask your money in a polite manner in the way in which it should be asked. If you ask in that manner, I will not give the money. You can do what you like." Thereupon, the accused gave a stab which proved fatal. The motive of the accused was only to recover his money. The only intention which can be safely attributed to him is that he wanted to threaten with a weapon in order to wrench money from Malkiah. It is in the course of the quarrel that the accused stabbed the deceased in respect of which the witnesses have not given a detailed evidence, and the accused gave only a single blow which proved fatal. It is in the course of the quarrel that the accused stabbed the deceased in respect of which the witnesses have not given a detailed evidence, and the accused gave only a single blow which proved fatal. In the circumstances, following the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, referred to above, it will not be possible to hold that the accused is guilty of the graver offence under S.302, I.P.C. He is found guilty only for an offence under S.304, Part II, I.P.C. 9. As far as the sentence is concerned, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the age of the accused, we find that rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years would meet the ends of justice. 10. In the result, the conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused is found guilty for an offence under S.304, Part II, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.