Charanjit Talwar, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has been convicted tor an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ). At about 7. 30 P. M. on 11th November, 1982, the deceased Ramesh was stabbed by the appellant after a sudden quarrel which had developed over a very trifle matter or demand of 0. 5 paise. The appellant used to sell bananas on a rehri (cart) near "t" point on Mehrauli-Badarpur road. Ramesh took three bananas from the rehri and after eating them paid 0. 60 paise to the appellant, who however, demanded five more paise. Ramesh refused to pay that amount and some hot words were exchanged between them. It appears that the appellant then picked up the knife which was meant to peel the bananas from his rehri and while Ramesh, deceased was about to leave, gave one knife blow on the left side of his chest. The injured was removed to Jai Parkash Narain. Hospital, where he was examined by Dr. Gogia, Public Witness -5. On the information received by Police Station Badarpur regarding Ramesh having been admitted in an injured condition, the case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. ( 3 ). The injured was referred to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for an operation as it was found that his lung as well as the heart had been cut. In that hospital. Dr. Sampat Kumar examined him at 8-40 P. M. on 11th November, 1982. Hefound3c. m. long wound located antetially on the left chest wall infraclavicula region. He straight-away transferred the petitioner to operation theatre as in his opinion, without operation his death was an "eventuality". The doctor s report is Ex. Public Witness -18/a. The operation was performed but was not successful. The patient died on 12th November, 1982 at 10 A. M. The case thus was altered into the offence for murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ). The only eye-witness to the occurrence is Public Witness -10 Giarsi Lal. In his detailed statement, he has highlighted that the quarrel was over a trifle; the manner of the quarrel and the resulting stab injury given by the appellant to Ramesh (since deceased ). He stood the test of cross-examination quite well. ( 4 ). The only eye-witness to the occurrence is Public Witness -10 Giarsi Lal. In his detailed statement, he has highlighted that the quarrel was over a trifle; the manner of the quarrel and the resulting stab injury given by the appellant to Ramesh (since deceased ). He stood the test of cross-examination quite well. Learned Trial Court has believed the version deposed by this witness. With the help of Mr. Andley, we have gone through the statement of this witness. We are of the view that the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion based on the testimony of this witness regarding the knife blow given by the appellant to the deceased. ( 5 ). As we are upholding the finding on merit of the learned trial court, it is not necessary for us to notice the evidence of the witnesses of recovery of the knife or that of the Investigating Officer as we find that Public Witness -10 Giarsi Lal was a reliable and trustworthy witness. ( 6 ). We, however, propose to examine the alternative plea of Mr. Andley that the offence made out against the appellant falls within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. ( 7 ). As noticed by the trial court and we agree with that finding that the quarrel took place over a trifle matter. The deceased was asked to pay 65 paise for the three bananas which he had takes from the cart but be paid only 60 paise. The quarrel took place at the spur of the moment. The only blow inflicted by the appellant was by a knife which had been kept by him for peeling bananas. It is in evidence that there was exchange of filthy language and at that time the appellant gave a blow with the knife which fell on the chest of the deceased. That blow pierced the heart as well as the lung and in the opinion of the doctors was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The question, however, is whether it can be held that the appellant had the intention to kill Ramesh or that he could be imputed the intention to cause that particular injury on the chest which proved fatal. Admittedly, there could not have been any pre-meditation. The question, however, is whether it can be held that the appellant had the intention to kill Ramesh or that he could be imputed the intention to cause that particular injury on the chest which proved fatal. Admittedly, there could not have been any pre-meditation. Ramesh was just another customer who had come to the rehri to buy bananas. The quarrel took place after he refused to pay 5 paise. The picking of the knife by the appellant and giving of the blow by him can be said to be at the spur of the moment. We are of the view that-it cannot be held that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury which has been shown to have caused death. We disagree with the learned trial court that the offence proved is punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. ( 8 ). Mr. Andley submits that the offence is punishable under part 11 of Section 302 Indian Penal Code We disagree with him. Although there was no intention to cause death, the offence committed i. e. inflicting of stab injury on the left side chest was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Even this "lower degree likelihood" is to be absent under Part II of this Section. After going through the testimony of the eye-witness, Public Witness -10, and the medical evidence, we are of the view that the offence is punishable under Part-1 of Section 304 Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ). The appellant at the time of recording of the statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. was 17 years of age. That is the age that he gave in the statement we are of the view that sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years will meet the ends of justice. ( 10 ). We thus hold that the offence proved is punishable under Section 304 Part I, and not punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code To that extent the finding of the trial court is reversed. His conviction is altered from that offence i. e. under Section 302 to the one under Part I of Section 304 Indian Penal Code His sentence of life imprisonment is also set aside. He, however, is sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years for the offence proved against him. ( 11 ). His conviction is altered from that offence i. e. under Section 302 to the one under Part I of Section 304 Indian Penal Code His sentence of life imprisonment is also set aside. He, however, is sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years for the offence proved against him. ( 11 ). The appeal is allowed to that extent.