JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the Session Judge. Jhalawar, convicting the accused-appellant Mangi Lal under section 302 IPC an: sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 1000/-and t default of payment of fine, further RI for one year. 2. On 7.3.85 at about 4.30 p.m. accused appellant is alleged to have given one knife blow on the back of the deceased Gulab Chand. Tej Karat, brother of the deceased lodged FIR (Ex. P 4) at Police Station Jhalawar, about 5 p.m. The police registered a case under section 302 IPC and after usual investigation, submitted a challan in the court of Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. Learned Session Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 3. Prosecution has examined PW-1 Kanhaiya Lal as an eye witness. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by PW-5 Dr. Chandra Prakash and the post-mortem report has been marked as Ex. P. 7, wherein the following injuries were found:- `Stab wound l"X⅜"xl" on left back l#" lateral to vertebral column and below interior angle of scapula. Clean cut averted margins, accused by sharp edged weapon, ante-mortem". The doctor has opined that the aforesaid injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 4. We have gone though the statement of PW-I Kanhaiya Lal. who is, of course, related to deceased, but he did not gave any enmity with the accused and we find that his evidence is reliable. It was day of Dhulandi when deceased Gulab Chand alongwith Kanhaiya Lal. Bhagwan Das went on the motor cycle for taking bath in a pond. Near the Theka of wine, they got off the motor cycle and sent the motor cycle to their home When they were going ahead, accused Mangilal also followed them. Deceased Gulab Chand asked the accused as to why he was following them, the accused thereupon inflicted the knife blow on the back of the deceased and thereafter, ran away. 5. Prosecution has also recovered the knife, vide recovery memo Ex. P. 8, on the basis of information given by the accused-appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act, vide Ex P. 14, and the knife has been found to be stained with human blood and that too, of the same group as that of the deceased. 5. Prosecution has also recovered the knife, vide recovery memo Ex. P. 8, on the basis of information given by the accused-appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act, vide Ex P. 14, and the knife has been found to be stained with human blood and that too, of the same group as that of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond doubt. 6. The only question that remains to be decided by us, is as to whether taking the prosecution case true as a whole, whether the accused appellant could be convicted under section 302 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Gokul Parashram Patil v. State of Maharashtra, ( AIR 1981 SC 1441 ), 1984 Cr. LR (Rajasthan) 139 and 1984 RCC 201 and has submitted that the offence committed by the accused does not travel beyond Section 304-II IPC. 7. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid three authorities. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that it was a case of only single blow by knife, we are of the opinion that the accused had no motive of committing murder of the deceased Gulab Chand. There was no prior enemy or quarrel between the two. Moreover, it was the day of `Dhulandi, a day of festival, and all these persons must be enjoying. Therefore, the accused could have no knowledge that the injury which was caused by him will be prove fatal and would puncture the lung The accused inflicted the knife blow on the back side of the deceased and thereafter ran away and did not repeat the blow. Therefore, in our view, offence b/s 302 IPC cannot be said to have been made out against him We. however, find the appellant guilty for committing offence u/s d 304-II IPC. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part, the judgment passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant under section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, he is convicted under section 304-II IPC. Looking to the acts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the accused appellant is sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment for five years. He is in jail. Looking to the acts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the accused appellant is sentenced to a rigorous imprisonment for five years. He is in jail. He will serve out the sentence awarded to him.Appeal Partly allowed. *******