JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 25, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karoli. by which appellant Ramlingam @ Ramlilo was convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2C00/- in default of payment of fine to undergo one years R.I. 2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that on October 2, 1988 at 5.30 P.M. Ramlingam appellant and deceased Silumittio were playing cards outside the house of Laxmi (PW 1). Deceased was losing and quarrel ensued between the deceased and the appellant. The appellant is said to have gone to his house nearby and brought one Tievar (an iron patti) and inflicted a blow on the head of Silumittio. He fell down. Meanwhile Parvat, the eleven years daughter of the injured, called her mother Soleamma (PW 8) at the site and she is also said to have been the occurrence. The injured was taken to Hindaun Hospital where Dr. Narayan Lal (PW 7). Senior Medical Officer, Incharge. Public Health Centre, Hindaun examined his injuries. The Doctor sent the information vide Ex.9 to Police Station Hindaun. Rajendra Singh (PW 9), Station House Officer on receiving the information deputed Laxmi Narain (PW 5), A.S.I., to hospital. Laxmi Narain recorded the statement of the injured which is Ex.P.4. On the basis of that parchabayan case was registered against the appellant. The injured was then taken to Gangapur and Bayana hospitals for treatment and lastly at the Railway Hospital, Kota, where he succumbed to the head injury sustained by him on October 6, 1988. Dr. C.M. Srivastava (PW (-) conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Silumittio and prepared the postmortem examination report Ex.P.7. The cause of death according to Dr. Srivastava was comma as a result of head injury. Vide Ex.P.13, information was sent at Railway Colony, Police Station Kota. Kalyan Singh, A.S.I. (PW 10) of that Police Station went to the hospital and prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body and got the postmortem examination conducted, as stated earlier. Kalyan Singh, A.S.I. (PW 10) sent information to Police Station, Hindaun. Laxmi Narain, A.S.I. (PW 5) went to the site and prepared the site plan Ex P.2. On October 5, 1988, the appellant was arrested vide memo Ex P.5. Kalyan Singh, A.S.I. (PW 10) sent information to Police Station, Hindaun. Laxmi Narain, A.S.I. (PW 5) went to the site and prepared the site plan Ex P.2. On October 5, 1988, the appellant was arrested vide memo Ex P.5. While in custody the appellant is said to have furnished information for getting recovered the Tievar from his house. In pursuance of that information the Investigating Officer, recovered Tievar Ex.l vide memo Ex.P.3. 3. Upon completion of necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun. The case on committal reached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karoli. The learned Judge charge-sheeted the appellant under section 302 I P.C. and recorded his plea. On his denial of the charge, trial proceeded. Prosecution examined ten witnesses in all. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant denied the allegations levelled against him. The learned Judge placed reliance on the prosecution witnesses and passed the judgment under appeal. 4. We heard Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Naresh Goyal. learned Public Prosecutor for the state assisted by Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant. 5. The prosecution has led direct as well as circumstantial evidence in the case The direct evidence is of Laxmi (PW 1), Raju (PW 2) and Soleamma (PW 8). The circumstantial evidence is recovery of Tievar (Ex.l) in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant while in police custody. 6. So far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, suffice it to say that there is no cogent evidence to connect this recovery with the commission of the crime. The two motbirs to the memo Ex.P.3 viz. Mohan (PW 3) and Ranjeet Singh (PW 4) have stated that the door of the room which the Tievar was recovered had no shutters and the place was accessible to any one Apart from it the Tievar according to the Investigating Officer Laxmi Narain (PW .') was not having any blood on it. There was also no identification parade conducted for the Tievar. 7. Out of the three eye witnesses to the occurrence Raju (PW 2) has been disowned by the prosecution and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. There was also no identification parade conducted for the Tievar. 7. Out of the three eye witnesses to the occurrence Raju (PW 2) has been disowned by the prosecution and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He has simply stated that there was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant but after seeing the quarrel he went away from there and could not say what happened thereafter. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the testimony of Soleamma (PW 8) on the ground that she was not knowing hindi properly and for that reason assistance of one Narain acquainted with Tamil language was taken by the Court. The learned counsel stressed that statement of Soleamma in such circumstances, cannot be said to be the at verbatum version of what she deposed. The credibility of the witness has also been challenged on the ground that her statement is totally inconsistent with the statement of Laxmi (PW 1). 9. On the careful examination to the statement of Soleamma (PW 8) it is evident that she was not well conversant with hindi language. Narain had assisted the Court in recording the statement of the witness. He had translated the version given by the lady and the Court was recording as stated by Narain. Whether Narain was expert for the translation so as to be taken to be an interpreter is not known. Nor is there any endorsement to that effect by the Court. We are now left with the solitary statement of Laxmi (PW 1). In order to base conviction on the statement of the solitary witness, the Court is to be vigilant to make out whether the witness is of sterling worth. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has made efforts to convince the Court that the witness is not reliable, by pointing out the discrepancies in her statement and that of Soleamma. As observed above, we do not feel inclined to place much reliance on the narration of the incident given by Soleamma and therefore on that count we are not prepared to discard the testimony of Laxmi (PW I). 11. As observed above, we do not feel inclined to place much reliance on the narration of the incident given by Soleamma and therefore on that count we are not prepared to discard the testimony of Laxmi (PW I). 11. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the credibility of Laxmi (P.W 1) is that she being a South Indian could not have understood the questions put to her in hindi and the statement recorded in hindi cannot be said to be exactly what she might have intended to depose. This argument has no force. The Court was quite cautious regarding the language and for that reason had taken the assistance of Narain while recording the statement of Soleamma who according to the learned trial Judge, was not knowing hindi properly. There is no such endorsement in the statement of Laxmi (P.W. I) nor the learned counsel representing the appellant in the trial Court had made any objection in that regard. 12. Presence of Laxmi (P.W. 1) in her house at the relevant time can be believed because the prosecution case that the quarrel had taken place when the appellant and the deceased were playing cards outside her house has been duly established. The only point on which the truthfulness on her version can be doubted is regarding the appellant going to her house to fetch the Tievar Rod and thereafter inflicting the blow on the head of the victim. In her examination-in-chief she is specific on the point but in cross-examination she could not explain why this fact does not find place in her statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What would be its effect, we would discuss while considering the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the nature of the offence. Suffice it for the present that the statement of Laxmi (P W. 1) otherwise consistent need not be discarded only on this ground. In other words, simply because this fact does not find place in her police statement, she cannot be branded as a lier. We are therefore, of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has rightly taken her to be a witness of truth. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the learned trial Judge also on the ground of unfair investigation 14. We are therefore, of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has rightly taken her to be a witness of truth. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the learned trial Judge also on the ground of unfair investigation 14. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the Investigating Officer did not take care to take search of the house of Laxmi (P W. 1) where according to Soleamma, the victim and the appellant were playing cards. This argument need not detain us much because we have not taken into consideration Soleammas statement and have believed the prosecution case that the quarrel had taken place outside the house of Laxmi (P W. I). Regarding the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses i.e. Raju (P.W. 2) being examined on October 9, 1988 and Soleamma on October 6, 1988. It is to be noted that Raju has been disowned by the prosecution and this delay would have been helpful to the defence only if he would have been supported the prosecution. Regarding the delay in recording the statement of Soleamma, the A S.I. has explained that her statement was recorded only after her returning from Kota. Otherwise also. Soleamma has not been taken to be a witness of worth by us because of the language problem. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion, that prosecution has succeeded in establishing appellant Ramlingam as the author of the fatal injury to deceased Silumittio. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant next argued that in case the arguments regarding the innocence of the appellant do not appeal the Court, the nature of the injury should be taken into consideration in holding the appellant guilty of a particular charge. Mr. Surana referred to the statements of the witnesses and argued 'hat the quarrel if any had taken place was on a trivial matter and it cannot be said that the appellant had any intention to commit the murder of his friend. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not also be said to have any intention to commit the murder in view of the weapon used and there being only one injury. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not also be said to have any intention to commit the murder in view of the weapon used and there being only one injury. As such the learned counsel submitted that the case at the most would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II, I.P C. 17. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the principles enunciated in the case of Veera @ Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, RLR 1984 928 and submitted that infliction of a blow with force on the head of victim by the appellant after going to the house and bringing the Tievar, in itself is sufficient to infer the intention of the appellant to commit the murder of Silumittio. 18. In the case referred to by the learned Public Prosecutor, the facts and circumstances were altogether different. Though the quarrel between the accused and the deceased in that case also was while playing the cards, they were separated by other persons and it was half an hour thereafter that the accused again went outside the house of the deceased and struck blow on his chest with Barcha and the injured died. It was in such circumstances, that conviction under section 302 I.P.C. was held to be proper. 19. In the case on hand, the cause of quarrel was loss of game by the deceased. There was no previous enmity between the two as is evident from the fact that they were playing cards. While discussing the evidence of Laxmi (P.W. 1), the only witness in the case we have observed that the fact of the appellant going to his house to fetch the Tiever and then coming back and inflicting blow on the head of the victim is missing in the Police Statement of the witness. There is no cogent evidence to convince that the appellant had not inflicted the blow at the spur of the moment and had taken time to ponder over the matter and cause the injury. The appellant, therefore cannot be said to have any intention to commit the murder of his friend so as to bring his case within the preview of Section 302 I.P.C. The weapon used according to the Doctor was blunt object The injury according to Doctor Narain Lal (P.W. ) was serious. The appellant, therefore cannot be said to have any intention to commit the murder of his friend so as to bring his case within the preview of Section 302 I.P.C. The weapon used according to the Doctor was blunt object The injury according to Doctor Narain Lal (P.W. ) was serious. The Doctor however admitted in cross-examination that in case proper timely treatment would have been given, there would have been chances of the survival of the injured. Injured was taken to four hospitals at four different places. What treatment was given to him at the initial stage is not known. Doctors from Gangapur and Bayana hospitals have also not been examined to state as to what was his condition when taken to the hospitals. 20. In such circumstances, the injury cannot be said to have been caused with the intention to cause such bodily injury which may be likely to cause death so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 304 Part-I. I P.C. However, if a person uses an iron blade (rod) and cause injuries on the head the vital part of the body, he can be imputed with the knowledge that infliction of blow by him was likely to cause such bodily injury which may result in the death of the victim. The case of the appellant, therefore, falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II, I.P.C. 21. Consequently, the appeal of Ramlingam @ Ramleela is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence under section 302 I.P.C. are set aside. He is instead of convicted under section 304 Part-II, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for Four years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months R.I.Appeal partly allowed. *******