S. K. CHAWLA, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS is; accuseds appeal challenging his conviction and sentence to imprisonment far life for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution was that an 12. 1. 1986 at about 9. 00 p. m. in village Bhera made, P. S. Kata district Billaspur, a quarrel took place between the wives of two brothers named Ratiram arid Patiram (appellant herein ). In that quarrel, deceased Kanhaiya, the- eldest of the brothers, tried to intervene. This was not to the liking of appellant Patiram. It is said that shortly thereafter when deceased Kanhaiya was washing his hands after taking meals at the door of his house, Appellant Patiram came from his awn house with a Lathi and gave Lathi blows an the head of the deceased. The deceased succumbed in his injuries an 14. 1. 1986 at 12. 05 a. m. in Bilaspur Hospital, vide information of the doctor Ext P. 22. The report about the incident was lodged by Kotwar Premalal (P. W. 1 ). On 13. 1. 1986 at 9. 00 a. m. in out Post Balgahna P. S. Kota, in which appellant Patiram was expressly named as the assailant of deceased Kanhaiya. The report was, lodged by the Kotwar on information about the incident given to him by others including the deceaseds wife Brispati Bai (P. W. 2 ). ( 3 ) THE injuries sustained by deceased Kunhaiya were first examined by Dr. Tiwari (P. W. 16 ). He found the fallowing injuries on the deceased vide Ext. P. 17-A. (i) Head injury in which the whole of the frontal partian of the skull was swollen. There was a lacerated wound 4 cm x 1/2 cm x 0. 3 cm over left frontal parietal region (ii) There was black eye of the right side. Pupils were semi-dilated and did not re-act to ight. ( 4 ) IT appear that more detailed examination of injuries was done by Dr. Chaterjee (P. W. 9) during the past mortem examination. This doctor found 4 instead of 2 injuries. The following injuries were found in the Post-mortem examination. (i) Bruise of 2 circumference aver left forehead with one lacerated wound 1/4 x 1/4 at the centre of the scalp. (ii) Black eye of the right side. (iii) Multiple abrasions over left leg. Chaterjee (P. W. 9) during the past mortem examination. This doctor found 4 instead of 2 injuries. The following injuries were found in the Post-mortem examination. (i) Bruise of 2 circumference aver left forehead with one lacerated wound 1/4 x 1/4 at the centre of the scalp. (ii) Black eye of the right side. (iii) Multiple abrasions over left leg. (iv) Lacerated wound 2 x 1/4 aver left front a parietal region. Beneath injury NOs. (i) and (iv) there were 3 fractures at the left front a pariestal region. There was sub-dural haemotoma with clotted blood about 3" in circumference. Injury Nos. (i) and (iv) were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The death was as a result of shack and hemorrhage due to head injury. It is significant that Dr. Tiwari (P. W. 16) who had examined the injuries of the deceased while he was alive, also opined that it was unlikely that injuries. On the head were caused by one blow. This brings his evidence in line with the evidence of Dr. Chaterjee, who had done past-mortem examination, who had, as already noticed, found 2 injuries on the head of the deceased. ( 5 ) THE prosecution case rested an eye-witness account given by Brispati Bai (P. W. 2) and Kanda alias Harichand (P. W. 3 ). The farmer is the widow while the latter is the son of the deceased. They were natural witnesses of the occurrence. Kanda (P. W. 3) deposed that he was pouring water aver the hands of his father to enable the latter to wash his hands after taking meals. The washing was being done at the door of the house of the deceased when appellant Patiram, living in a nearby house, suddenly came there with a lathi. It is the evidence of Kanda (P. W. 3) that the appellant then dealt lathi blows I an the head of the deceased. The deceased's widow Brispati Bai (P. W. 2) was inside the house when the assault on her husband commenced. She came out on hearing cries arid saw the appellant dealing atleast one blow on the head of the deceased and thereafter running away. It is the evidence of Brispati Bai (P. W. 2) that the incident was preceded by a quarrel between the wives of appellant Patiram and another brother Ratiram. She came out on hearing cries arid saw the appellant dealing atleast one blow on the head of the deceased and thereafter running away. It is the evidence of Brispati Bai (P. W. 2) that the incident was preceded by a quarrel between the wives of appellant Patiram and another brother Ratiram. At one state, Brispati Bai (P. W. 2) loosely stated that the quarrel had taken place between Patiram and Ratiram. Brispati Bai (P. W. 2) deposed that her husband Kanhaiya, the eldest of the brothers, had intervened in the quarrel. This was followed by the incident in question. ( 6 ) KUMARI Nema, learned counsel for the appellant devoted considerable time in explaining various discrepancies which had appeared in the prosecution evidence, particularly in the evidence of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses. The discrepancies relied to such matters as the number of blows dealt on the deceased, the exact time of the incident, the sequence in which the neighbours arrived at the place of the incident, the exact words of outcries which Konda (P. W. 3) had raised, etc. etc. It appears that Konda (P. W. 3) had witnessed the entire assault on his father while his mother Brispati Bai (P. W. 2) was inside the house when the assault commenced. She had rushed out of the house on nearing about the quarrel. It is therefore not surprising that while Konda (P. W. 3) saw two lathi blows being dealt on the deceased, Brispati Bai (P. W. 2) saw only one Lathi blow being dealt on the deceased by the appellant. In the light of medical evidence already discussed, it will be proper to hold that two Lathi blows were dealt on the head of the deceased by the appellant. It is not necessary to advert in detail to the rest of the discrepancies. They were all natural discrepancies of the kind, which really occur due to differences in individual faculties with regard to observation. Recollection and recital of details. They were rather indication of untutored testimony of the witnesses. Both the eye-witnesses were no doubt closely related to the deceased. In that way they were also closely related to the appellant himself who was younger brother of the deceased. Recollection and recital of details. They were rather indication of untutored testimony of the witnesses. Both the eye-witnesses were no doubt closely related to the deceased. In that way they were also closely related to the appellant himself who was younger brother of the deceased. They could not be expected to deliberately omit the name of the real assailant and substitute in his place the name of the appellant against whom they had also no kind of animus. ( 7 ) IT was also argued for the appellant that the two eye-witnesses could have committed a mistake in identifying the assailant since the incident had taken place at night and the eye-witnesses admitted in. their evidence that they could not notice the kind of the clothes worn by the appellant. There is absolutely no force in this submission. The incident had taken place at meal time in the night and not at the dead of the night. It has also to be realized that the incident had taken place near the habitation, when because of meal time there was bound to be light emanating from the houses. The appellant was a familiar person who was no other than younger brother of the deceased. The name of the appellant as the assailant was immediately given out to people around and the report, Ext. P-I also expressly named the appellant as the assailant. There was no possibility of any kind of mistake occurring in identifying the assailant. ( 8 ) THE only significant question that remains for consideration is, what offence was proved against the appellant. It is significant to notice that appellant bore no previous enmity with the deceased, who was his own elder brother. It appears that the appellant was suddenly aroused because the deceased had tried to intervene in the quarrel between the appellant's wife and the wife of another brother. The appellant had chosen for attack not any sharp-edged weapon like a knife or a sword buta Lathi, which is often very handy with rustic people. The appellant was also not proved to have continued the assault of the deceased after he had fallen down. The appellant was said to have dealt two quick blows with a Lathi on the head of the deceased and then fled away. The appellant was also not proved to have continued the assault of the deceased after he had fallen down. The appellant was said to have dealt two quick blows with a Lathi on the head of the deceased and then fled away. On the totality of these circumstances, it becomes doubtful if the appellant really intendedt to cause the head injuries to the deceased in the sense that there existed an element of desire on his part in inflicting those injuries or that the appellant had striven to cause those injuries or had no purpose inflicted them. That is not to say that the appellant should have intended injuries of particular degree of seriousness. An accused may intendt certain injuries albeit he may not know or intend the serious consequences of those injuries. But the injuries in order to be intentional should not be such which the appellant in the held of passion and without any previous enmity happened to just cause, but should at least such for causing which the appellant infact strove. Intention is purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end. It is the mental attitude of a man who has resolved to bring about a certain result. If he can possibly do so. It is shaping of one's conduct to achieve a particular end at which he aims the distinction between knowledge and intention in the context of infliction of injuries has been clearly brought out in para 13 of the decision in Jaiprakash v. State (Delhi Admn.) Judged by the above test, in the absence of any previous enmity and the appellant getting suddenly aroused and acting in the heat of passion, it is doubtful if the head injuries happened to be inflicted by the appellant were really intendedt by him. The head injuries no doubt on medical evidence were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. That is only one clement for the applicability of clause 3rdly of Section 300 I. P. C. The second clement which is necessary is that the injuries should have been intended to be inflicted. This clement of intention is missing in the present case rendering Clause 3rdly inapplicable. There is however no difficulty in holding that the appellant had at-least knowledge that the head injuries were likely to cause death, as they did. This clement of intention is missing in the present case rendering Clause 3rdly inapplicable. There is however no difficulty in holding that the appellant had at-least knowledge that the head injuries were likely to cause death, as they did. His case therefore fell within 3rd part of Section 299 I. P. C. to be punishable under Section 304 Part - II I. P. C. It is wrong to think that Section 304 Part. II I. P. C. is confined to cases of single injury only. Cases of more than one injury may also fall within it. As an illustration, in the decision of Mathew v. State of Kerala more than one stab wounds were caused and even then the offence was held to be one under Section 304 Partil, I. P. C. To conclude, the appellant committed an offence under Section 304 Part - II, I. P. C. and not under Section 302 ibid. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been in jail since 15. 1. 1986 i. e. for more than five and a half years from now. It was further submitted that considering the remissions, which the appellant must have earned, he has undergone around seven years of sentence. In our opinion, the sentence so far undergone by the appellant more than meets the ends of justice. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. is altered to one under Section 304 Part-II I. P. C. and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. .