JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Sriganganagar. in Sessions Case No. 28/85 State v. Teja, D/d. 27.7.1985 , whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held the accused appellant guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC and has sentenced him to imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal, brei fly stated, are that deceased Kashmir Kaur was legally wedded wife of accused Teja Singh. It is alleged that the relations between them were not very happy and a divorce petition was filed by Teja Singh on account of the cruel behaviour of his wife Kashmir Kaur, and also on account of the fact that he suspected the character of his wife. 3. Be that as it may. on the date of the occurrence, i.e. on 22-11-84, it is alleged by the deceased that her husband fought with her in the morning and then went out and came back at about 12 00 in the day and, there-after, be abused her and inflicted a Barchat blow on her back, which has injured her pleura as also the diaphram. This injury was examined by Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and he found a stave wound of the size of 21/2" x 1" Probing of the wound was not done. The injury report by Dr. Gupta is Ex.P I. The injured was immediately admitted in the hospital on 22- 11-84 and ultimately she died on 25-11-84 in the hospital and her autopsy was prepared by Dr Kailash Nath Markande, which has been marked as Ex.P?. According to the Dr , the cause of death was shock due to damage caused to the diaphram and pleura on the right side. Dr. Kailash Nath has stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As the injured survived for some time a post information was also obtained from her, which has been marked as Ex.P 9. But later her dying declaration was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Srigangnagar, and that has been marked as Ex P 2, in which she has alleged that her husband has inflicted these injuries on her person on account of exchange of hot words about the preparation of tea etc. But later her dying declaration was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Srigangnagar, and that has been marked as Ex P 2, in which she has alleged that her husband has inflicted these injuries on her person on account of exchange of hot words about the preparation of tea etc. 4. Be that as it may. after investigation, the case was challaned in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sri Ganganaear, from where it was committed for trial to the court of the learned Sessions Judge The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, did not believe the testimony of PW 1 Chindra Kaur and PW 7 Mst. Pritam Kaur, who is alleged to be the eye witness of the occurrence as per the First Information Report which was recorded by the deceased But he has placed implicit reliance on the dying declaration of Mst. Kashmir Kaur, which has been recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and which has been supported by the testimony of PW 2 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and PW 3 Dr. Kailash Nath Markande. 5. The accused himself has admitted that he has inflicted this injury with a Barcha' to his wife Mst. Kashmir Kaur. Mst. Kashmir Kfur, in her dying declaration, had stated that at that time her mother-in-law was present, who was examined as PW 7 Mst Pritam Kaur She too has stated that these injuries were inflicted by Teja Singh but she was not present at the time of the occurrence because Teja Singh and his wife were living separately in the same premises in a room hired by him. Be that as it may. 6. We have heard Mr. M L Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.R. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have carefully gone through the record of this case. 7. In this case. it is admitted case of the parties that this injury on the person of Kashmir Kaur was inflicted by accused Teja Singh and it is also disclosed from the dying declaration of Kashmir Kaur. It has been canvassed by Mr. V.R Mehta that a petty quarrel took place between the husband and wife about the preparation of the tea and thereafter this injury was inflicted Mr. It has been canvassed by Mr. V.R Mehta that a petty quarrel took place between the husband and wife about the preparation of the tea and thereafter this injury was inflicted Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the husband and wife were not on good terms and a divorce petition was filed earlier and, thereafter, a compromise was arrived at on account of the intervention of the Panchyat and no such enmity remained thereafter. 8. As against this, Mr. Garg has stated that actually on the fateful day when the accused came to his house, after selling vegetables at 3.00 p.m. he saw one person coming out of the room of his wife and when enquired, she gave a reply in a very sarcastic manner and told that he is the husband of his sister and that enraged the accused and. therefore, he inflicted the injuries to his wife. It has been claimed that this blow has been inflicted as a result of grave and sudden provocation. Moreover, it was contended by Mr. Garg that in this case, the blow has not been repeated. PW Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, has categorically stated that he did not find any other injury on the person of the deceased, nor it was pointed out to him. Under these circumstances, it has been contended by him that the case does not travel beyond S. 304.11 IPC, 9. We have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. The incident took place on account of a petty quarrel regarding preparation of tea and it was on a sudden provocation that the injuries were inflicted. It is clear that only one blow was given, although it has been a blow by a pointed weapon and according to Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, PW 2, this injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are firmly of the view that the case does not travel beyond S. 304-1, IPC. The accused is credited with the intention of causing injury which was likely to cause death. 10. In these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under section 302, 1PC is set aside and it is converted into one under section 304-1 IPC. The accused is sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. The accused is credited with the intention of causing injury which was likely to cause death. 10. In these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under section 302, 1PC is set aside and it is converted into one under section 304-1 IPC. The accused is sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/, In default, to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.In the result the appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is set aside and the accused is held guilty under section 304-1 1PC and is sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, together with a fine of Rs. 100/-. and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.The result of the appeal be communicated to the Jail authorities forthwith so that as soon as the accused serves out the sentence, he may be released forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.The appeal stands disposed off accordingly on merits.Appeal Partly allowed. *******