JUDGMENT- A.A. DESAI, J.:---The Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, recorded a finding of conviction for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused for having on 14-12-1986 at about 4-00 p.m. in village Tembha, given kicks and fists blows to deceased Disiram, knowing that his act would cause such bodily injury likely to result in death in the ordinary course of nature. Involvement of the accused in the incident could not seriously be questioned. Only debate is whether the act of crime was with such knowledge, envisaged by second part of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. P.W. 12 Dr. Jaiswal conducted the autopsy on 16-12-1986. According to him, deceased Disiram suffered two contusions and three abrasions. One of the contusions was on central part of the chest. On internal examination, rupture of spleen, liver and kidney was noticed. The opinion of the doctor is that death was owing to these internal injuries. 3. Shri Kankale, learned A.P.P. for the State, while supporting the conviction, as recorded, placed reliance on a decision reported in 1985 S.C.C. (Cri.) 127 : (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and others) 1. In this case, the victim who was in police custody sustained multiple injuries resulting in death. The condition of the victim when produced before the Magistrate was precarious. Having regard to the various aspects, as reflected, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction under section 304, Part II, of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Shri Kankale then cited a decision reported in A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 488 (Basdev v. State of Pepsu) 2. The Supreme Court while drawing distinction between motive, intention and knowledge, has enunciated that knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. Reliance then was placed on a decision reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1441 (Gokul Parashram Patil v. State of Maharashtra) 3. In this case, a solitary blow was given by the accused to the deceased on the non-vital part, resulting in cut off the superior venacava. The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that even the expert, like a medical man, would not be in a position to locate the superior venacava. Reliance was thereafter placed on a decision reported in A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1390 (Laxman Kalu Nikalji v. State of Maharashtra) 4. The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that even the expert, like a medical man, would not be in a position to locate the superior venacava. Reliance was thereafter placed on a decision reported in A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1390 (Laxman Kalu Nikalji v. State of Maharashtra) 4. It is observed, having regard to the nature of injuries, that - "looking at the matter objectively, the injury which Laxman intended to cause did not include specifically the cutting of the artery but to wound Ramrao in the neighbourhood of the clavicle." 5. Having regard to dictum as laid down, on objective assessment of the circumstances, awareness or consciousness of the accused, while causing such bodily injury so as to result in death, in ordinary course of nature, needs to be ascertained. In A.I.R. 1946 Bombay 38 : (Govt. of Bombay v. Abdul Wahab) 5. it is observed that the line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous hurt is a very thin and subtle one. In the one case the injuries must be such as are likely to cause death; in the other, the injuries must be such as endanger life. 6. Undisputedly, the accused was a Police Officer. He went to village Tembha in an inquiry into a crime reported against deceased Disiram. He apprehended him. The blows were given by kick and fists on chest. It is reported at the Bar that Disiram was hale and hearty and even more sturdy than the appellant. The external injuries were two contusions and three abrasions. There was no fracture of rib. After the incident, Disiram left the place and went to his house without any support. Disiram died on next day. As a Police Officer, the accused acted in discharge of official function, however exceeding his authority. The bodily injuries, such as rupture of internal organs resulting in death of Disiram, could not be within the contemplation of the accused. It would only with highly technical and specialised knowledge one can attribute the awareness to the act of giving blows on a particular part of the chest, inviting rupture of kidney, spleen and liver. In the set of circumstances, such consciences cannot reasonably be attributed to the appellant. 7. It would only with highly technical and specialised knowledge one can attribute the awareness to the act of giving blows on a particular part of the chest, inviting rupture of kidney, spleen and liver. In the set of circumstances, such consciences cannot reasonably be attributed to the appellant. 7. In 1986 Cri.L.J. 438 (Thuru Turi v. The State) 6, it is held that having regard to the nature of the offence of giving fist blows on the abdomen of his mother in a sudden quarrel resulting in her death owing to rupture of spleen, no knowledge or intention could be attributed. The offence squarely falls under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1434 : (Md. Isak Md. and others v. State of Maharashtra)7. it is held that causing the injury by assaulting with stick, resulting in death, the intention to cause death cannot be proved. It is held that common intention was to cause grievous hurt, which was more apparent. Having regard to the principle, as enunciated, and the facts involved in this case, it is difficult to sustain the impugned conviction. Having regard to the nature of the injuries, the manner and connection in which they were caused, the accused voluntarily intended to cause grievous hurt to Disiram. He could, therefore, be punished under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Shri Kaptan then urged that the appellant/accused deserves the benefit of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Kankale, the learned A.P.P., however, opposed the claim. Accused was a police officer. Owing to his conviction he lost his employment. The act for which he has been held guilty has a relation with his official discharge. In fact, in the interest of and to serve the ends of justice, the appellant/accused deserves to be granted the benefit of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. The appeal is partly allowed. The finding of conviction for the offence punishable under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 9. The appeal is partly allowed. The finding of conviction for the offence punishable under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. However, instead of sending him to jail, he be released on his executing the bond in terms of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a period of two years to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli. It is further directed that in case of violation of any of the terms of the bond, as would be executed, the appellant/accused shall suffer the sentence as awarded. Appeal allowed partly.