JUDGMENT 1. - The accused was tried and convicted for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 29.12.1991 at about 7.00 PM the accused and Nanu came to his house and purchased illicit liquor from his son Kalu Ram (deceased) and went away. They, however, returned back at about 9.00 PM to Kalu Ram. Bhanwar Singh (accused) complained to his son Kalu Ram that the latter had not returned Rs. 5/- to the former. Kalu Ram explained that he had supplied liquor of the amount given by the accused. This led to quarrel between the Bhanwar Singh and Kalu Ram and thereafter Bhanwar Singh and Kalu Ram grappled with each other. The accused Bhanwar Singh then took out a knife from his pocket of pent and plunged it into the chest of Kalu Ram. As a result of that injury, Kalu Ram died. 3. After usual investigation the accused appellant was charged for offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code alongwith another accused Nanu. Before the learned Sessions Judge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him, as above. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the truthfulness of the prosecution story but has contended that the offence made out against the accused would be under Section 304 Part II and not under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the fight took place all of a sudden without any pre- meditation, hence there was no intention to murder and the accused inflicted the above injuries without any intention to commit murder.Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 6. In our opinion, the occurrence took place all of a sudden at the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation. The deceased and the accused fought over the return of money which the accused claimed the deceased had not returned. 6. In our opinion, the occurrence took place all of a sudden at the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation. The deceased and the accused fought over the return of money which the accused claimed the deceased had not returned. It was only in this context that the accused all of a sudden took out the knife and caused fatal injuries resulting in death of Kalu Ram. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we are of the opinion that the accused is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 3,04 Part II and not under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. 7. We accordingly partly allow this appeal and the conviction of the accused is altered from under Section 302, Indian Penal Code to under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code. The accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. We also order that the accused shall pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the widow or legal heirs of deceased Kalu Ram.The Judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 10.2.94 stands modified accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******