Judgment V. S. KOKJE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant was prosecuted along with his son Ast Ali on charges under Sections 452, 302 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC for having committed murder of Hasam Khan and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 1000/- as fine. He has also been convicted under Section 452, IPC and sentenced to two years R. I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- and under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to one years R. I. with a fine of Rs. 100/ -. His son Ast Ali was acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC but convicted under Sections 452, 325/34 and 323, IPC. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant alone. Therefore, we are not concerned with the convictions and sentences of Ast Ali. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short was that Manir Khan, his younger brother Mangu Khan and appellants brother Ikbal Khan were married to daughters from the family of one Bhader Khan resident of Deeplana. The appellants sister is also married to Bhader Khans son Moti Khan. Appellants younger brother Ikbal Khan had a quarrel with the brother of his wife when he had gone to Deeplana for bringing back his wife. Because of the quarrel, he could not bring back his wife. On this an altercation took place between the wife of complainants brother Mangu Khan and the wife of appellant Ahmed Ali. According to the prosecution because of the aforesaid incident, appellant - Ahmed Ali entertained a suspicion that the complainants were poisoning Bhader Khans mind against the appellants family. On February 20, 1991 at about 10. 00 p. m. complainants father Hasam Khan his son Sher Mohammed and his nephew Gafur Khan were sleeping in the outer room of their house. Appellant - Ahmed Ali with his son Ast Ali armed with sticks entered the house and started abusing complainants father Hasam Khan. On hearing the noise, complainant Manir Khan, his brother Yasin Khan and Lal Khan also reached the spot and tried to pacify the appellant and his son. Appellant Ahmed Ali gave a lathi blow to Hasam Khan on his head. He fell down. Then Ast Ali also gave a lathi blow to him. When the three brothers tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. Appellant Ahmed Ali gave a lathi blow to Hasam Khan on his head. He fell down. Then Ast Ali also gave a lathi blow to him. When the three brothers tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. Hasam Khan was hospitalised and died after seven days after remaining unconscious throughout. ( 3 ) ON investigation, the appellant and his son were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. ( 4 ) MR. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it is a case of single injury caused because of an altercation on a trifle matter. According to him intention to cause death cannot be inferred in the circumstances of the case. There was a single blow though on a vital part given to a person of 70 years of age who died seven days after receiving injuries. ( 5 ) THE medical evidence in the case clearly shows that only one injury was caused by blunt weapon on head. P. W. 2 Dr. Omprakash Sharma had admitted the suggestion in the cross-examination that in old age the bones become brittle and as the deceased was aged 70 years, his bones were brittle and the fracture could be caused even by a slight force used in inflicting a blow. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, we find that a single blow was given on the head of an old man by lathi which resulted in his death seven days after the incident. In such circumstances, intention to cause death/or such bodily injury which was likely to cause death cannot be inferred. It cannot also be said that the appellant knew that the blow he was giving could be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. Knowledge that the act was likely to cause death can only be inferred. ( 7 ) WE are therefore, of the opinion that the conviction under Section 302, IPC cannot be maintained against the appellant. The appellant could be held guilty under Section 304, Part II, IPC. ( 8 ) THE appeal is therefore partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302, IPC is set aside and instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-II, IPC and sentenced to five years RI. The conviction and sentences under Sections 452 and 323, IPC are maintained. The appellant is in custody since 1991. ( 8 ) THE appeal is therefore partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302, IPC is set aside and instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-II, IPC and sentenced to five years RI. The conviction and sentences under Sections 452 and 323, IPC are maintained. The appellant is in custody since 1991. If he has already served the sentences awarded by this Court, he shall be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. Appeal partly allowed.