JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Mamu alias Mahmood had been charged for an offence under Sec. 302 and Sec. 341, Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Shambhu Singh to which he pleaded not guilty. Consequently, he was tried in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 52/1987. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar after the trial held the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. The accused appellant was also convicted and sentenced under Sec. 341, IPC and was sentenced to one months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant feeling aggrieved with his conviction and sentence has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution emerges out of the first information report which was registered by the SHO, PW 15 Umaid Singh of Police Station, Kotwali, Jhalawar. Prior to the registration of the FIR a telephonic message was received at the Police Station, Jhalawar on 17.6.1986 at 4.30 a.m. which informed that only some time back at about quarter past four, two rickshaw pullers who were coming from the bus stand towards the jail who had been fighting with each other and in course of this fighting one rickshaw puller inflicted a knife blow on another rickshaw puller who fell down and was lying dead near the jail and the assailant who had inflicted the blow left the rickshaw and fled away. The SHO on this information started for the place of occurrence along with ASI, Bhainrdlal, ASI Rati Ram and four other constables, namely H.C. Shankar Singh, HC Laxminarain, HC Bapulal and HC Ram Narain. The SHO on this information started for the place of occurrence along with ASI, Bhainrdlal, ASI Rati Ram and four other constables, namely H.C. Shankar Singh, HC Laxminarain, HC Bapulal and HC Ram Narain. On reaching the place of occurrence the parcha bayan vide Ex.P 1 was given by PW 7 Mohan Lal which was recorded at 5.15 a.m. A detailed description of the incident had been given by Mohan Lal (PW 7) in the parcha bayan Ex.P 1 reiterating the aforesaid facts and it has been further stated therein that when the deceased hit the accused Mamu with fists, the deceased took a stone and threw at the accused Mamu due to which Mamu got enraged and took out a knife and inflicted a blow on the deceased who was later identified as Shambhu Singh. On sustaining this knife blow, the deceased walked a few steps ahead and thereafter he fell down. PW 7 while deposing in the court has repeated the entire version, which he had given in his parcha bayan and further stated that on witnessing the incident, he woke up another constable Ram Chandra, who was sleeping at that place where Mohanlal was on duty. He also woke up the duty incharge Havaldar Sohanlal and informed him about the incident, after which a telephonic message was sent to the police station, Kotwali, Jhalawar on which PW 15 SHO Umaid Singh reached at the place of occurrence along with other constables and recorded the parcha bayan of PW 7 Mohan Lal. It was also stated that he could identify the assailant Mehmood in the street light which was on the road. A formal FIR No. 119/86 was accordingly registered under Secs. 302 and 341, IPC. The knife was also seized which has been marked as Ex.P 23. The investigation of the case thereafter started and an inquest report of the dead body, site plan of the place of the occurrence were prepared. The blood stained earth was also collected vide Ex.P 3 and two slippers and a jersey were also seized. The body of the deceased had been identified as that of Shambhu Singh by the crowd which had gathered at the place of the incident. It was later sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by PW-12 Dr. Rameshwar Vijay. The blood stained earth was also collected vide Ex.P 3 and two slippers and a jersey were also seized. The body of the deceased had been identified as that of Shambhu Singh by the crowd which had gathered at the place of the incident. It was later sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by PW-12 Dr. Rameshwar Vijay. According to the post mortem report Ex.P. 22 the deceased Shambhu Singh sustained incised penetrating wound on lower part of mid of sternum measuring 11/4"x 1/2" x bone deep. It found wound explasted and also sub-eternal haematoma tract and a wound piercing the pericardium on right auricle having a horizontal incised wound 3/4" size. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was penetrating injury to right auricle of heart. The investigating officer also got photographs of the place of occurrence taken and sent the seized articles for chemical examination. 3. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Sec. 302/341, IPC. The trial, however, could not commence after commitment of the case to the Sessions as the accused had been absconding since 1986. He ultimately surrendered on 8.2.1990 after which the trial proceeded. 4. The prosecution, in all, examined 17 witnesses in support of its case and produced several documents. But apart from the oral evidence of PW 15 Umaid Singh, who had received the telephonic message and recorded the parcha bayan, the case of the prosecution ultimately rests only on the solitarity eye-witness PW 7 Mohan Lal, which stood corroborated by the medical evidence as the post mortem report fully testifies the version of PW 7 Mohan Lal as also the evidence of Doctor-PW 12 Dr. Rameshwar Vijay. 5. Shri A.K. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the appellant, first of all, endeavoured to challenge the involvement of the accused-appellant in the crime and tried to establish that the accused Mamu has been falsely implicated and his conviction ought not to be sustained only oh the evidence of PW 1 Mohan Lal who was not in a position to know Mehmood alias Mamu from before. He has submitted that no reliance can be placed on his testimony as he has not given out the reasons due to which it could be said that he was knowing Mehmood from before. According to the defence counsel, the parcha bayan Ex.P is a concocted document. He has submitted that no reliance can be placed on his testimony as he has not given out the reasons due to which it could be said that he was knowing Mehmood from before. According to the defence counsel, the parcha bayan Ex.P is a concocted document. 6. However, when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was read out to us and the same was considered in the light of the medical evidence, we found no reason to doubt the testimony of Mohan Lal (PW 7), which stands fully corroborated by the post-mortem report also. It cannot be doubted from the prosecution version that the body of the deceased Shambhu Singh was found at the place of the occurrence along with the rickshaw which was seized and the clothes of the deceased which were blood stained, which according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, was human-blood. We also see no reason to doubt the genuineness of the parcha-bayan as the same had been recorded by &the SHO in front of four other constables, who had supported the recording of the parcha-bayan. A comparison of the version of PW 7 Mohan Lal, as given out in the parcha bayan and the facts, which have been deposed in the Court, we see no material discrepancy or inconsistency. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the substratum of the prosecution case stands firmly established from the reliable testimony of PW 7 Mohan Lal, who had no reason or motive to falsely implicate the accused-appellant. His statement is also fully corroborated from the medical evidence and the recovery which has been made from the place of the occurrence. The recovered articles were kept in sealed cover and sent for chemical examination after observing the due formalities in this regard. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the prosecution case in so far as the place and manner of occurrence, and implication of the appellant as given out by the prosecution, are concerned. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, in the alternative, submitted that since the accused-appellant is alleged to have given a single knife blow on the deceased without any pre-meditation, in course of heated exchange of words between the two and the fist blows and stone throwing between the two, the offence made out against the appellant does not travel beyond the offence punishable under Sec. 304-II, IPC. In support of his submission, he relied upon a catena of reported cases dealing with the scope and application of Sec. 304-II, IPC. We, however, feel that it would be an idle exercise to discuss the law on a subject which is already familiar and settled. But, we would like to refer the case of Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1984 SC 759 , in this context which bears some similarity with the facts of the instant case. In that matter, the accused had used fifty language against the deceased and in turn, the deceased had come out of his house and asked the accused to go away. This flared up the accused and he on the spur of the moment dealt only one blow with the knife and pushed the deceased at some distance. Under the circumstances, it was held that though the requisite intention to commit murder could not be attributed to the accused, he wielded a weapon like a knife and, therefore, he could be attributed with knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to "cause death" and that in such a situation, though he could not be convicted under Sec. 302, IPC, he would be guilty of committing an offence under Sec. 304-11, IPC and accordingly his sentence was reduced to five years. But, in this connection, we also feel that it would be relevant to bear in mind the observations of the learned Judges in the matter of Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1552 , wherein it was recorded relying on the trend setting judgment of Justice Vivian Bose in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 , on Sec. 304-II, IPC that the giving of a solitary blow on a vital part of the body resulting in the death must always necessarily reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec. 304-II, IPC. It has been laid down therein that if a man deliberately strikes another on the head with a heavy log of wood or an iron rod or even a lathi so as to cause a fracture of the skull, he must, in the absence of any circumstances negativing in the presumption be deemed to have intended to cause the death of the victim or such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death. The whole thing, therefore, depends upon the intention to cause death. The nature of intention, therefore, has to be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon the death. When the facts and the attending circumstances of the case at hand along with the evidence on record is considered in the light of the law laid down on Sec. 304-II, IPC, it first of all strikes us that even according to PW 7 Mohan Lal, the accused and deceased were initially pulling rickshaw and proceeding, although, they were in a heated mood and exchanging hot words. The description of the incident thereafter, which has been given as stated in the parcha-bayan itself, the striking feature is that the accused first of all gave only fist blow and caught hold of collar of the deceased, after which the deceased lifted a stone and threw at the appellant Mahmood. This, obviously, must have enraged him and perhaps also caused anxiety for his safety, after which he inflicted a knife blow on the deceased. It is quite obvious that if the accused had the intention to do away with the life of the deceased tie had enough time and occasion to repeat knife blows, but he did not do so and fled away. 8. From these circumstances, it is abundantly apparent that the accused-appellant had no intention to kill the deceased, but to cause bodily injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 9. We accordingly consider it proper to alter the conviction of the appellant from Sec. 302, IPC to Sec. 304-II, IPC and set aside his conviction for life imprisonment. We, however, substitute the sentence of life imprisonment with the period of imprisonment to which he has already undergone, which is six years by now along with a fine of Rs. 9. We accordingly consider it proper to alter the conviction of the appellant from Sec. 302, IPC to Sec. 304-II, IPC and set aside his conviction for life imprisonment. We, however, substitute the sentence of life imprisonment with the period of imprisonment to which he has already undergone, which is six years by now along with a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 10. This appeal is, thus partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence which had been awarded to the appellant.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******