JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22nd September, 1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhabra, in Sessions Case No. 144/95 (35/92) by which the appellant Ramchandra was convicted for committing offence under S. 302 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo two months simple imprisonment. The appellant was also convicted for offence u/S. 324 IPC, and was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated thus: 2. A first information report came to be lodged with the Police Station, Mangrol, Distt. Baran by informant Jamnalal on 24th January, 1992 against the appellant alleging therein that he alongwith his brother Hajarilal had gone in Choth Ki Rasoi arranged by one Banshilal. After taking meals, when Jamnalal, Hazarital and other relatives were relaxing and gossipping under the shed of the house of Banshilal, appellant at about 11.30 RM. came over there and demanded explanation from Hazarilal as to why he was instrumental in breaking marriage engagement arranged by him (appellant). After uttering these words appellant opened knife and started inflicting blows on the right and left sides of chest of Hazarilal who became unconscious at the spot. When the informant attempted to intervene, the appellant also inflicted knife blow on his person near the left arm-pit and the Ribs. The witnesses tried to catch hold of him but the appellant fled away. After some time Hazarilal died and his body was taken to the Police Station in a bullock-cart by the witnesses. 3. Police Station Mangrol investigated the matter and filed charge sheet under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhabra who framed charges against the appellant for committing offence under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. PW 1 Jamnalal who is an eye-witness of the occurrence and is the real brother of the deceased Hazarilal, has stated in his cross-examination that all the persons who attended the feast, consumed wine. They started drinking wine from 10 p.m. onwards. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. PW 1 Jamnalal who is an eye-witness of the occurrence and is the real brother of the deceased Hazarilal, has stated in his cross-examination that all the persons who attended the feast, consumed wine. They started drinking wine from 10 p.m. onwards. He has also stated that he regained consciousness in the police station where he submitted a written report. PW 2 Banshilal has also admitted in his cross-examination that he distributed wine In the feast organised by him. PW 3 Radhey Shyma stated in the cross-examination that Informent Jamnalal was unconscious in the Police Station and the FIR was written by the police personals. Other eye witnesses of the Incident PW 5 Ramcharan, PW 7 Heeralal, PW 8 Amarlal have not supported prosecution case and were declared hostile. PW 15 Dr. Mahendra Kumar conducted post mortem of the dead body of deceased Hazarilal and found following injuries: (1) 1" x 1 cm. viscera deep incised wound, 2 cm. lateral from right nipple. (2) 1" x 1 cm. viscera deep incised wound on left nipple. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel and gone through entice record of the case. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. the mental attitude of the agent towards the consequences of his conduct, is one of intention or knowledge. Motive is immaterial so far as the offence is concerned and need not be established. The intention refers to either the death itself or a bodily injury which is likely to cause death i.e. an injury dangerous to life, whilst the knowledge refers to the death itself. There are thus there species of mens rea in culpable homicide- (1) An intention to cause death, (2) An intention to cause a dangerous injury. (3) Knowledge that death is likely to happen. 6. By intention is meant the expectation of the consequences in question and intention does not, therefore, necessarily involve premaditation or thinking out the killing before hand. A man expects the natural consequences of his acts and, therefore, in law, is presumed to intend them. (3) Knowledge that death is likely to happen. 6. By intention is meant the expectation of the consequences in question and intention does not, therefore, necessarily involve premaditation or thinking out the killing before hand. A man expects the natural consequences of his acts and, therefore, in law, is presumed to intend them. Therefore, if a person in performing some act either (1) expects a dangerous injury (i.e. bodily injury likely to cause death) to be the consequence thereof; (2) expects death to be the consequence thereof; (3) knows that death is a likely consequence thereof, and in each case death ensues, his intention in the first two cases, and his knowledge in the third render the homicide culpable. A guilty intention or knowledge is thus essential to the offence, and, if this does not exist the killing cannot amount to culpable homicide. The intention or knowledge necessary in order to render killing culpable homicide must be clearly proved by the prosecution, which can usually be done by proof of the circumstances which prove the act or omission in question, in order that culpable homicide may amount to murder, two things are essential. (1) The killing must be accompanied by the intention or knowledge specified in Section 300 IPC. Culpable homicide is not prima facie murder. It lies on the prosecution to prove the requisite intention or knowledge. If the prosecution fails to do this, but the intention or knowledge requisite under Section 299 IPC is established, then the accused is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (2) The killing must not fall within one or another of the five Exceptions to Section 300 IPC. If it does fall within them, the accused is guilty of culpable homocide not amounting to murder. 7. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellant, goes to show that the offence was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the appellant having taken undue advantage, thereby attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Opinion as to cause and manner of death given by Dr. Opinion as to cause and manner of death given by Dr. Mahendra Kumar PW 5 in the post mortem report, Is the direct injury to both lungs and heart but looking to the nature of the injuries it cannot be inferred that appellant had intention to kill Hazarilal or his intention was to cause injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. 8. It seems that after consuming liquor there was a sudden fight between the appellant and the deceased and deceased sustained injuries. The eye-witness of the incident were also under intoxication arid were not in a position to narrate the incident properly. 9. Under these circumstances the appellant is guilty of committing offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. In the result we partly allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We hold appellant Ram Chandra guilty of committing offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and convict him to undergo five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- In default payment of fine he will further undergo 15 days R.I. The appellant is under detention for a period of more than four years. This period shall be deducted from the aforesaid punishment.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******