JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Karna Ram and his wife Smt. Sita were tried for offences under sections 307, 302 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of one Bhanwaru and causing injuries to Bhanwaru's wife when she tried to intervene. After trial wife of Karna Ram Smt. Sita was acquitted of the charge under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and Karna Ram was acquitted of the charge under section 307 Indian Penal Code, but was convicted under sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with Rs. 500/- as fine on the charge under section 302 and three months rigorous imprisonment on the charge under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code Karna Ram has come in this appeal against these convictions and sentences. 2. On 10-12-1992 at 11.20 a.m. Chela Ram S/o Deena Ram, brother of the accused lodged an F.I.R. at police station Kuchcra that at 10.00 a.m. on that date Sita W/o Karna Ram was abusing Chela Ram's children and wife standing in her own Bada. At that time Munna younger son of informant Chela Ram went out to ease himself, Sita caught hold of him and started beating him. Chela Ram's wife went to the rescue of Munna, whereupon she was also abused and assaulted by Sita. On this, Chela Ram's son Bhanwaru who was inside the house came out hearing the noise and tried to intervene. Sita caught hold of him and Karna Ram who had come on the spot then took out a knife from his pocket and gave blow by it on the chest of Bhanwaru. On Bhanwaru's shouting for help his wife Rukma went to his rescue, whereupon she was assaulted by Karna Ram by giving her knife blows. Sita released Bhanwaru from her clutches and he fell down. In the F.I.R. Nimba Ram S/o Deena Ram, Ramdev S/o Udaram and Chela Ram's son Munna were stated to be the eye witnesses. 3. In the Court PW-9 Chela Ram, the informant, turned hostile and gave a totally different story than what was stated by him in the F.I.R. He tried to show that the injuries received by Bhanwaru were because of a fall while chasing Karna Ram with a stick. However, PW-2 Rukmani W/o Chela Ram, child witness PW-3 Munna Ram supported the prosecution. However, PW-2 Rukmani W/o Chela Ram, child witness PW-3 Munna Ram supported the prosecution. PW-4 Ramdev and PW-10 Limba Ram named in the F.I.R. as eye witnesses also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. PW-12 Trilok Ram, PW-13 Viram Ram, PW-14 Sukhram also turned hostile. 4. Amongst other witnesses PW-6 Udaram witness of Panchanama, PW-8 Annaram witness of the memorandum of recovery, PW-11 Puna Ram S/o Deena Ram, brother of the accused witness of another Panchanama also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 5. The learned Trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record and dealing with the defence raised by the accused came to the conclusion mainly on the basis of testimony of Rukmani, the injured witness and Munna that incident had taken place though not exactly in the same manner in which the prosecution alleged it to have taken place. He, therefore, acquitted Sita of all the charges and acquitted Karna Ram of charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for having attempted to cause the death of Rukmani. However, Karna Ram was found to be guilty of murder of Bhanwaru and for causing injuries to Rukmani. 6. Having gone through the evidence in the case and having heard the learned counsel we have no hesitation in accepting the trial court's finding that appellant Karna Ram assaulted the deceased Bhanwaru and injured Rukmani and caused the death of Bhanwaru. Though several of the witnesses have become hostile we do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2 Rukmani and PW-3 Munna. It is true that the informant himself and several other witnesses have turned hostile, but it is clear that this was so because of their near relationship with the accused. In fact, the witnesses are related to both the sides as Chela Ram, the informant was the brother of the accused Karna Ram. We are of the opinion that conviction can be based on the testimony of these two witnesses alone. The defence taken by the accused Karna Ram by way of giving suggestion to various witnesses and also in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Bhanwaru having died of an injury received in an accidental fall while chasing the accused with a stick is neither plausible nor reliable. 7. The defence taken by the accused Karna Ram by way of giving suggestion to various witnesses and also in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Bhanwaru having died of an injury received in an accidental fall while chasing the accused with a stick is neither plausible nor reliable. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant alternatively submitted that the case would fall under section 304 part II and not under section 302 Indian Penal Code Heavily relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983(2) S.C.C 342 , it was submitted that the quarrel took place on the spur of the moment, there could not have been any intention to kill a near relation on a frivolous matter. It was pointed out that in that case also there was a single knife blow inflicted deep in the chest on a trivial quarrel resulting in injury to the heart which caused the death of the deceased. 8. In the present case PW-5 Dr. Kaishar Singh Udawat who had conducted the post-mortem examination has stated that there was only one injury which was an incised wound one inch long and half inch wide going deep in the chest. The witness also opined that the cause of death was this injury going deep up to the heart and it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As the quarrel had taken place on a trivial matter between relatives and the appellant came on the spot and saw the quarrel going on and on the spur of the moment caused the injury with a knife, intention to cause death cannot be inferred. However, it could only be said that he had knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. We, therefore, find that the case would fall under section 304 part II and not under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction under section 302 is set aside and the appellant is held guilty of offence under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code Conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. The appellant is already in jail since 10-12-1991. Sentencing him to imprisonment with the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice. The conviction under section 302 is set aside and the appellant is held guilty of offence under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code Conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. The appellant is already in jail since 10-12-1991. Sentencing him to imprisonment with the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice. He is, therefore, sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone. He may be released if his detention is not required in any other case.Appeal allowed partly. *******