JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.7.1995 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 60/1993 whereby the appellant Heera Lal was convicted Under Sections 302 and 323 Indian Penal Code. Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. 2. Initially, the appellant and three co-accused were tried for the offence Under Sections 303, & 302 or 302/34 Indian Penal Code before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar with regard to an occurrence which had taken place at 11.00 a.m. on 20.12.1992 at village Parthyakhedi. After completion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid while the other accused were acquitted of all the charges. In brief, the prosecution case is that Smt. Kalawati D/o Bhawani Ram, the deceased was married with co-accused Shyam Lal S/o Gheesa Lal of village Malkhedi. Her younger sister Dhapu Bai was married with Amar Lal S/o Uda of village Parthyakhedi. The deceased Bhawani Ram, his brother Narayan Lal his, wife Smt. Mala Bai, daughter Kalawati and Sajjan Bai and son Kishan Lal had gone to village Parthyakhedi to participate in the feast on the death of Dhapu Bai's elder father-in-law. On the day of incident, at about 11.00 a.m. the informant Narayan, his brother Bhawani Ram and Bhawani Ram's son Kishal Lal were sitting at Chabutra out side the house of Udaji Meghwal then the appellant Heera Lal and co-accused Shyam Lal, Chittar Lal and Jagannath came there with an object to take away Smt. Kalawati, who was married with co-accused Shyam Lal. As per the prosecution case, these persons were having weapons and the allegation against the appellant is that he inflicted a knife blow to the deceased Bhawani Ram. All the accused persons had declared at that time that they would take away Smt. Kalawati and the co-accused Shyam Lal is stated to have gone inside the house where ladies were sitting and physically lifted Smt. Kalawati. All the accused persons had declared at that time that they would take away Smt. Kalawati and the co-accused Shyam Lal is stated to have gone inside the house where ladies were sitting and physically lifted Smt. Kalawati. The informant Narayan was pushed to the ground when he intervened and in that process, Kishan Lal also sustained injuries. Witness Mangi Lal Meghwal also came there to intervene but he was also assaulted by co-accused Jagannath.On the basis of Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/1), recorded by the Head Constable, Crime No. 319/1992 was registered at Police Station Jhalawar Under Sections 302 & 365 Read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 3. Bhawani Ram had died due to solitary injury sustained by him. The autopsy of his dead body was conducted by Dr. R.C. Dubey (PW 12). The deceased had sustained a verticle clean cut incised wound 21/2" x 11/4" x cavity deep over epigastric region of abdomen. The cause of death was shock as a result of injury to liver and perforation of stomach. The post-mortem report is Ex. P/9 on record. In the process of the incident Kishan Lal had sustained two abrasions and Smt. Kalawati had also sustained two injuries. 4. After usual investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against all the four accused persons and ultimately they were tried in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. During trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses. The accused denied their involvement in the crime and examined one witness in defence. The learned trial curt placing reliance on the testimony of the eye-witnesses, convicted and sentenced appellant Heera Lal as aforesaid. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant during the course of arguments did not challenge the finding of the trial Court that the appellant Heera Lal is the author of the solitary blow to the deceased and he restricted his argument on the question of the nature of offence and the sentence to be awarded. In our view, the finding of the trial Court that the appellant is the author of the solitary blow to the deceased is well founded as there is overwhelming evidence on record. In our view, the finding of the trial Court that the appellant is the author of the solitary blow to the deceased is well founded as there is overwhelming evidence on record. After going through the statements of the eye-witnesses, whose presence at the time of occurrence is quite natural, we are satisfied that the trial Court did not commit any error in placing reliance on their testimony for holding the appellant to be guilty for causing the solitary blow on the abdomen of the deceased. The only question, therefore, calls for consideration as to what offence would be made out against the accused? 6. Admittedly, the members of both the parties are close relatives. Smt. Kalawati, daughter of the deceased Bhawani Ram was married with co-accused Shyam Lal and the appellant is the real brother of Shyam Lal. From the record it transpires that the object of all the accused persons was to take away Smt. Kalawati presumably, that she was not being sent to her in-laws' house. It also transpires that in order to take away Smt. Kalawati, her husband Shyam Lal went inside the house where the women folk were sitting and he lifted Smt. Kalawati on his shoulder to take her. It appears that the act of the accused persons taking Smt. Kalawati in this manner was objected by the members of the complainant party including the deceased Bhawani Ram and in that process, the appellant Heera Lal inflicted the solitary blow to the deceased. It is true that the solitary injury proved to be fatal. Though the doctor has not opined the injury to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but looking to the nature of the injury and the internal effect, it can be said that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The question still remains whether the appellant intended to commit murder of the deceased or to cause the particular injury with the precise intention. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the appellant intended to commit murder of Bhawani Ram, deceased. However, looking to the nature of the injury it can be said that the injury was likely to cause his death. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the appellant intended to commit murder of Bhawani Ram, deceased. However, looking to the nature of the injury it can be said that the injury was likely to cause his death. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, though, we are not inclined to maintain conviction of the appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, we are definitely of the opinion that offence Under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant.Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the accused appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed upon him for this offence are set aside; instead he is convicted Under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Conviction and sentence Under section 323 Indian Penal Code are maintained. Substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. In case, the amount of fine is recovered, the trial Court shall immediately pay that amount to legal heirs of the deceased Bhawani Ram.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******