JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Mitthu Singh, aged 18 years approximately at the time of incident, was tried before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar, in Sessions Case No. 20/93 for committing murder of Narain Singh at 10 a.m. on 5.2.93 in village Neemri Khera. He was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months imprisonment vide judgment and order dated 21.1.94. 2. The facts of the case have been extensively set out in the impugned judgment and they indicate that the deceased Narain Singh was a close relative of the appellant, in as much as, the appellants sister was married to Ghewar Singh, younger brother of the deceased. It is alleged that Rs. 3,000/- were outstanding against the appellant towards the deceased, which were borrowed by him for his treatment at Bombay. On the relevant day and time, the deceased had gone to tin appellants house for recovery of the amount where some oral altercation ensued between them. The charge against the appellant is that he inflicted a solitary blow with an ordinary knife on left lateral side of neck, 1" below the left angled mendible. This injury proved to be fatal as it cut internal and external carroted arteries and left internal jugular vein. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was performed by Dr. Pramod Kumar Saxena (RW 12) on 5.2.93 vide postmortem examination report (Ex.P 11). The cause of death was stated to be shock due to excessive haemorrhage. The report of the incident was made by RW. 1, Mohan Singh at Police Station, Jawaja, district Ajmer on the same day at 12.30 p.m. After registration of the case, the investigation commenced. Site-plan (Ex.P 1) of the scene of occurrence was prepared on the same day. The inquest report (Ex.P 2) of the dead body was prepared and thereafter, the dead body was handed over for post-mortem examination. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Beawar on 23.4.93. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions I Judge, it was committed to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar. During trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Beawar on 23.4.93. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions I Judge, it was committed to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar. During trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The plea of the accused, in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. was of denial. In defence, one witness, namely, Gaji Singh was examined, who stated that a scuffle took place between the eye-witness Tej Singh and Narain Singh and Narain Singh fell down on a bullock-cart when he was pushed by Tej Singh and sustained the injury by pointed nail. Out of the prosecution witnesses, P.w. 1, Narain Singh was examined as an eye-witness. The learned trial Court placing reliance on the testimony of the eye-witnesses and corroborative piece of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 3. At the out-set, it may be stated that the learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge infliction of the injury to the deceased by the appellant and he restricted his argument about the nature of the offence and the sentence to be awarded to him. Still for our satisfaction, we minutely examined the entire evidence on record and the judgment under challenge in the appeal. After going through the statements of the prosecution witnesses, specially of the eye-witness Narain Singh, we are satisfied that the finding of the trial Court that the appellant inflicted fatal injury to the deceased is well founded. The evidence of the solitary eyewitness Narain Singh is quite natural, consistent and straight-away. We find no error in the judgment of the trial Court placing reliance on his testimony. 4. The contention of the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, is that the incident took place all of a sudden without pre-meditation. That immediate cause of the occurrence was quite insignificant as the incident took place on an oral altercation which ensued between the deceased and the appellant. Learned counsel also contended that the appellant was hardly 19 years of age at the time of incident and the solitary injury landed on the neck of the deceased without being intended to cause the particular injury. It was also contended that the death of deceased occurred due to cut of arteries and jugular vein. Learned counsel also contended that the appellant was hardly 19 years of age at the time of incident and the solitary injury landed on the neck of the deceased without being intended to cause the particular injury. It was also contended that the death of deceased occurred due to cut of arteries and jugular vein. It was also contended that the Doctor has not stated that the solitary injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. We have given our serious consideration to the above submissions. The crucial question for our determination is confined whether the appellant Mithu Singh is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable, u/s 304 Part II IPC. In other words, to put it precisely, whether the case is covered or not by clause thirdly of Sec. 300 IPC.It is true that by the fact alone that a solitary blow on a vital part of the body resulting in death must always necessarily scale down the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Sec. 304 Part-II IPC. Each case has to be decided on facts to determine whether the accused deliberately and intentionally gave the particular blow resulting in his death. To decide this aspect, all the facts and circumstances, namely, the motive, origin of the fight and the manner in which the incident took place have to be taken into consideration. If on facts and in the circumstances it cannot be definitely and pointedly held that the accused intended to cause that particular injury resulting in the death which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence shall not be covered by clause thirdly of Sec. 300 and which would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable U/s 304 Part-II IPC. Learned cousnel for the appellant referred to a number of judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that the offence does not travel beyond 304 Part-II IPC, but we need not refer to them as in the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant intended to cause the particular injury sustained by the deceased. As already stated earlier, the incident was a sudden development and the appellant acted at the spur of the moment and without any premeditation. As already stated earlier, the incident was a sudden development and the appellant acted at the spur of the moment and without any premeditation. There was no ill-will or enmity between the appellant and the deceased. On an insignificant matter, the oral altercation ensued between the parties which culminated in infliction of solitary blow on the neck of the deceased. The appellant used the knife only once and did not act in any cruel manner. The appellant was hardly 19 years of age and the deceased also happened to be his close relative. In such circumstances, we are satisfied that the solitary blow landed on the neck of the deceased without any intention to cause that particular injury. The incident has also taken place in front of the appellants house. We, therefore, are of the confirmed view that conviction of the appellant U/s 302 IPC is not sustainable and it should be scaled down U/s 304 Part-II IPC. 6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of the appellant U/s 302 IPC are set aside. Instead, he is convicted U/s 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Appeal Partly allowed. *******