JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants were the accused in the file of Addl. Session Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Dist. Alwar bearing sessions case No. 3 of 1991. They were convicted and sentenced as under:- (i) Accused appellant Lakkha Singh alias Lakhveer Sigh U/s. 302 I.PC. to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 (in default to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. (ii) Accused appellant Seva Singh- U/s. 324 I.P.C. to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 (in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction, present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to. 3. The prosecution case is woven like this: (i) Informant Gurbachan Singh (PW.2) instituted an oral report (Ex.P1) with the police station Khairthal, Dist. Alwar on 17.10.90 at 9.10 P.M. against the accused appellants Seva Singh and Lakkha Singh stating therein that at about 8.30 P.M. Kushal Singh, Pappu alias Bhupendra Singh S/o Kushal Singh, Seva Singh, Lakkha Singh and Ram Singh were playing cards in the house of Guljar Singh (PW.3). Pyara Singh, son of the informant also joined them. The informant on found them gambling, threatened to lodge complaint against them with the police. On hearing the threat, Lakkha Singh got provoked and started abusing the informant. When Pyara Singh, son of the informant protested, Lakkha Singh and Seva Singh pushed him and the informant out of the house. At the same time Seva Singh @ Ronak Singh, another son of the informant came over there and asked as to why they were quarrelling. Suddenly Seva Singh accused inflicted two knife blows on the stomach of Seva Singh @ Ronak Singh whereas Lakkha Singh inflicted knife blow on the chest of Pyara Singh (PW.6) and after inflicting injuries they fled. Seva Singh alias Ronak Singh, died on account of injuries sustained by him and Pyara Singh became unconscious and was admitted in the hospital. (ii) The S.H.O. Police Station, Khairthal registered a case U/s. 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and investigation commenced. (iii) Autopsy of deceased Seva Singh was conducted by doctor Amar Nath Gupta (PW. 8) and following injury was found on the person of the deceased according to the autopsy report (Ex.P 14): "Stab wound 2cm. x 1 cm. (ii) The S.H.O. Police Station, Khairthal registered a case U/s. 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and investigation commenced. (iii) Autopsy of deceased Seva Singh was conducted by doctor Amar Nath Gupta (PW. 8) and following injury was found on the person of the deceased according to the autopsy report (Ex.P 14): "Stab wound 2cm. x 1 cm. x cavity deep in the left 5th inter costal space." In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock instantly caused by stab wound.Injured Pyara Singh was also examined by Dr. Amar Nath Gupta (PW.8) and according to the medical examination report (Ex. P12) following injury was found on the person of Pyara Singh: "Stab wound 2cm. x 1cm. x muscle deep in right 7th inter costal space." Injury was simple in nature and was caused by sharp edged weapon. (iv) After usual investigation the I.O. submitted charge-sheet in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, who committed accused appellants in the trial court where charges U/s. 302 and 307/34 and U/s. 302/34 and 307 I.P.C. were framed against accused appellants Lakkha Singh and Seva Singh respectively. The accused appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. (v) The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and produced 20 documents. Thereafter statements of accused appellants U/s. 313 Cr.P.C were recorded. The accused appellants did not produce any witness in support of their defence. (vi) The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as mentioned herein above. 4. Mr. Biri Singh, the learned counsel, has vehemently contended that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt against accused appellants. The accusation brought up by the prosecution in the F.I.R. against the accused appellants has been changed completely by the witnesses examined in the trial Court. The case against accused appellant Lakkha Singh, according to F.I.R., is that he inflicted a knife blow on the chest of Pyara Singh (PW.6) whereas the injury on the person of the deceased was attributed to accused appellant Seva Singh. The trial Court, has not properly appreciated the major contradictions of the prosecution case. On the question of sentence also that findings of the trial court have been criticised by the learned counsel. 5. On the other hand Mr. The trial Court, has not properly appreciated the major contradictions of the prosecution case. On the question of sentence also that findings of the trial court have been criticised by the learned counsel. 5. On the other hand Mr. R.S. Agrawal, the learned P.P. for the State, has supported the judgment of the trial Court. According to Mr. Agrawal, the statement of Informant Gurubachan Singh U/s. 161 Cr.PC., was recorded immediately after Institution of F.I.R. In which he had explained the mistake occurred in the FIR by stating that he was in a disturbed state of mind as his son was murdered and he committed error in attributing injuries to the accused persons. So a contradiction in the statement of the informant and his version in F.I.R., will not render its value in evidence unreliable. Mr. Agrawal in support of his contention, has placed reliance on Baldev Singh and Anr. v. The State Of Punjab (1995 Cr.L.R. Supreme Court 713) . 6. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us and minutely perused the statements of the witnesses as well as the documents produced by the prosecution. Both the counsel do not dispute this factual aspect that FIR was lodged at 9.10 P.M. and the statement of informant Gurubachan Singh U/s. 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded at 9.30 P.M. on 17.10.90 in which he had immediately explained the mistake committed by him in naming the accused persons in the F.I.R. In his statement before the trial court, he attributed injury on the person of the deceased to accused Lakkha Singh and injury sustained by Pyara Singh to accused Seva Singh. In addition to the testimony of other witnesses produced by the prosecution, we have before us the statement of injured eye-witness Pyara Singh (PW.6) who stated that while playing cards in the evening of 7.10.90, his father Gurubachan Singh gave threatening to make complaint in the police. Accused appellant Lakkha Singh, who was also playing cards, got provoked and abused his father and pushed him out of the door. At the same time his brother Ronak Singh @ Seva Singh, uncle Preetam Singh, brother-in-law Pyara Singh and mother Shelavanti came over there. Ronak Singh asked Lakkha Singh as to why he was quarrelling. Accused appellant Lakkha Singh, who was also playing cards, got provoked and abused his father and pushed him out of the door. At the same time his brother Ronak Singh @ Seva Singh, uncle Preetam Singh, brother-in-law Pyara Singh and mother Shelavanti came over there. Ronak Singh asked Lakkha Singh as to why he was quarrelling. At this Lakkha Singh inflicted knife blow on the chest of Ronak Singh and Seva Singh inflicted knife blow on his (Pyara Singh) chest. The testimony of Pyara Singh could not have been shattered in the cross-examination. A reading of his statement has convinced us beyond shadow of doubt that his solitary statement by itself would be a sufficient and safe foundation for sustaining the conviction of the accused persons. Sum and substance of the testimony of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, is that a short quarrel preceded the assault. Smt. Raj Kaur (PW.1) has not seen the incident. She has only stated that Seva Singh sustained knife injury on the left side of his chest whereas Pyara Singh sustained knife injury on the right side of his chest. Guljar Singh (PW.3) has stated that after a short quarrel, injuries were inflicted by the accused persons. Preetam Singh (PW.4) stated that Lakkha Singh, Seva Singh, Gurubachan Singh and Pyara Singh were scuffling with each other. Ronak Singh @ Seva Singh intervened and asked as to why they were quarrelling, thereafter Lakkha Singh inflicted knife blow on his chest. Pyara Singh (PW.5), brother-in-law of the deceased, has almost repeated the same story. The other eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR were not examined by the prosecution. 7. A critical scrutiny of the record of the case reveals that the offence was committed without any premeditation and there was no prior enmity between the parties. They were playing cards and the threatening of the informant resulted in a short quarrel which preceded the assault. Only one blow was given with a knife which landed in the chest and the deceased succumbed to injury. To repeat, there was an altercation before the actual occurrence. There was no premeditation. It was something like hit and run. In such case, part III of Section 300 I.P.C. would not be attracted because it cannot be said that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. To repeat, there was an altercation before the actual occurrence. There was no premeditation. It was something like hit and run. In such case, part III of Section 300 I.P.C. would not be attracted because it cannot be said that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. The case of accused Lakkha Singh thus does not travel beyond the offence U/s. 304 Part II I.P.C. 8. In Baldev Singhs case (supra) the Apex Court in (para 10) observed as under:- "Stated briefly, the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the veracity of prosecution case and the value to be attached to it depends on the facts of each case. Only the essential or broad picture need be stated in the F.I.R. and all minute details need not be mentioned therein. It is not a verbatim summary of the prosecution case. It need not contain details of the occurrence as if it were an "encyclopedia" of the occurrence. It may not be even necessary to catalogue the over-act acts therein. Non mentioning of some facts or vague reference to some others are not fatal. We should also bear in mind that the F.I.R. was given by PW.5, who is an illiterate lady soon after the occurrence, when she should have been very emotional and in a disturbed state of mind. We find that the evidence of PW.5 is substantially in accord with Ex.P7, F.I.R. and the Court below was justified in placing reliance on Ex. P7 and the evidence of PW.5. We repel the plea of the appellants counsel to the contrary." The statement of informant Gurubachan Singh (PW.2) U/s.161 Cr.P.C. was recorded only after 20 minutes of institution of F.I.R., in which he got corrected himself and explained that he was in disturbed state of mind so he could not name the accused persons in the FIR correctly. Be that as it may, the testimony of Gurubachan Singh (PW.2), Raj Kaur (PW.1), Guljar Singh (PW.3) and Preetam Singh (PW.4), even if disbelieved, the eye-witness account of injured Pyara Singh (PW.6) cannot be excluded. His testimony has been corroborated by Dr. Amar Nath Gupta (PW.8) and we find no infirmity in the finding of the trial court so far it relates to accused appellant Seva Singh is concerned. His testimony has been corroborated by Dr. Amar Nath Gupta (PW.8) and we find no infirmity in the finding of the trial court so far it relates to accused appellant Seva Singh is concerned. Accused appellant Seva Singh had been rightly found guilty of having committed offence U/s. 324 I.P.C. 9. So far as the conviction of accused appellant Lakkha Singh is concerned, we found his case would fall U/s. 304 Part II I.P.C., and not U/s. 302 I.P.C., as discussed by us herein above. 10. Before we pass final orders in this case, we would like to mention that the legislatures conferred jurisdiction on the criminal courts U/s. 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for awarding unlimited amount of compensation to the victims at the time of passing judgment of conviction. The provision is not ancillary to other provisions of Cr.PC., but in addition thereto. By the landmark judgment in Hari Kishans case ( AIR 1988 S.C. 2127 ) the Apex Court not only awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim, but also directed the subordinate criminal courts to exercise this power of awarding compensation to the victims of offences. It would not be out of place to mention here that in Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of offenders, held at MILAN from August 26th to September 6th, 1985. General Assembly of The United Nations by adopting resolution 40/34 dated November 29, 1985, had recommended payment of compensation to the victims of crime by the State, when compensation is not fully available from the offender or other sources. We hope and trust that in near future, this recommendation will attract the attention of the `Law-Framers' of our country. [Emphasis supplied] 11. The fallout from the above discussion is that appeal of the accused appellant Lakkha Singh is partly allowed and his conviction is altered from one U/s. 302 I.P.C. to that U/s. 304 part II I.P.C. and he is sentenced to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- (in default to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment). If the fine is realised it will be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appeal of accused appellants Seva Singh is dismissed. The accused appellants Seva Singh and Lakkha Singh are on bail. They should surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences. 40,000/- (in default to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment). If the fine is realised it will be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appeal of accused appellants Seva Singh is dismissed. The accused appellants Seva Singh and Lakkha Singh are on bail. They should surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences. If they fail to surrender, the trial court shall take steps for their arrest.Appeal partly allowed. *******