Honble MITAL, J. – This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dt. 27.6.95 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh whereby the appellant on conviction under Section 304 (I) has been sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and Rs. 500/- fine or in default to suffer one month R.I. (2). The brief facts leading upto this appeal are that on 21.2.94 the appellant and Ranveersingh, Harmelsingh, Jaswantsingh, Vinod Nai, Krishna Kumar Ramuram and Raju Meghwal were taking liquor at 10.30 P.M. on the occasion of the marriage of Biharilals daughter. A candle lamp was burning there and the appellant and Krishnakumar quarrelled over the candle to keep it lit or off. The appellant inflicted injuries to Krishna Kumar by knife on left parietal bone upper border, ,mi- ddle of left thumb and left thigh. When Harmelsingh tried to rescue, he also got injured on right forearm. Krishna kumar was immediately taken to the hospital at Hanuman garh town but he died of the injuries. After usual investigation a challan was filed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The appellant denied the charge u/s 302 IPC and the trial proceeded against him resulting in the conviction and sentence as stated above. (3). Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued on the factum of the case. I have also perused the impugned judgment and statements of Jaju Ram PW 1, Harmelsingh PW 2 and Ranveer Singh PW 3 eye witnesses to the occurrence. I have also gone through the cross examination made from the above witnesses and I agree with the appreciation of the evidence made by learned trial court that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant inflicted injuries as stated above by sharp edged knife. Krishna Kumar died as a result of the injuries on left thigh which was opined by PW 6 Dr. Bahadursingh Medical Jurist that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has stated that Krishna kumar died due to injuries on femoral vein leading to haemorrhage and shock. Krishna Kumar died as a result of the injuries on left thigh which was opined by PW 6 Dr. Bahadursingh Medical Jurist that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has stated that Krishna kumar died due to injuries on femoral vein leading to haemorrhage and shock. Learned trial court arrived at the conclusion that it is not established that the appellant inflicted injuries with an intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause death or such injury as is suffi- cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or knowing that injury is imminently dangerous that would in all probability cause death or is likely to cause death. According to the learned trial court the act of the accused was not covered under section 300 IPC but under Section 304 (I) IPC that he inflicted the injury with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. It has been further held by the learned trial court that the intention of the appellant was not of causing death of Krishna Kumar. (4). Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the act of the accused is not covered under section 304 part I of IPC because the intention of the accused was not to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death. At the most it could be said that he inflicted injury with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury to cause death as laid down in section 304 part I of IPC. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant and the deceased were friends and taking liquor on the occasion of marriage of Biharilals daughter. There was no previous animity between them. Suddenly they quarrelled over a petty matter and altercation took place and in a spur of moment the appellant inflicted an injury on the thigh which is non vital part of the body. Injury No. 1 on left parietal bone 1/2" x 1/8" x Bone Deep is a simple injury. There was no previous animity between them. Suddenly they quarrelled over a petty matter and altercation took place and in a spur of moment the appellant inflicted an injury on the thigh which is non vital part of the body. Injury No. 1 on left parietal bone 1/2" x 1/8" x Bone Deep is a simple injury. The appellant did not give any blow on the vital part of the body, death occurred unfortunately due to a cut of femoral vein which accused could not intend or even had knowledge that by inflicting injury on thigh the femoral vein would be cut. The cause of death was haemorrhage resulting in shock but Dr. Bahadur Singh PW 6 has given opinion in cross examination that if proper treatment would have been given and bleeding would have been stopped, the patient could be saved. (5). Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have argued that the appellant had the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. He was having knife with him whereas there was no occasion for him for this. He caused injury on head which is a vital part of the body and then repeatedly gave blow on thigh which cut femoral vein leading to direct result of haemorrhage and shock. Femoral vein takes blood to the heart for purification. Therefore the second injury on thigh was also on vital part. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant has supported the conviction and sentence. (6). I have given my serious consideration to rival contentions. I have also pe- rused the statements of eye witnesses and also the statements of Dr. Bahadur Singh PW 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken support from several decisions: 1. In Gokul Parasram Patil vs. State of Maharashtra (1), a single knife blow as inflicted above left clavicle, a non vital part, which caused muscle-deep incised injury and also cutting superior venacava. The injury was found sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but in the facts of the case it was found inflicted non-intentional and cutting of venacava was accidental circumstance. Intention aspect of the case was not established and the accused was convicted under section 304 IPC part II instead of 302 IPC and sentenced to five years R.I. 2. Intention aspect of the case was not established and the accused was convicted under section 304 IPC part II instead of 302 IPC and sentenced to five years R.I. 2. Similarly, in the above book at page 826 in Kulwant Rai vs. State of Punjab (2), it was held hat third part of the section 300 IPC could not apply in a hit and run case where it cannot be held that the accused had any intention to inflict fatal injury and the case fell under section 304 II and the accused was sentenced to 5 years R.I. 3. In Randhirsingh Dhire vs. State of Punjab (3), in the above book on 856, a single head injury was inflicted by a student, weapon supplied by his father, in the spur of moment in which deceased expired after six days. Intention to inflict fatal injury was not inferred in the facts and circumstances of the case and the accused was held guilty of offence u/s 304 Part II to suffer five years R.I. 4. In Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab (4), a single knife injury was in chest sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. But it was caused in a spur of moment, to some extent on deceaseds provocation, in a sudden and chance quarrel on trivial issue. There was no case of premeditation or malice on the part of the accused. The accused was convicted u/s 304 Part II and sentenced to five years R.I. 5. In Nanbu vs The State (5), the accused shot an arrow in the thigh of the victim cutting femoral artery resulting in death on account of profuse bleeding. There were no circumstances to show the intention to cause death or to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary cou- rse of nature to cause death. The curring of femoral artery was and accident and it could not be attributed that the intention of the accused was to cut the femoral vein. He had no knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death. Hence he was convicted under section 304 Part II and awarded 4 years R.I. 6. In Ramnivas vs. The State (6), verbal altercation took place between the parties having shops opposite each other and on sudden provocation accused gave two axe blows. He had no knowledge that such injury was likely to cause death. Hence he was convicted under section 304 Part II and awarded 4 years R.I. 6. In Ramnivas vs. The State (6), verbal altercation took place between the parties having shops opposite each other and on sudden provocation accused gave two axe blows. The case fall under section 304 Part II in the facts and circumstances of the case and the accused was awarded to undergo sentence 7 years R.I. 7. In Nathu vs. State of Rajasthan (7), the accused committed the act without pre-meditation in a sudden fight and in a heat of passion. In the facts of the case, it could not be said that the accused took undue advantage or acted in cruel and unusual manner. The conviction u/s 302 IPC was set aside and was convicted u/s 304 Part I and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months R.I. 8. In Ganesh Giri vs. State of Rajasthan (8), the accused had no intention to kill the deceased while giving two Jatroo blows. The accused was brought up by deceased from childhood. He acted with knowledge that injuries were likely to cause death and therefore he convicted u/s 304 Part II and sentenced to 5 years R.I. 9. In Danaram vs State of Rajasthan (9), there was no enimity between the deceased and the accused. There was no premeditation or pre-planning. The accused gave two blows on head by blunt weapon which caused death. It was held that the accused did not have the intention to cause death or to cause injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The case fell within section 299 IPC and punishable u/s 304 Part I and the accused was convicted for a period of 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. (7). In the case in hand, the important fact and circumstance are that the deceased and the appellant were friends and they were taking liquor alongwith other persons. Suddenly a quarrel arose between them over a trivial matter to keep the candle burning or to put out. 2,000/-. (7). In the case in hand, the important fact and circumstance are that the deceased and the appellant were friends and they were taking liquor alongwith other persons. Suddenly a quarrel arose between them over a trivial matter to keep the candle burning or to put out. It has also come on the record that they exchanged words and altercation ensued and during this altercation the appellant inflicted simple injury by knife on the head and second injury on the thigh which has accidentally cut the femoral artery leading to profuse bleeding and deceased died due to shock. There was no premeditation or pre-planning on the part of the appe- llant to inflict the injury to the deceased. The injury on the vital part i.e. head was simple injury and on non vital part i.e. thigh happened to be of the nature sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. There was scuffle and a little provocation from the deceased. In the above circumstances, I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused had no intention to cause death. He had also no intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The injury on the thigh which proved fatal due to femoral artery cut was without any intention on the part of the accused. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of this case and after considering the above cases cited before me, an intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death could not be attributed to the appellant. It could be said that the act was done by him with the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death and the case is covered under section 304 Part II and not under section 304 Part I. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon Subran Subramanian and others vs. State of Kerala (10) but this case is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the above referred case looking to the weapon with which the accused was armed and the nature, number and set of injury inflicted by him it was attributed to him that he had the knowledge that those injuries were likely to cause death and there were not other circumstances and the act was committed without any excuse. (8). In the above referred case looking to the weapon with which the accused was armed and the nature, number and set of injury inflicted by him it was attributed to him that he had the knowledge that those injuries were likely to cause death and there were not other circumstances and the act was committed without any excuse. (8). In view of the above discussion, I do not agree with the learned trial court and I hold that the conviction u/s 304 Part I should be set aside and the appellant should be convicted u/s 304 Part II. (9). In the result, the appeal is partly accepted. The appellant Radheyshyam is acquitted of the offence u/s 304 Part I IPC but he is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. He is hereby sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- or in default to undergo six months R.I. The compensation of Rs. 20,000/- out of the fine shall be given to the wife of the deceased. The trial court shall take steps for the payment of the fine.