JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has preferred this appeal through jail being aggrieved against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 72/1993 vide judgment dated Feb 8. 1996. The appellant was held guilty for having committed murder of Gopal Singh, driver of the truck and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of As. 400/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that P.W. 1 Amar Singh made a report at police station Chandwaji, district Jaipur at 5.30 a.m. on 8th June, 1993 tor the occurrence which had taken place at 4.30 a.m. on the same day. It was alleged by him that he was. working on Shere Punjab 'Dhaba' situated on National Highway No. 8. His duty was from 12 night till next day 12 in the noon. Sanjay and Shrikant were also on duty in the same 'Dhaba' alongwith him. At about 4.00 a.m. a truck having registration number PCI 4888 stopped in front of their 'Dhaba' and the appellant climbed down from the truck and came to their 'Dhaba'. He got prepared two cups of tea which was taken by him to the truck. After some time, he came back with empty glasses. He made payment of the tea and went towards the truck. He again came to the 'Dhaba' after a while and tool one cup of tea and went away. At about 4.30 a.m. they heard shrieks from the said truck. Thereupon, he alongwith Sanjay and Shrikant went towards the truck and saw one person running away from the truck. In the truck they found that one person was lying with knife injuries on his left thigh, abdomen and other parts of his body. The wounds were bleeding.They.Ned to chase the person who ran from the truck but he succeeded to escape due to darkness and the trees. On this report, crime No. 121/1993 was registered under Section 302 IPC. 3. After registration of the case, investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, site-plan Ex.P/2, Inquest report Ex.P/3 were prepared by the Investigating Officer. Blood stained and control soil were taken vide memo Ex.P/5. The appellant was arrested on 27th June, 1993 vide arrest memo Ex.P/8. His clothes and shoes were seized vide memo Ex.P/9. 3. After registration of the case, investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, site-plan Ex.P/2, Inquest report Ex.P/3 were prepared by the Investigating Officer. Blood stained and control soil were taken vide memo Ex.P/5. The appellant was arrested on 27th June, 1993 vide arrest memo Ex.P/8. His clothes and shoes were seized vide memo Ex.P/9. Then on his disclosure, the weapon of offence a 'Katar' was recovered vide memo Ex.P/9. The accused was got identified by the witnesses in an Identification Parade which was conducted in the jail on 2nd July, 1993 by P.W. 12 Yogendra Kumar, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur. After completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the appellant in the court of the concerned Judicial Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur where the appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. At the trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses to seek conviction of the appellant. No witness was examined in defence. The trial Court, after completion of trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated here-in- before. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae, strongly contended that there was no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. It was contended that the alleged circumstances were neither proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence nor they conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all doubt. He, therefore, contended that conviction of the appellant on the basis of such vague, incomplete and unreliable evidence was not sustainable. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the case is fully proved against the appellant. 6. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no direct evidence of the alleged crime and the case hinges on the circumstantial evidence. The law on circumstantial evidence is well crystallised by now. When conviction is sought on circumstantial evidence, the sets of circumstantial evidence must be proved and if proved, those should have the tendency to conclusively point out the guilt of the accused. The various pieces of circumstantial evidence are to be read together and should not be taken into consideration in isolation from each other and they should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The various pieces of circumstantial evidence are to be read together and should not be taken into consideration in isolation from each other and they should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. In other words, the prosecution has to establish each circumstance by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence and the circumstances so established should form a well knit complete chain without giving room to any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. 7. In light of the above principles relating to circumstantial evidence, we minutely examined the prosecution evidence and the judgment under challenge in the appeal. 8. The deceased in the instant case was driver of the truck bearing Number PCI 4888 and the appellant was a cleaner in the said truck. From the evidence of P.W. 1 Amar Singh and PW 2 Sanjay Singh, it is proved that the said truck stopped in front of the 'Dhaba', where they were working at that time. The appellant and the deceased were in the said truck. The appellant got down from the truck, and came to them and got prepared two cups of tea. He took the tea inside the truck. After some time, he against came with empty glasses and took one more cup of tea for himself and against went to the truck. After some time they heard shrieks from the truck and they rushed to the truck. They found one person running towards the bushes where there was darkness, after getting down from the truck. In the truck they found a person lying with knife injuries on his person and he was not speaking. The witnesses have identified the appellant in prior identification parade as well in the court to be the person who had come to their 'Dhaba'. It is true that PW 1 was declared hostile as he denied the fact of holding of earlier identification parade but on being crossed by the Public Prosecutor he admitted that identification memo Ex.P/6, contains his signature and he had identified the appellant in the parade, which was held in Jaipur Jail. After examining the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 analytically we find it firm and trustworthy. In our view, the trial Court committed no error in placing reliance on their testimony. After examining the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 analytically we find it firm and trustworthy. In our view, the trial Court committed no error in placing reliance on their testimony. PW 12, Shri Yogendra Kumar was Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur on 28.6.93 and 2.7.93 and he conducted the test identification parade. He has stated that the witnesses Sanjay and Shrikant had identified the appellant in the said parade. We minutely examined the evidence of this witness and we find no infirmity in the test identification parade to suspect or discard the same. From the above evidence, it is proved that the deceased and the appellant were the only persons in the truck at the relevant time. The truck was stopped in front of the Dhaba were PW 1 Amar Singh and PW 2 Sanjay were working in the night. The appellant got down from the truck and first got prepared two cups of tea, which were taken by him in the truck. Thereafter, he again got one cup of tea for himself and went towards the truck. After some time, shrieks of the deceased were heard and the appellant ran away from the truck. 9. Another piece of evidence against the appellant is the seizure of his blood-stained clothes and a pair of shoes vide memo Ex.P./7. Then, on his disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the weapon of the offence i.e. a Katar as recovered vide memo Ex.P/9. All these articles i.e. the pant, Baniyan, one pair of shoes and Katar were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (for short FSL). The FSL report dated 16.12.95 shows that on serological examination, the Baniyan and pair of shoes belonging to the appellant and the Katar recovered at his instance were stained with human blood. This strong piece of evidence also connects the appellant with the crime. The report about the incident was lodged promptly within half an hour. 10. Thus, taking into consideration, the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court did not commit any error in holding the appellant to be the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased. 11. The next important question which requires our consideration is the nature of offence and the sentence of imprisonment to be awarded to the appellant. 11. The next important question which requires our consideration is the nature of offence and the sentence of imprisonment to be awarded to the appellant. In fact, the learned Amicus Curiae seriously agitated this question. Admittedly, there does not appear to be a motive for the incident. It appears that some thing happened all of a sudden between the deceased and the appellant and the matter flared up on the spur of the moment. At the time of incident, the appellant was about 18-19 years of age. Motive plays an important factor for determining the nature of the offence. Hence, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant did riot intend to commit murder of the deceased and the incident took place all of a sudden, on some altercation which flared up between the deceased and the appellant all of a sudden. Hence, the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out against the appellant and looking to the nature of the offence, the appellant can be safely convicted under Section 304 part I IPC. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that this appeal succeeds in part. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 304 part I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of As. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******