JUDGMENT 1. The appellant Jamna Lal has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated November 3, 1995, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in sessions case No. 413/93 whereby he was convicted Under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.l. for six months. He was also convicted Under section 324 IPC to undergo three years R.l. 2. Initially to accused, including the appellant Jamna Lal were tried for various offences, including 302 IPC or 302/149 IPC. The learned trial Judge, however, acquitted all the accused, except Jamna Lal appellant of all the charges levelled against them. 3. The incident had taken place on July 23, 1993 at about 2.30 or 3.00 RM. near Bus Stand Jhalrapatan. A written report of the incident was made by PW 1 Om Prakash to the Head Constable Shrawan Kumar at S.R.G. Hospital, Jhalawar and the said report forwarded to the P/s. Jhalrapatan where Crime No. 182/93 was registered. 4. In brief, the prosecution case, as detailed out in the F.I.R., was that on the day of incident the informant Om Prakash and other persons belonging to the complainant party namely: Gopal Lal, Babulal, Raju Sadar, Lalchand Gujar, Rajesh met at the Bus-Stand Jhalrapatan where they took their meals in a hotel. After taking meals when they came out from the hotel they found 5⅞persons, including Jamna Lal, appellant. One of them assaulted the informant with a knife on his chest. Gopal Lal and Babulal (PW 2) were also given blows with knife. All the injured persons were taken to the hospital and Gopal Lal died on the same day due to the sole injury sustained by him. 5. PW 6 Dr. Ramesh Chand Dubey, who was the medical jurist in S.R.G. Hospital, Jhalawar on July 23, 1993, examined the injuries of Babulal and Om Prakash and also conducted post-mortem of the dead body of Gopal Lal. deceased. As per his statement. Om Prakash had sustained an incised wound having dimension of 1"x 1/4"x 1/4" on left side of chest between 4th and 5th rib and the said injury was (simple in nature). 6. deceased. As per his statement. Om Prakash had sustained an incised wound having dimension of 1"x 1/4"x 1/4" on left side of chest between 4th and 5th rib and the said injury was (simple in nature). 6. Similarly Babulal, PW 2 had sustained the following two injuries : "(1) Transverse clean cut incised wound having dimension of 1"x 1/2"xeavity deep over right iliac region over back. (2) Transverse incised wound having dimension of 11/2"x 1/2"x 1/2" over left parital bone of head." 7. Both the injuries were found to be simple on X-ray examination. 8. The deceased Gopal Lal had sustained a transverse incised would 11/4"x1/2"cavity deep over left hypozhendrium of adbomen, just below 12th rib. In the opinion of the Doctor the mode of death was syncope and cause of death was shock as a result of the injury to liver and perforation of stomach. 9. After usual investigation a charge sheet came to be filed against 10 accused, including the present appellant. During trial prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. The accused appellant denied the evidence led against him but no witness was examined in his defence. His statement Under section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded by the trial court on 27.9.95 and on this date he had given his age as 21 years while the court estimated his age as 25 years. 10. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the finding of the trial court to the effect that the appellant is the author of the sole fatal injury to the deceased Gopal Lal is not sustainable as the evidence of eye-witnesses PW 1 Om Prakash and PW 2 Babu Lal is not reliable. The 'earned counsel further contended that other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Great stress has been made by the learned counsel on the F.I.R., Ex.R 1, which does not indicate that the appellant was the author of the sole injury to the Gopal Lal, deceased. In the alternate the learned counsel contended that no motive has been brought on the record by the prosecution as it appears that some scuffle took place between the students and in the said scuffle Gopal Lal, deceased, sustained injury when tried to intervene to save Babu Lal, PW 2. 11. We have given our careful consideration to the above submission. 12. 11. We have given our careful consideration to the above submission. 12. It is true that PW 1 Om Prakash has not stated in the F.I.R. that the appellant Jamna Lal was the author of sole fatal injury to the deceased Gopal Lal. Om Prakash, No doubt, has tried to implicate the appellant to be the author of the said injury in his statement before the trial court. However, in view of his first version in the F.I.R., we are not prepared to place any reliance on his testimony that the present appellant caused injury to the deceased. However, we find no reason to dis-believe the statement of Babu Lal, P.W. 2 Babu Lal is an injured witness as such his presence at the time of incident cannot be disputed. He had sustained two injuries. He has categorically stated that the accused persons had met them at Bus Stand Jhalrapatan and that the appellant had inflicted knife blow to Gopal Lal, deceased, when he tried to intervene and came running to save him. He has also stated that Jamna Lal appellant also inflicted a knife blow to him which struck at his back. On cross-examination this witness has stated that he had no enmity to falsely implicate the appellant. We, therefore, find no reasons to dis-believe the statement of PW 2 Babu Lal and in our view the learned trial court committed no error in placing reliance on his testimony. From the statement of this witness it stands established that the appellant Jamna Lal inflicted a solitary blow to the deceased Gopal Lal with a knife and one blow to the witness. 13. Now further question arises as to what offence is made out against the appellant for causing solitary injury to the deceased Gopal Lal. 14. If we take the entire evidence, it transpires that the appellant was between 18 to 20 years of age at the time of the incident. No motive has come on record to show that he had any intention to commit murder of Gopal Lal, deceased. It appears that between the students some scuffle took place and the deceased Gopal Lal sustained one injury with a knife on his left stomach. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the appellant had any intention to commit murder of the deceased. From the statement of Babulal PW. It appears that between the students some scuffle took place and the deceased Gopal Lal sustained one injury with a knife on his left stomach. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the appellant had any intention to commit murder of the deceased. From the statement of Babulal PW. 2, it transpires that the deceases sustained injuries when he came running and tried to intervene to save him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case would not be covered by part-ill of Section 300 of the Penal Code as it cannot be said that the accused-appellant intended to inflict the particular injury, sustained by the deceased. However, in the circumstances it can be said that he inflicted the sole injury, which he knew that it was likely to cause death and as such the case would fall Under section 304 part-II IPC. 15. We accordingly set-aside the conviction and sentence of Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- of the appellant Under section 302 IPC and alter his conviction to one Under section 304 part-II IPC for the death of Gopal Lal, deceased. For this offence, looking to his age at the time of incident, which was hardly 20 years, we reduce the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. Here we may state that the appellant's arrested on 25.7.93 and since then he is in Jail. Thus he has already undergone 4 years and about 9 months imprisonment without remission. His conviction and sentence of imprisonment Under section 324 IPC, for causing simple injury to Babulal, injured, is, however, maintained which he has already undergone. 16. The appellant is in Jail. Hence he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.The appeal is partly allowed.Appeal is partly allowed. *******