JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is an appeal filed against the judgment dated 20.1.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 153/91 - State v. Banta Singh wherein he found the accused-appellant Banta Singh guilty of offence under section 302,1PC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case at trial was that PW 6 Surendra Pal gave an oral information on 26.9.1991 at Police Station - Pilibanga to the effect that he is doing work of lifting dead-bodies of animals in his village. There is a 'kair' tree under which he used to collect dead bodies of animals. On the date of incident in the morning Banta Singh accused-appellant started to cut the kair tree under which the deceased Nar Singh, brother of first informant and the first informant used to keep the dead bodies of animals. It is alleged that deceased raised objection in cutting of 'kair' tree by accused-appellant. There was altercation between the accused-appellant and deceased Nar Singh in the morning and on the same day in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. Banta Singh (accused-appellant) came, armed with 'Kassiya', while the first informant and his deceased brother Nar Singh were standing in front of their house. The accused-appellant started to abuse deceased Nar Singh. Hearing abuses and shouts raised by the accused-appellant other witnesses, namely, Hari Ram (PW 1), Lal Chand (PW 2) and Sohan Lal came there. In the presence of eye-witnesses the accused-appellant gave a kassiya blow on the neck of deceased Nar Singh running upto his right ear, which proved fatal. 3. On receipt of oral information from brother of deceased-Surendra Pal (PW 6), an FIR (Ex. P/2) was registered at Police Station Bassi under section 302, IPC and investigation commenced. 4. After completion of investigation, a challan was filed against the accused-appellant under section 302, IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges against accused-appellant Banta Singh under section 302, IPC. 6. At the trial, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In support of prosecution story, the prosecution agency.examined as many as 7 witnesses, namely, Hari Ram (PW 1), Lal Chand (PW 2), Dr. 5. Learned trial Court framed charges against accused-appellant Banta Singh under section 302, IPC. 6. At the trial, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In support of prosecution story, the prosecution agency.examined as many as 7 witnesses, namely, Hari Ram (PW 1), Lal Chand (PW 2), Dr. Ram Pratap Punia (PW 3), Ram Kumar (PW 4), Jitendra Kumar (PW 5), Surendra Pal (PW 6) and Ved Prakash (PW 7). Ike prosecution agency also produced 12 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-12. Statement of the accused-appellant was also recorded. 8. Learned trial Judge after placing reliance on oral testimony of eye-witnesses, namely, PW 1 - Hari Ram, PW 2 - Lal Chand and PW 6 - Surendra Pal, corroborated by documentary evidence available on record, convicted the accused-appellant, as stated in preceding paragraph of this judgment. 9. We have heard learned Mucus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length and also gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record. We have also made close scrutiny of the findings of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge and the sentence awarded by him to the accused-appellant. 10. A close examination of the oral state tridents given by PW 1 - Hari Ram, PW 2 -Lal Chand and PW 6 - Surendra Pal lead towards an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused-appellant Banta Singh who had caused the fatal injury to deceased Nar Singh. The oral testimony given by the aforesaid these eye-witnesses is also corroborated from the statement of PW 3 - Dr. Ram Pratap Punia, Medical Jurist, who has categorically deposed that the injury sustained by deceased Nar Singh could be caused, by 'kassiya'. 11. A small blood stained kassiya recovered at the instance of accused-appellant was sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as `S.F.S.L). 12. The SFSL report (Ex. P/12) throws flood of light that the blood group found on the cloths of the deceased was of 'B' group and the blood found on the kassiya, was also of 'B' group. The aforesaid facts and circumstances conclusively establish beyond all pale of doubt that it is accused-appellant Banta Singh who has caused the fatal injury to the deceased Nar Singh and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable. 13. The aforesaid facts and circumstances conclusively establish beyond all pale of doubt that it is accused-appellant Banta Singh who has caused the fatal injury to the deceased Nar Singh and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable. 13. The basic question that merits our consideration in the present case is as to what is the exact nature of the offence committed by the accused-appellant. From the prosecution case itself, it is borne out from the FIR and statements of eye-witnesses named above that the accused-appellant has caused only one injury to the deceased Nar Singh with a `kassiya'. The assault was not repeated by accused-appellant. 14. Indisputably, kassiya is not a weapon of assault, such as traditional weapons of assault - Sela, Bhala, Farsa, Gandasa, sword etc. As a matter of fact, kassiya, is an agricultural implement which is invariably used for agricultural operations in villages of Rajasthan and possessed by all agriculturists in rural areas. The recovery memo of blood stained kassiya (Ex. 5) reveals that it was a small kassiya having total one feet & four and half inches' length. In the recovery memo Ex. 5, it is clearly mentioned that a small blood stained kassiya of the aforesaid measurement is recovered at the instance of accused-appellant in presence of Hari Ram and Sohan Lal. 15. From the aforesaid discussion, it is easily deducible that the.accused-appellant has no intention to cause death of deceased, hence, the present case falls within the purview of Section 304, Part II, IPC and not under section 302, IPC, as held by learned trial Judge. 16. Looking into aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that even if it is taken that the act done by the accused-appellant Banta Singh was with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death of deceased Nar Singh even then he has no intention to cause death of deceased. Therefore, we alter the conviction of accused-appellant Banta Singh from Section 302, IPC to Section 304(11), IPC and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. Accused-appellant is in Jail since 29.9.1991 and he has already served out 6 years and more than 9 months, hence, fine of Rs. 200/-imposed upon him by learned trial Judge is also set aside.With aforesaid modification, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Accused-appellant is in Jail since 29.9.1991 and he has already served out 6 years and more than 9 months, hence, fine of Rs. 200/-imposed upon him by learned trial Judge is also set aside.With aforesaid modification, this appeal is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellant be released from jail forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.Appeal dismissed but conviction altered. *******