JUDGMENT 1. -Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.11.1995 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 16/95. By the aforesaid judgment, the accused-appellant-Hari Ram was convicted and sentenced under sections 302 & 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and further simple imprisonment for one month, for default in payment of fine under section 302 of the IPC. Under Section 323 r/w 34 of the IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further simple imprisonment for 15 days, for default in payment of fine. The accused-appellant-Chuna Ram was convicted and sentenced under section 302 r/w Section 34 & 323 of the IPC. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and further simple imprisonment for one month, for default in payment of fine under section 302 of the IPC. Under Section 323 of the IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further simple imprisonment for 15 days, for default in payment of fine. Both the sentences of imprisonments of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The facts of the case may be summarised as under : 4. On 14.4.1995, at 5.30 p.m., Mehram S/o Charm Ram submitted the report Ex. P/15 at the Police Station, Mundawa. In the report it was stated that on 14.4.1995 at 3.30 p.m., in presence of Mehram and his wife, iron door was being fitted in the room. Meanwhile, Mehram's brother Hari Ram and his father Chuna Ram reached there. Hari Ram was armed with a knife and Chuna Ram was armed with a 'lathi'. As soon as Hari Ram and Chtma Ram reached the spot, they started assaulting Hari Ram's wife Smt. Pappu Devi who was sprinkling water outside the room. Hari Ram inflicted a knife blow on the chest of Smt. Pappu Devi and, in consequent of the injury received by her, she died at the spot. On hearing alarm, Sanwat Ram, Mada Ram and Bhau Ram reached the spot. It was alleged in the report Ex. P/15 that the incident occurred on account of a dispute regarding the room. 5. On hearing alarm, Sanwat Ram, Mada Ram and Bhau Ram reached the spot. It was alleged in the report Ex. P/15 that the incident occurred on account of a dispute regarding the room. 5. On the basis of the report Ex. P/15, submitted by Meh Ram, the police registered a case under section 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Usual investigation of the case was conducted and, after completion of the investigation, report under section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was submitted in the Court of Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagaur, against Hari Ram & Chuna Ram. The learned Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagaur, committed the case to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagaur, by his order dated 19.5.1995. 6. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagaur, tried both the accused on the charges under section 302 iv/ Section 34 and Section 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. 7. The prosecution examined Dr. Ram Vi las Choudhary (PW 1), Nathu Ram (PW 2), Doongar Ram (PW 3), Rameshwar Lal Saraawat (PW 4), Jhhabu Ram (PW 5), Sanwat Ram (PW 6), Meh Ram (PW 7), MIA Ram (PW 8), Mada Ram (PW 9), Hardeen (PW 10), Shanker Lal (PW 11), Arjun Ram (PW 12), Pratap Bishnoi (PW 13), Mani Ram (PW 14) and Vidhya Prakash (PW IS) to prove the charges against the accused-appellants. The accused-persons were examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They denied the alleged occurrence. No evidence was produced by the accused in defence. 8. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagaur, after hearing the counsels for the parties and taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused-Hari Ram under section 302 and Section 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The accused-Chuna Ram was convicted under section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case the evidenceproduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the charges against the appellant. The accused-Chuna Ram was convicted under section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 323 of the IPC. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in this case the evidenceproduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the charges against the appellant. In the alternative, it is contended that even if it is found to be proved that the incident occurred in the manner in which it has been alleged by the prosecution, the act of the accused-Chuna Ram does not amount to offence under section 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC because the incident did not occur due to any premeditation and the accused-Chuna Ram could not have anticipated and much less shared the intention to cause death of Smt. Pappu Devi. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if it is found to be proved that the accused-Hari Ram inflicted one single knife injury on the breast of Smt. Pappu Devi, who was his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), the act of the accused-Hari Ram does not amount to murder but he had no intention to cause her death and his act is at the most, punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction as well as sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. In the instant case, the allegation by the prosecution is that Smt. Pappu Devi W/o Meh Ram was assaulted by the accused-Chuna Ram and Hari Ram and during the assault, Chuna Ram inflicted simple injuries with the blunt weapon and Hari Ram inflicted one stab wound on her breast with a knife and on account of the injury received on her breast she died at the spot. 12. Dr. Ram Vilas Choudhary (PW 1) conducted the post-mortem-examination of the dead body of Smt. Pappu Devi. He deposed that on 15.4.1995, he was posted as Senior Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Mundawa. On that day he conducted the post-mortem-examination of dead body of Smt. Pappu Devi, on the request of the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Mundawa. The post-mortem-examination was conducted at 8.30 a.m. The witness has proved the post-mortem-examination report Ex. P/1 and the injuries of Smt. Pappu Devi in examination-in-chief. On that day he conducted the post-mortem-examination of dead body of Smt. Pappu Devi, on the request of the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Mundawa. The post-mortem-examination was conducted at 8.30 a.m. The witness has proved the post-mortem-examination report Ex. P/1 and the injuries of Smt. Pappu Devi in examination-in-chief. Following injuries were found on the dead body of Smt. Pappu Devi:- 1. Stab wound size 1" x 1/2" situated just above the nipple of right breast. On tracing the wound to measure the _depth, it is found that the wound has medically and downwards. The 4th rib has been cut at the sternal end and right ventricle of the heart has been pierced on both anterior and posterior walls. 2. Abrasion 1" x 1/4" on upper part of left forearm posteriorly. 3. Abrasion 3/4" x 1/4" on right buttock. 13. Dr. Ram Vilas Choudhary (PW I) has given the opinion that the cause of death of Smt. Pappu Devi was a stab wound of the chest leading to puncture of the heart resulting into hemorrhage and shock and the death had been caused about 18 hours before the post-mortem -examination. 14. It is further stated by Dr. Ram Vilas Choudhary that on 15.4.1995, he examined the injuries found on the body of Meh Ram and found the following injuries on his body : 1. An will defined swelling and bruises over lower I/3rd of right forearm posteriorly. The injury is simple in nature and caused with a blunt weapon. 2. Abrasion and bruises 1" x 1/2" over upper ⅓rd of right forearm posteriorly. The injury was simple in nature and caused with a blunt weapon. 3. Multiple minute abrasions over upper part of left fore aim and posteriorly and back of left elbow. The injury was simple and was caused with blunt weapon. 15. In his cross-examination, Dr. Ram Vilas Choudhary (PW 1) has stated that pen cardium had been cut and the injury on the right ventricle was through and through though this fact was not mentioned in the post-mortem-examination report Ex. P/1 because he had already given the description in the post-mortem-examination report. 16. The evidence of Dr. 15. In his cross-examination, Dr. Ram Vilas Choudhary (PW 1) has stated that pen cardium had been cut and the injury on the right ventricle was through and through though this fact was not mentioned in the post-mortem-examination report Ex. P/1 because he had already given the description in the post-mortem-examination report. 16. The evidence of Dr. Ram Vilas Choudhary (PW I) further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 15.4.1995 when he conducted the examination of the injuries of the complainant-Meh Ram, he found three simple injuries caused with blunt weapon on his body and prepared injury report Ex. P/2. It is further proved by the evidence of this witness that on conducting the post-mortem-examination of the dead body of Smt. Pappu Devi, he found one stab wound and two simple injuries on her body and the death of Smt. Pappu Devihad been caused by the stab wound, which seriously damaged the heart. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness and we, therefore, hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the death of Smt. Pappu Devi was homicidal and pause of death was a stab wound caused on her body. The evidence which has been produced by the prosecution to connect the appellants with the alleged crime, consists of the oral statements of Meh Ram (PW 7), Sanwat Ram (PW 6), Bhakh Ram (PW 8) and Mada Ram (PW 9) who were either present at the spot during the whole of the occurrence or reached the spot at the time of the occurrence and saw the accused-persons there. Hardeen (PW 10) is also an eye-witness of the occurrence but he has stated that when Hari Ram and his brother Chuna Ram started quarrelling, he retire from the scene of occurrence. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.The prosecution has also produced the Investigating Officer and other witnesses to prove the submission of the report Ex. P/15 by Meh Ram at the Police Station for registration of a criminal case on the basis of the report and the recovery of the dead body of Smt. Pappu Devi from the scene of occurrence. P/15 by Meh Ram at the Police Station for registration of a criminal case on the basis of the report and the recovery of the dead body of Smt. Pappu Devi from the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has also tried to prove that, after the arrest of the accused-appellant-Hari Ram, Hari Ram gave information about a knife under section 27 of the Evidence Act and Chuna Ram gave information about a 'lathi' under section 27 of the Evidence Act and, in pursuance of the information given by both the accused-persons, one knife and one 'lathi' had been recovered by the Investigating Officer. Though the prosecution has produced evidence to show that the 'lathi' and the knife recovered in pursuance of the information given by the accused-persons and the clothes as well as samples of soil collected during investigation had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for analysis but the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur has not been produced in evidence to show that the 'lathi' and the knife recovered by the police were stained with the blood of the deceased. 17. Meh Ram (PW 7) is the husband of the deceased-Smt. Pappu Devi. He is also the author of the First Information Report Ex. P/15. He has stated on oath that on the date of occurrence, doors were being installed in his room. At that time one 'karigar' Hardeen Ram and a woman were working there. At about 3.30 p.m. Hari Ram reached there from Nagaur and said that he would set up a shop in the room and he asked that the room be given to him. Meh Ram (PW 7) has added that he told Hari Ram that the room is to be utilised for keeping fodder as it was rainy season and he asked Hari Ram to set up the shop after some time. Hari Ram then went away saying that his request has been denied and he would return back. After sometime, Hari Ram and his father (Chuna Ram) returned to the spot. Hari Ram was armed with a knife and Chuna Ram was armed with a 'lathi'. Both the 'karigars' were doing the work and Smt. Pappu Devi was sprinkling water. Meh Ram (PW 7) has added that no sooner the accused had reached the spot, Chuna Ram hurled a 'lathi' blow on Smt. Pappu Devi. Hari Ram was armed with a knife and Chuna Ram was armed with a 'lathi'. Both the 'karigars' were doing the work and Smt. Pappu Devi was sprinkling water. Meh Ram (PW 7) has added that no sooner the accused had reached the spot, Chuna Ram hurled a 'lathi' blow on Smt. Pappu Devi. She saved herself by raising her hands. When Meh Ram rushed towards his wife Smt. Pappu Devi, Chuna Ram inflicted a 'lathi' blow on him. As a result he received an injury on his finger and fell on the ground. At that time Chuna Ram exhorted "what are you looking at, the dispute is because of this 'randi', kill her with the knife and then Hari Ram inflicted a knife blow on the breast of Smt. Pappu Devi. It is also stated by Meh Ram (PW 7) that he had been stopped by his father Chuna Ram and had he not been stopped by his father, he would have saved his wife Smt. Pappu Devi. Meh Ram (PW 7) further added that Sanwat Ram, Bhau Ram, Mada Ram and Arjun Ram reached the spot on hearing the alarm and they intervened and then Hari Ram and Chuna Ram both ran away from the scene of occurrence. Smt. Pappu Devi had fallen on the ground. She died at the spot. The knife blow had landed on her right breast. Meh Ram (PW 7) has proved the report Ex. P/15 submitted by him at the Police Station. He has also proved his signatures on the 'supurdginama' Ex. P/10, site plan Ex. P/8 and the recovery memo Ex. P/9 by which samples of simple earth and blood stained earth were taken by the Investigating Officer, 18. In his cross-examination, Meh Ram (PW 7) has stated that accused-Chuna Ram is his father and Hari Ram is his younger brother. It is stated by him that on the day of occurrence Hari Ram was a student of B.A. Part Iind and there was a no previous between him and the accused. Regarding his own profession, Meh Ram (PW 7) has stated that he is employed in the police department and was posted at Police Station, Badi Khatu and on the date of occurrence, he was on leave. He was confronted with report Ex. P/15 and he admitted that in the report Ex. Regarding his own profession, Meh Ram (PW 7) has stated that he is employed in the police department and was posted at Police Station, Badi Khatu and on the date of occurrence, he was on leave. He was confronted with report Ex. P/15 and he admitted that in the report Ex. P/15 he did not state that his further Chuna Ram had asked Hari Ram to kill Smt. Pappu Devi with the knife. We have carefully considered the statement of Meh Ram (PW 7). It appears that his statement regarding the version containing report Ex. P/15 on the basis of which a case has been registered, is not open to any doubt but his statement in Court that Chuna Ram had asked Hari Ram to kill his wife Smt. Pappu Devi with the knife, is open to serious doubt as this statement is not mentioned in the First Information Report Ex. P/15. 19. Sanwat Ram (PW 6) has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 3.30 p.m., he was at his house. At that time he heard the hue and cry and rushed towards the house of Meh Ram where Meh Ram, Hari Ram and Chuna Ram were quarrelling. Sanwat Ram (PW 6) has stated that Hari Ram had a knife in his hand and Chuna Ram was holding a 'lathi' in his hand and Hari Ram had inflicted knife blow on the breast of the wife of Meh Ram and blood was coming out of her wound. It is also stated that wife of Meh Ram died at the spot and her dead body was taken inside the house and, after causing the injuries, the accused-persons returned to their house. It is also stated by him that Chuna Ram had inflicted injury on the hands of Meh Ram with a lathi'. It is also stated by Sanwat Ram (PW 6) that in his presence, investigation was conducted by the Police Officer. He proved his signatures on recovery memo Ex. P/3, note regarding inspection of the dead body Ex. P/3, note regarding inspection of the dead body Ex. P/6, 'Panchayatnama' Ex. P/7 and site plan Ex. P/8. It is also stated by him that in his presence, the police had recovered a knife and prepared recovery memo Ex. P/11 and the site plan Ex. P/12 and lathi' had also been recovered in his presence and recovery memo Ex. P/3, note regarding inspection of the dead body Ex. P/6, 'Panchayatnama' Ex. P/7 and site plan Ex. P/8. It is also stated by him that in his presence, the police had recovered a knife and prepared recovery memo Ex. P/11 and the site plan Ex. P/12 and lathi' had also been recovered in his presence and recovery memo Ex. P/13 and site plan Ex. P/14 had been prepared by the police. In cross-examination, Sanwat Ram (PW 6) has added that Hardeen Bhambhi (PW 10), had informed him about the quarrel and further told him that he failed in his attempt to prevent the quarrel. Sanwat Ram (PW 6) has further added that when he reached the spot, Smt. Pappu Devi was standing and Hari Ram was holding a knife in his hand. It is further stated by him that when he was intervening and saving Meh Ram, all of a sudden, Hari Ram inflicted a knife blow on Smt. Pappudi (Smt. Pappu Devi) and ran away. 20. Bhakh Ram (PW 8) is another eye-witness of the occurrence. He has stated that on hearing hue and cry, he went to the spot. At that time. Meh Ram, his wife and the accused-Hari Ram and Chuna Ram were present there. Hardeen was working there but he ran away from the spot when fight started. It is also stated by this witness that a gate was being installed in the room. According to this witness, Hari Ram expressed his desire to set up a shop in the room and Meh Ram has expressed his desire to store fodder in the room. This was the bone of contention between them and when he reached there, they were fighting. It is further stated by him that when he was attempting to intervene, Hari Ram went behind the wife of Meh Ram and inflicted a knife injury on her breast. As a consequence, she fell on the ground. Later on her body was taken inside the house. Bhakh Ram (PW 8) has further added that in his presence investigation was conducted by the police officer. He has proved his signatures on Eh. P/6, Ex. P/8, Ex. P/9, Ex. P/10, Ex. P/11, Ex. P112, Ex. P/13 & Ex. P/14. As a consequence, she fell on the ground. Later on her body was taken inside the house. Bhakh Ram (PW 8) has further added that in his presence investigation was conducted by the police officer. He has proved his signatures on Eh. P/6, Ex. P/8, Ex. P/9, Ex. P/10, Ex. P/11, Ex. P112, Ex. P/13 & Ex. P/14. In his cross-examination, Bhakh Ram (PW 8) has stated that he did not see Hardeen at the spot and the knife injury was inflicted on Smt. Pappu Devi by the accused-Han Ram. The witness was confronted with the police statement Ex. D/3. In portion A to B of Ex. D/3, the witness had stated that at the time of the incident he was weaving a cot at the house of his nephew Mada Ram. The witness has denied this statement. In portion C to D of Ex. D/3, the witness has stated that he as well as Mada Ram and Sanwat Ram rushed to the spot but by that time Chuna Ram and Hari Ram had run away towards their house. 21. Mada Ram (PW 9) is another witness examined by the prosecution. He has stated that on hearing hue and cry he went to the house of Meh Ram. According to this witness Chuna Ram was armed with a lathr and Hari Ram was armed with a knife and Hari Ram had inflicted a knife blow on the breast of Pappuri (Smt. Pappu Devi) and, thereafter, accused persons ran away from the scene of occurrence. It is also stated by him that at the time of incident Chuna Ram was abusing Meh Ram and his wife and several witnesses had also assembled at the spot and, after the incident, the body of wife of Meh Ram was taken inside the house and the earth where she had fallen, had become stained with blood. In portion A to B of the police statement Ex. D/3 the witness stated that Meh Ram's younger brother Hari Ram, inflicted a blow on the breast of Meh Ram's wife and ran away with a knife. In portion C to D it was again stated that Hari Rain suddenly inflicted a knife blow and ran away. We have considered portions A to B and C to D of Ex. D/3. In portion C to D it was again stated that Hari Rain suddenly inflicted a knife blow and ran away. We have considered portions A to B and C to D of Ex. D/3. In our opinion, there is no material contradiction between the statement made in the Court and the statement made to the police. In his statement in the Court, the witness was deposed that on hearing the quarrel when he went to the house of Meh Ram, he saw that Chuna Ram had a lathi' and Hari Ram had a knife in his hand and Hari Ram inflicted a knife blow on the breast of Pappuri wife of Meh Ram and after inflicting the blow, the accused-persons ran away towards their house. Since there is no material contradiction between the statement made in the Court and the statement made to the police, we do not find any force in the submission that the testimony of this witness is not reliable on account of contradiction. After carefully going through the statement of Mada Ram (PW 9) and portion A to B and C to D of his police statement Ex. D/3, we are of the opinion that this witness reached the spot after infliction of injuries by the accused when the accused-persons were trying to escape from the scene of occurrence. However, we have no doubt in it that he had seen both the accused-persons running away from the scene of occurrence.The police statements of Bhakh Ram (PW 8) and Mada Ram (PW 9), both have been marked as Ex. D/3 by the trial Judge. 22. Hardeen (PW 10) is the person who was employed by Meh Ram for the purpose of installing iron door on the gate of his room. He has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. he was working there. At that time, Hari Ram reached there and told Meh Ram that he would set up a shop in the room. Hari Ram has said that he would keep fodder in the room and further said that he would not allow him to set up a shop. Thereafter, both the brothers started quarrelling. Hardeen (PW 10) has added that he went to his house. Though this witness has been declared hostile and confronted with his police statement Ex. Hari Ram has said that he would keep fodder in the room and further said that he would not allow him to set up a shop. Thereafter, both the brothers started quarrelling. Hardeen (PW 10) has added that he went to his house. Though this witness has been declared hostile and confronted with his police statement Ex. P/16, we are of the opinion that the statement of this witness is reliable. In his presence, accused-Hari Ram went to the spot and expressed his desire to set up a shop in the room and Meh Ram also expressed his desire to store fodder in the room and then quarrel (exchange of words) started between the two brothers and, at that time, this witness retired from the scene of occurrence. This conclusion is further supported by the evidence of Sanwat Ram (PW 6) who has stated in the cross-examination that Hardeen had given him information about the quarrel which has taken place between Meh Ram and Hari Ram. We, therefore, hold that Hardeen (PW 10), left the scene of occurrence before the accused-persons had inflicted injuries on the bodies of Meh Ram and Smt. Pappu Devi. 23. Arjun Ram (PW 12) has stated on oath that at the time of incident he was proceeding towards the place of his duty. According to this witness, a quarrel was taking place in front of the house of Meh Ram. Hari Ram inflicted a knife blow on the breast of Smt. Pappu Devi and she died. It is also stated by this witness that his father Chuna Ram was trying to intervene in the fight and Bhakh Ram Mada Ram and Sanwat Ram had also reached the spot. This witness was declared hostile. He was confronted with his police statement Ex. P/17. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was in the employment of forest department and was posted at village Kharda where he had to remain on duty from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. In the cross-examination it was suggested to him by the counsel for the accused that he did not set the accused-Hari Ram inflicting injury to Smt. Pappu Devi but he denied this suggestion and stated that he had seen the accused-Hari Ram inflicting injury to her. Arjun Ram (PW 12) is the son of accused-Chuna Ram. Arjun Ram (PW 12) is the son of accused-Chuna Ram. Though he has denied portion A to B of the police statement Ex. P/17 in which it was stated that Chuna Ram exhorted Hari Ram to kill Smt. Pappu Devi with the knife, we have no doubt in it that the witness was present at the scene of occurrence. He has categorically stated that in his presence Hari Ram inflicted a knife blow on the breast of Sint. Pappu Devi. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not Find any reason to discard statement of this witness. 24. In the light of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the statements of Meh Ram (PW 7). Sanwat Ram (PW 6), Bhakh Ram (PW 8), Mada Ram (PW 9), Hardeen (PW 10) and Arjun Ram (PW 12), are sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-Hari Ram inflicted a knife blow on the breast of Smt. Pappu Devi wife of the complainant-Mah Ram (PW 7). In our opinion, the cause of quarrel was the heated exchange of words which took place between Meh Ram and Han Ram. Both of them wanted to use the room in which the door was being installed for different purposes. Hari Ram wanted to set up a shop in the room and Meh Ram wanted to store fodder in the room. Sint. Pappu Devi and Meh Ram both were present near the room in which the door was being installed. We, therefore, have no doubt in it. that the accused-Hari Ram who was armed with a knife which he had brought from his house, inflicted the stab wound on the breast of Smt. Pappu Devi and thereby caused her death. 25. So far as the pan played by Chuna Ram is concerned, the prosecution has tried to prove that Chuna Ram was armed with a 'lathi' with which he inflicted injuries on Meh Ram and he exhorted Hari Ram to commit murder of Smt. Pappu Devi by inflicting a knife blow on her. We are of the opinion that the prosecution evidence regarding part played by Chuna Ram is open to reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that the prosecution evidence regarding part played by Chuna Ram is open to reasonable doubt. Arjuna Ram (PW 12) has stated that when he reached the spot, his father Chuna Ram was trying to intervene which means that Chuna Ram was merely trying to avoid the quarrel between his two sons, namely, the complainant-Meh Ram and the accused-Hari Ram. It is also important to note that in the report Ex. P/15 which was submitted by Meh Ram (PW 7) at the police station and on the basis of which police was registered the case, it is not mentioned that Chuna Ram exhorted Hari Ram to kill Smt. Pappu Devi by giving her a knife blow. Meh Ram (PW 7) has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention the above facts in the report Ex. P/15 as he had forgotten to mention it. We are not convinced by the explanation given by Meh Ram (PW 7) regarding the omission in Ex. P/15 about the exhortation given by Chuna Ram to Hari Rain for the murder of Smt. Pappu Devi. In our opinion, the prosecution allegation that Chuna Ram exhorted Hari Ram to kill Smt. Pappu Devi has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 26. The accused-Chuna Ram is father of both the complainant-Meh Ram and the accused-Han Rain. There is no evidence to show that Chuna Ram wanted that the room in dispute should be given to Hari Ram for setting up a shop. There is no evidence to show that Chuna Ram asked Hari Ram to hand over the room in dispute to Hari Ram for setting up shop. In these circumstances, it is proper to infer that Chuna Ram was not party to the dispute regarding room and he neither intended to favour Mch Ram nor he intended to favour Hari Ram so far as the desire to use the room for different purposes was concerned. In these circumstances. it is difficult to infer that Chuna Ram should have shared the common intention with Hari Ram for inflicting any injury on Smt. Pappu Devi or Meh Ram. Being the father of both he must be presumed to be interested in avoiding a violent fight between Meh Ram and Han Ram, both of being his sons. In these circumstances. it is difficult to infer that Chuna Ram should have shared the common intention with Hari Ram for inflicting any injury on Smt. Pappu Devi or Meh Ram. Being the father of both he must be presumed to be interested in avoiding a violent fight between Meh Ram and Han Ram, both of being his sons. We, therefore, hold that the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statement of Arjmn Ram (PW 12) clearly suggest the Chuna Ram had reached the spot with an object to avoid a violent light between Meh Ram and Hari Ram and he had no intention at all to cause any injury to Meh Ram or his wife Smt. Pappu Devi. This inference is further supported by the statement of Meh Ram (PW 7) who has stated that his father Chuna Ram had stopped him and had he not been stopped, he would have saved his wife. This statement suggests that violent fight was likely to take place between Meh Ram and Hari Ram and to prevent Meh Ram and Hari Ram from entering into a violent fight, Chuna Ram caught hold of Meh Ram and prevented him from rushing towards Hari Ram. This act on the part of accused- Chuna Ram was to avoid the violent fight, rather than enable Meh Ram to inflict a knife blow on Snit. Pappu Devi. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution case against the accused-Chuna Ram, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The simple injuries caused with blunt weapon found on the body of Meh Ram, might have been caused unintentionally when Chuna Ram tried to intervene with a view to avoid a violent fight between his two sons. 27. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that the evidence of the witnesses named above proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-Hari Ram inflicted a knife blow on the right side of breast of Smt. Pappu Devi and she died on account of the injury caused by this blow. The allegations made against Chuna Ram. have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 28. The allegations made against Chuna Ram. have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 28. So far as the evidence of recoveries of 'lathi' and the knife are concerned, the prosecution has produced in evidence the Investigating Officer Vidhya Prakash (PW 15), who conducted the investigation and made recoveries of the dead body, the clothes of the deceased, blood stained soil and controlled soil as well as the 'Iathi ' and the knife. The prosecution has also produced in evidence Motbir witness Nathu Ram (PW 2) in whose presence the clothes oldie deceased-Smt. Pappu Devi were recovered by the police. Dungar Ram (PW 3), Malkhana Incharge has been examined for the purpose of proving that the articles recovered by the Investigating Officer were scaled and were deposited in the Malkhana where they were kept without tampering. Rameshwar Lal Saraswat (PW 4) has been examined by the prosecution to prove that the sealed packets which were handed over to him were taken to the Forensic Science Laboratory and were deposited there in the same condition in which they were given by the Malkhana Incharge. It is not necessary to discuss evidence of these witnesses in detail. Suffice it to say that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory has not been produced in evidence to show that 'lathi' and the knife which had been recovered during investigation in pursuance of the information given by the accused-persons under section 27 of the Evidence Act were stained with blood. Recovery of the 'Iathi' as well as knife, therefore, does not connect the accused-persons with the alleged crime. It is, therefore, not necessary to discuss in detail evidence regarding recovery. 29. Regarding the gravity of offence committed by accused-Hari Ram, the learned Counsel for the appellant has.submitted that the incident took place suddenly. only one injury was caused to Smt. Pappu Devi and there was no previous enmity and, thereof-ore, it should be inferred that the accused-Hari Ram had no intention to cause death of Snit. Pappu Devi. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that offence committed by accused-Hari Ram is not more serious than the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC. 30. We have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Pappu Devi. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that offence committed by accused-Hari Ram is not more serious than the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC. 30. We have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is true that the deceased-Smt. Pappu Devi is sister-in-law of the accused-Hari Ram and only one injury was caused on her right side of breast with a knife. It is also true that according to the statement of the prosecution witnesses, there was no previous enmity, much less of such nature as to motivate the accused to commit murder of Smt. Pappu Devi. But, it has been proved by the prosecution evidence that a dispute occurred between Hari Ram and Meh Ram because Hari Ram wanted to set up a shop in the room in which doors were being fitted on the gate on the date of occurrence and Meh Ram was not prepared to part with possession of the room as he wanted to store fodder in the room. This dispute resulted in exchange of words and Hari Ram, at that time, retired from the scene of occurrence saying that he would return back. After some time, he returned back to the scene of occurrence with a knife in his hand. It shows that he brought a knife from his house with an object of forcibly taking possession of the room in which he wanted to set up his shop. The intention to force Meh Ram to part with possession of the room, by use of knife is, therefore, proved from the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence further shows that Chuna Ram, also reached the spot at the same time when Hari Ram reached the spot. The evidence shows that he tried to avoid violent fight between his two sons by holding Meh Ram in his arms. At that time Hari Ram was free to make use of his knife and he inflicted a knife injuty on the right side of the breast of Snit. Pappu Devi. There is no evidence to show that Smt. Pappu Devi was armed with a weapon or she tried to inflict any injury on the accused-Hari Ram. At that time Hari Ram was free to make use of his knife and he inflicted a knife injuty on the right side of the breast of Snit. Pappu Devi. There is no evidence to show that Smt. Pappu Devi was armed with a weapon or she tried to inflict any injury on the accused-Hari Ram. We, therefore, have no hesitation in corning to the conclusion that there was absolutely no justification for inflicting the knife injury on the breast of Smt. Pappu Devi. Throughout the occurrence, the evidence shows that she was non-violent and unarmed and she neither provoked the accused to cause any injury to her nor offered any justification to the accused-Hari Ram to inflict any injury on her. The injury found on the body of Smt. Papu Devi was not accidental. The injury had been caused by the accused when he was completely free to use the knife in such manner as he liked and, in these circumstances, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the knife blow which was caused by the accused-Hari Ram on Smt. Pappu Devi was intentional. 31. It is well known that knife is a sharp-edged weapon capable of causing fatal injuries when the blow in aimed at a vital parts and inflicted with sufficient force. The act of hurling a knife blow, when the aim was front side of the breast of the deceased and the force used by the accused as indicated by the wound actually found on the body of Smt. Pappu Devi was sufficient to cause death proves it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-Hari Ram intended to cause injury which was actually found on the body of Smt. Pappu Devi. We, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the injury which was caused to Smt. Pappu Devi was intentional. 32. Chest being a vital part of the body and knife being a lethal weapon. it must be inferred that the accused-Hari Ram knew well that the injury which he was causing to Smt. Pappu Devi was likely to cause her death. The act of the accused is, therefore, squarely covered by Section 300 Secondly of the IPC. 32. Chest being a vital part of the body and knife being a lethal weapon. it must be inferred that the accused-Hari Ram knew well that the injury which he was causing to Smt. Pappu Devi was likely to cause her death. The act of the accused is, therefore, squarely covered by Section 300 Secondly of the IPC. The evidence of Ram Vilas Choudhary (PW I) proves that on dissection of the dead body, he found that the wound found on the breast of the deceased had caused serious damage to the heart. There was puncture of the heart resulting in hemorrhage and shock. Fourth rib had been cut at the stern end and the right ventricle of the heart had been pierced on both anterior and posterior walls. In view of the damage caused by the injury to the heart, we are of the opinion that the injury inflicted by the accused-Hari Ram must be regarded as "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death". We, therefore, hold that the act of the accused- Hari Ram. is squarely covered by Section 300 secondly as well as by Section 300 thirdly of the IPC. We. therefore, find no force in the submission that the offence committed by the accused-Hari Ram does not amount to murder. 33. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal of accused-Chung Ram deserves to be allowed. He is hereby acquitted of the charges under section 302 r/w Sections 34 & 323 of the IPC and his conviction as well as sentence for the above mentioned offences is hereby quashed and set aside. 34. The appeal of accused-Hari Ram is partly allowed. His conviction as well as sentence under section 302 of the IPC is hereby confirmed but he is acquitted of the charge under section 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and his conviction as well as for Section 323/34 IPC sentence is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-Hari Rain is in jail, he will suffer the sentence awarded to him under section 302 of the IPC.Appeal partly allowed. *******