P. G. Agarwal, J.- Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae and Mrs K. Deka, learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The accused appellant Smti Ayesha Khatun @ Rakhi Jha stands convicted for an offence under section 302, IPC, in Sessions Case No.59/95 and she was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default further imprisonment for three months. 3. On the ill fated day, that is, on 3.5.1995 the accused appellant was lodged in the female ward No.3 of Goalpara Jail along with the deceased Musstt Marzina Khatun and Geeta Bala Das (PW 3). The accused was in jail in connection with a case under section 109 CrPC and the deceased was kept there for safe custody in connection with a case under section 366, IPC. After taking her meal PW 3 Geeta Bala Das went to sleep. The deceased was having a fever for the last two days and she did not take meal on that evening. At about 9 PM there was some hue and cry where upon PW 3 got up and saw the accused appellant catching hold of the hairs of the deceased and banging the head on the pucca wall. The female guard Kiran Bala Mahanta (PW 4) also saw the incident from the varandah. The deceased sustained injury on her head and fell down unconscious. On alarm d being raised other jail officials also arrived and the injured was removed firstly to Goalpara Civil Hospital and there from to Gauhati Medical College Hospital. However, the victim succumbed to the injuries on the way. 4. PW 8 Dr. Pratap Chandra Sarma who held autopsy over the dead body found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: “(1) Stitched wound 4 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep present over right eye ridge. (2) Contusion 7 cm x 5 cm of scalp 4 cm above the root of right mastoried process (red in colour). (3) Contusion 3 cm x 3 cm ao the scalp 5 cm above the root of left mostaid process (near ear). (4) Contusion 7 cm x 6 cm on the scalp over the occiput (Red in colour). (5) Cerbelluns of brain callused on both sides. (3) Contusion 3 cm x 3 cm ao the scalp 5 cm above the root of left mostaid process (near ear). (4) Contusion 7 cm x 6 cm on the scalp over the occiput (Red in colour). (5) Cerbelluns of brain callused on both sides. (6) Brain stem callused 2.5 x 1 cm size.” In the opinion of the doctor the above injuries were as a result of multiple impact against hard object and death was due to coma as a result of head injuries sustained. 5. The factum of death of the deceased as a result of the head injuries is not disputed. The involvement of the accused in the incident has been substantiated by the testimony of the two eye witnesses, namely PW 3 and PW 4. They saw the accused person catching hold of the head of the deceased and striking the same against the pucca wall of the prison cell. PW 3 being an inmate of the room was the natural witness and PW 4 being the female guard, her presence at the place of occurrence can not be doubted. There was no other inmates in the cell except the deceased, accused and PW 3. PW 3 saw the incident from inside the cell whereas PW 4 witnessed the same from varandah. The name of the accused as assailant was reported to other witnesses immediately by these two witnesses and it finds place in the FIR (Ext 1) which was lodged immediately afterwards when the deceased was still alive. 6. In her statement under section 313, CrPC, accused appellant admits the occurrence by stating that she did assault the deceased. The learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that this is a case of sudden and grave provocation. None of the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined on that score and even no suggestion was given to the witnesses to that effect. As PW 3 was asleep, we have no source to know as to what transpired between the accused and the deceased and what led to the incident. The accused has stated that she requested the deceased to take her food. The latter kicked her whereupon she assaulted the deceased. Admittedly the deceased was lying sick at the relevant time and as such even if this version is accepted it will not amount to sudden and grave provocation. The accused has stated that she requested the deceased to take her food. The latter kicked her whereupon she assaulted the deceased. Admittedly the deceased was lying sick at the relevant time and as such even if this version is accepted it will not amount to sudden and grave provocation. Considering the oral and medical evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that it was the accused appellant who killed the deceased. 7. Now the next point for decision is whether the accused has the intention to kill the deceased. 8. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the accused intentionally caused the death of Marzina Khatun. There cannot be any direct evidence regarding intention which is to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. Admittedly the accused had no animus with the deceased and she had no reason or motive to kill her. The deceased was staying in the cell for the last 7 days and according to PW 3 there was no occasion or no quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused till the time she went to sleep on the fateful day. Thus the possibility of premeditated killing can be safely ruled out. Undoubtedly, the doctor has opined that there was multiple dashing but there is no evidence that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is not dense, a sudden quarrel to some extent and the appellant gave banging on the head on the wall. It can not be confidently stated that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury which caused the death. There was no malice and there was no premeditation. The cause of quarrel was, though unknown, sudden. Obviously the first part of section 300 IPC will not be attracted since it could not be stated that the act of the accused which caused the death was done with the intention of causing death. The appellant had no grievance against the deceased. It is well settled that the nature of the offence does not depend merely on the location ,of injury caused by the accused. In the instant case the assailant And the victim were both young girls lodged in cell of the jail. Both of them were unmarried and as such they were on equal footing in point of defence. It is well settled that the nature of the offence does not depend merely on the location ,of injury caused by the accused. In the instant case the assailant And the victim were both young girls lodged in cell of the jail. Both of them were unmarried and as such they were on equal footing in point of defence. PW 3 stated that a bottle was broken by the accused. The accused did not make use of the said broken bottle to cause; any injury on the person of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that the accused appellant had no intention to kill the deceased. The act of the deceased will fall under exception (4) of section 300 IPC which is punishable under section 304, IPC. 9. In the result, the conviction of the accused appellant is altered to section 304, Part I, IPC and she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default further imprisonment to one month. The appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.