JUDGMENT : - Basudev Panigrahi, J.: The accused in Sessions Trial No. 2/91 Session & Case No. 308/88 in the 2nd Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan is the appellant. The appellant was charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of one Ajai @ Ajahar Ali on 14.11.84 at night in village-Gatista within Mangalkote Police Station and was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. 2. The skeletal picture of the prosecution story as revealed in the FIR is as follows : 3. That on 14.11.84 at night a Kawali programme was arranged in the open courtyard in front of the Baro Masjid of village-Gatista within Mangalkote Police Station. At that time P.W. 3 Abdul Kalam, P.W. 4 Akbarul Haque and P.W. 5 Ainul Haque enjoying the Kawali programme together on the south-western corner of the mosque. While the programme was continuing and they were enjoying the said programme, they heard the appellant and the deceased Ajahar Ali quarelling each other. Thereafter they found the accused Soleman Sk. struck Ajahar by a knife on his abdomen. They further heard the deceased Ajahar shouting that Soleman had plunged a knife into his abdomen. The above prosecution witnesses also found the appellant Soleman running away from the place of incident. Many outsiders including the three witnesses assembled at the place of incident and they took Ajahar Ali to Chanak S.H.C. where the victim Ajahar Ali was declared to be dead. Mir Yakub Ali, P.W. 1, who is the father of the deceased on being informed about the incident came to the mosque and from there proceeded to the police station at 1-25 A.M. between 14/15.11.1984. He narrated the entire incident at Mangalkote Police Station which was reduced into writing and after it was read over and explained to P.W. 1, he signed thereon. The P.W. 8 drew up the formal FIR and took up the investigation of the' case. The Officer-in-Charge, Mangalkote Police Station visited the spot and found the dead-body was lying in a mango grove. He conducted the inquest over the deadbody in presence of the witnesses. He sent it for Post Mortem Examination. He further seized blood-stained earth etc. from Baro Masjid. The Officer-in-Charge, Mangalkote Police Station visited the spot and found the dead-body was lying in a mango grove. He conducted the inquest over the deadbody in presence of the witnesses. He sent it for Post Mortem Examination. He further seized blood-stained earth etc. from Baro Masjid. He also prepared a sketch showing the place of incident and after completion of investigation he placed the chargesheet under section 304 IPC and later on the appellant stood charged under section 302 IPC and was found guilty thereunder. 4. The prosecution in order to sustain conviction against the appellant had examined 8 (Eight) witnesses, of whom, P.W. 1, the father of the deceased was the informant who did not have direct knowledge of the incident. P.W. 2 is the cousin brother of the deceased. He reached at the spot only after it was declared in the loud-speaker that there was a murder committed in the mosque area. P.W. 2 came to know about the murder of Ajai @ Ajahar Ali by the appellant Soleman. Therefore, he too had no direct knowledge, P.W. 8 proved only the seizure of blood-stained earth from the western side of the Baro Masjid. He was also a witness to the inquest. P.W. 7 is a Constable. P.W. 6 Dr. P.K. Das was the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased. In order to prove the charge to the accused person the prosecution has examined only the occurrence witnesses 3, 4 and 5 who claimed to have seen the incident. All the eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have consistently stated that there was an altercation between the appellant Soleman on one hand and the deceased Ajai @ Ajahar Ali on the other. All of a sudden, they found the appellant took out a knife, struck it on the abdomen of the deceased Ajai @ Ajahar and immediately fled away from the scene of the occurrence. Therefore, from the evidence it transpires that there was no pre-meditation nor any intention to kill the deceased before-hand. This incident had occurred following an altercation between the deceased and the appellant and in a fit of anger the appellant dealt a knife blow into the abdomen of the deceased. From the evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. Therefore, from the evidence it transpires that there was no pre-meditation nor any intention to kill the deceased before-hand. This incident had occurred following an altercation between the deceased and the appellant and in a fit of anger the appellant dealt a knife blow into the abdomen of the deceased. From the evidence of P.W. 6 Dr. P.K. Das and also from the Post Mortem Report it does not reveal that such blow which is said to have been inflicted by the appellant would cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is curious to note that even the age of injury has not been indicated in the post mortem report. From the testimony of P.W. 6 it is further revealed that he did not make any note regarding the length and breadth of the weapon alleged to have been used. He did not also mention if any vein or artery were cut. According to this witness that death would cause if artery or vein is cut. He was not definite about the injury over the intestine. Therefore, in the above premise it is very difficult to form a definite opinion that the victim could be dead in ordinary course of nature after such injuries are inflicted. 5. From the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 there could be no room for doubt that the appellant dealt a single blow over the stomach of the deceased. Further it appears that there was no pre-meditation to cause death to the deceased. Only on a sudden impulse a single blow was dealt on the deceased. 6. According to the learned counsel of the appellant the accused cannot be said to have caused the injury on the deceased with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Looking at the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the circumstances narrated above irresistible conclusion can be arrived that the death was caused by the act of the accused, done with the intention of causing of such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and, therefore, the offence would squarely come within the first part of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. 7. Therefore, from the above narration of facts we find the appellant to be guilty for having committed an offence punishable under section 304 Part-I IPC and direct him to impose sentence already undergone. We are, however, not inclined to impose any fine separately. Accordingly we allow the appeal in part and modify the sentence as indicated above. D.P. Kundu, J.: I agree. Appeal allowed in part.