JUDGMENT Both these appeals by the accused-appellant Kishor are directed against the judgment dated 1.1.97 rendered by XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in S.T. No. 238/95, convicting the appellant under Ss. 302 & 324 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and 3 months' RI for the aforesaid offences respectively. Appeal No. 177/97 is filed by the appellant through his counsel while appeal No. 336/97 has been received from the jail. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution against the appellant in the trial Court was that on 22.1.95 around 8.15 p.m. some quarrel took place between the appellant Kishor and deceased Sheru in front of a grocery shop at Chandan Nagar, Indore. The accused, it is said, knived the deceased on his neck. Suresh (PW 3) who tried to save the deceased and snatched the knife from the accused, also sustained injury in his left palm. Besides Suresh, Rameshchandra (PW 2), Ramlal (PW 4) and Mahesh Sahu (PW 5) have also arrived at the spot. They took the deceased to police station and then shifted him to district hospital, Indore, where he was declared dead by the doctor on duty. FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged by Rameshchandra at Police Station Chandan Nagar at 9 p.m., on the basis of which a case was registered and the investigation follows. On 23.1.95 the police visited the spot, recovered blood stained and controlled earth from the spot. The autopsy on the body of the deceased was also performed on the same day, which confirmed homicidal nature of his death (vide report Ex. P-12). The accused was arrested and on the basis of information given by him in the police custody a blood stained knife was recovered from the room occuppied by the accused. After due investigation the accused was charge-sheeted for trial. At the trial the appellant pleaded not guilty to both the charges framed against him under Ss. 302 & 324 IPC. His defence was of total denial of the prosecution case. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses (PW I to PW 9) and proved 17 documents in evidence. No evidence was however led by the accused in defence. On evaluation of the evidence, the Court below has held the accused guilty for both the charges, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses (PW I to PW 9) and proved 17 documents in evidence. No evidence was however led by the accused in defence. On evaluation of the evidence, the Court below has held the accused guilty for both the charges, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. We have heard shri A.S. Rathor and Shri Hardiya learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Khare, Dy. G.A. appearing for the respondent-State. It has not been disputed before us that on the relevant date deceased Sheru had died homicidal death as a result of incised wound caused to him on his neck. This is borne out fully even otherwise by the ocular evidence of Rameshchandra (PW 2) and Suresh (PW 3) and the medical evidence of Dr. Ravindra Chaudhari (PW 8). who had performed autopsy on the body of the deceased. According to the doctor the deceased had a stab wound on the right side of his neck and thorosic cavity down ward and back ward. Right carotrid artery was cut through and through. According to P.M. report the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury in the neck. It is also not disputed that on I he same day Suresh (PW 3) had also sustained incised wound as evidenced by the testimony of Dr. Purohit (PW J). AIJ these injuries were on left palm cutting index, middle and little fingers. The only question therefore requiring determination in this appeal is whether the accused was responsible for the injuries of the deceased and that of Suresh and for what offence if any he was guilty? The prosecution has examined Rameshchandra (PW 2), Suresh (PW 3), Ram]al (PW 4) and Mahesh Sahu (PW 5) as eye-witnesses of the incident. However, Ramlal (PW 4) has turned hostile to the prosecution and denied to have himself seen the accused stabbing the deceased. He, however, admitted to have reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and saw the deceased lying injured on the spot and the accused being chased by Ramesh, Pappu and Vijay. So even from the hostile testimony of this witness it appears that the accused-appellant had fled away after stabbing the deceased. He, however, admitted to have reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and saw the deceased lying injured on the spot and the accused being chased by Ramesh, Pappu and Vijay. So even from the hostile testimony of this witness it appears that the accused-appellant had fled away after stabbing the deceased. Other witnesses Rameshchandra (PW 2), Suresh (PW 3) and Mahesh (PW 5) have lend full corroboration to the prosecution story and testified that accused-appellant Kishor was the assailant who stabbed the deceased in his neck and also injured Suresh when the latter tried to save the deceased and snatched knife from the former. Suresh himself was injured in the incident and his presence on the spot at the relevant time could not be disputed. Mahesh Sahu has his own shop near the occurrence and his presence was also therefore quite natural. Ramesh (PW 2) is although brother of the deceased, but he is the person who had taken the deceased to the police station and then to the hospital and lodged the report with the police. His evidence also therefore inspired ful! confidence. Their testimony could not be challenged successfully by the defence in crossexamination. Barring a few minor contradictions nothing substantial could be shown in the deposition of these witness to discredit their testimony. They find full corroboration from the prompt FIR Ex. P-2, lodged at P.S. Chandan Nagar, Indore and the medical evidence already stated herein before. We, thus, find ourselves in full agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court that it was the appellant-accused and he alone who stabbed the deceased to death and also voluntarily caused hurt to Suresh by means of a knife. It was however contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the accused causing injury on the neck of the deceased, did not constitute offence of murder as defined under S. 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that it was a case of single injury which did not show that the accused had requisite intention or knowledge to cause death. It was pointed out that as per prosecution's own showing there was altercation of hot talks and abuses between the accused and deceased and that the incident has taken place at the spur of moment. We feel pursuaded by the arguments. It was pointed out that as per prosecution's own showing there was altercation of hot talks and abuses between the accused and deceased and that the incident has taken place at the spur of moment. We feel pursuaded by the arguments. The incident had taken place at the spur of moment and only one stab wound was caused to the deceased by the accused. No doubt that very single injury proved to be fatal, nevertheless it cannot be said that the accused had intention to cause death. But, having regard to the weapon used and the part of the body of the deceased affected the appellant-accused can certainly be attributed with the knowledge that by causing said bodily injury he was likely to cause death. The act of the accused, in our considered judgment, fell within the purview of section 304 (part-I) of the IPC. He was also guilty under section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to Suresh by means of a cutting weapon. These appeals thus succeed in part and to the extent indicated above. The conviction of the appellant u/s 324 IPC and sentence of 3 month's RI awarded to him are affirmed. However, his conviction u/s 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life are set aside and instead he is convicted u/s 304 (Part I) IPC. He is sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years for that offence. The appellant is already in jail and he shall serve out the remaining sentence subject to the provisions of S. 428 CrPC. Both these appeal thus stands disposed of as aforesaid. This judgment be retained in Cri.A.No. 177/97 and a copy thereof be filed in the record of Cri.A.No.336/97.