JUDGMENT - SAHAI VISHNU, J.:---The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7-2-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Special Case No. 7 of 1995 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code has come up in appeal before us. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under:--- The appellant Shivram Taral is a resident of village Taralwadi, a hamlet of Wagharat-Nivade, Taluka Lanja, District Ratnagiri. The deceased Anu Kamble was the resident of village Boudhwadi which was also a hamlet of village Wagharat. The appellant was having a suspicion that on account of the witchcraft practised by the deceased, his brother had died one year ago. On 5-11-1994, at about 2 p.m. Arjun Devras P.W. 4 who was working for a contractor heard noise near the pump house where he was working (near the pathway of village Wagharat-Nivade). He reached the place from where the noise was coming and saw the appellant assaulting Anu Kamble with a stick. The appellant threatened him and some others who had also come there to leave and told them that if they did not, he would beat them. Thereafter, they went away. Thereafter, Arjun Devras discovered that Anu Kamble had died. He informed the incident to the village Sarpanch P.W. 6 Kashinath Patkar. The evidence of Kashinath Patkar P.W. 6 shows that on 5-11-1994, at 3 p.m. Rajaram Taral, brother of the appellant came to his house and told him that his elder brother Raghunath Taral had called him near the river side. Consequently, he went there. He found that Raghunath had caught hold of his brother Shivram (appellant). Raghunath told him that he had killed Anu Kamble. When Kashinath Patkar P.W. 6 asked the appellant, he admitted his guilt and told him that the same afternoon, there was a quarrel between him and Anu Kamble who was doing witchcraft. Kashinath Patkar asked the appellant where the corpse of Anu Kamble was. The appellant replied that it was at Nivle. He took the appellant and asked him to sit in his house and along with the police patil of village Limbuchiwadi, went to the place of the incident where they saw the corpse. 3. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Ramkrishna Kamat P.W. 1 on the night of 5th/6th November, 1994 at police station Lanja. He took the appellant and asked him to sit in his house and along with the police patil of village Limbuchiwadi, went to the place of the incident where they saw the corpse. 3. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Ramkrishna Kamat P.W. 1 on the night of 5th/6th November, 1994 at police station Lanja. It was recorded by P.I. Bhaskar Mhatre P.W. 10 who registered on its basis, an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code etc. 4. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by P.I. Bhaskar Mhatre P.W. 10 who on its completion, submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. 5. Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of Anu Kamble was conducted on 6-11-1994 by Dr. Surendra Puandare P.W. 5 who found on it, 7 C.L.Ws., 2 swellings and 8 abrasions. It is pertinent to mention that one of the C.L.Ws. was situated above the left eye brow and one on the neck and both swellings were situated on the neck. It is also pertinent to mention out that excepting two C.L.Ws. which are mentioned as ante mortem injury Nos. 11 and 12 and beneath which there were fractures, all the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were simple in nature. Injury No. 11 involved compound fracture of upper end of tibia and fibula on the right leg just below the knee joint and injury No. 12 involved fracture of upper end of tibia below the left knee joint. In the opinion of Dr. Purandare, injury Nos. 11 and 12 were sufficient to cause death. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellant was charged for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code to which charge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence of the eye-witness Arjun Devras P.W. 4 and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in para 1, above. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. In our view, since an offence under section 304(2), Indian Penal Code and not one under section 302, Indian Penal Code is be made out against the appellant, this appeal would have to be partly allowed. 8. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record. In our view, since an offence under section 304(2), Indian Penal Code and not one under section 302, Indian Penal Code is be made out against the appellant, this appeal would have to be partly allowed. 8. So far as the involvement of the appellant in the incident is concerned, the same in our view, is clinched by the evidence of Arjun Devras P.W. 4 His evidence shows that he was working for a Contractor near the place of the incident. On the date and time of the incident, he heard cries near the pump house where construction work was going on. Consequently, he went there and found the appellant assaulting Anu Kamble with stick. When the appellant saw him and some others, who had also come, he threatened them to leave, otherwise, he would kill them. Thereafter, they went away. He saw that Anu Kamble was dead. He thereafter, went and informed the incident to Kashinath Patkar P.W. 6, the village Sarpanch. 9. We have examined the said statement of Arjun Devras P.W. 4 and we find it to be truthful. In the first place, he has explained his presence on the place of the incident. Since he was working near the pump house, he was a natural witness of the incident. His statement that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a stick is corroborated by the blunt weapon injuries suffered by the deceased. It is significant to point out that the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Purandare stated that excepting the three contused lacerated wounds (ante mortem injury Nos. 1, 11 and 12) and one abrasion (injury No. 2), the remaining injuries could be caused by a stick. We make no bones in observing that we are not inclined to agree with this opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon. In our view, all the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by a stick. Assurance to the evidence of Arjun Devras P.W. 4 is lent by that of Kashinath Patkar P.W. 6 the village Sarpanch. His evidence shows that immediately after the incident, Arjun Devras came and informed him about Anu Kambles death. 10. In our view, all the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by a stick. Assurance to the evidence of Arjun Devras P.W. 4 is lent by that of Kashinath Patkar P.W. 6 the village Sarpanch. His evidence shows that immediately after the incident, Arjun Devras came and informed him about Anu Kambles death. 10. For the said reasons, in our view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in accepting the evidence of Arjun Devras P.W. 4 and in holding the involvement of the appellant in the incident established beyond reasonable doubt. 11. We however, have no reservations in observing that the learned trial Judge grievously erred in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code. He was prompted to do so on the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon which was to the effect that injury Nos. 11 and 12 suffered by the deceased were sufficient to cause death. In the earlier part of our judgment, we have furnished the details in respect of those injuries. We have mentioned that both those injuries were C.L.Ws. and injury No. 11 involved compound fracture of upper end tibia and fibula on the right leg below the knee joint and injury No. 12 involved fracture of upper end of tibia on the left leg below the knee joint. In our view, the said fractures would not be sufficient to cause death. The expression sufficient to cause death means sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the expression sufficient to cause death is implicit that the injury/injuries should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is then and then alone would the offence fall in Clause thirdly of section 300, Indian Penal Code, the breach of which is punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. In our view, injury Nos. 11 and 12 suffered by the deceased were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to death. That they caused death or could have caused death, does not mean that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In our view, the act of the appellant did not fall either under Clause thirdly of section 300, Indian Penal Code or within the four corners of Clauses firstly, secondly, and fourthly of that second. 12. Ms. In our view, the act of the appellant did not fall either under Clause thirdly of section 300, Indian Penal Code or within the four corners of Clauses firstly, secondly, and fourthly of that second. 12. Ms. Kejriwal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent urged that the Act of the appellant would fall within the four corners of clause fourthly of section 300, Indian Penal Code. We regret that we do not find any merit in her contention. Clause fourthly provides that culpable homicide is murder: if the person committing the Act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability , cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such Act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. In our view, Clause fourthly would only be attracted if a person committing an act knows: (a) that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death; OR (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The expression must in all probability cause death envisage of a very high probability of death and the expression such bodily injury as is likely to cause death contemplates of a high probability of death. From a perusal of injury Nos. 11 and 12, we feel that it cannot be safely said that the appellant while inflicting them knew that either there was a very high probability of death resulting from them or of a high probability of death occurring as a consequence of them. For the said reasons, Clause fourthly would not be applicable. 13. Be that as it may, we make no bones in observing that it would be sufficient to conclude that when the appellant inflicted a large number of stick blows on the person of the deceased, he had the knowledge of his death as contemplated by Clause thirdly of section 299, Indian Penal Code, the breach of which is punishable under section 304(2), Indian Penal Code. Consequently, in our view the appellant committed an offence punishable under section 304(2), Indian Penal Code. The only question which survives is the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellant. Consequently, in our view the appellant committed an offence punishable under section 304(2), Indian Penal Code. The only question which survives is the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellant. After bestowing our anxious consideration to the said question and bearing in mind the number of injuries which the appellant inflicted on the deceased, in our view, the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if he is directed to suffer a sentence of seven years R.I. 14. In the result this appeal is partly allowed. Although we acquit the appellant for the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code and set aside his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment thereunder but, we convict him instead for the offence under section 304(2), Indian Penal Code and direct him to suffer seven years R.I. The appellant is in jail and shall serve out his sentence. Appeal partly allowed. -----