JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.:---The appellant-Mohd. Ismail alongwith his father Mohd. Ismail was tried before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 1997 for committing murder of his cousin sister Rafiqunnisa and for causing injury to his cousin Abdul Rehman (P.W. 1). The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 11-2-1998 convicted the appellant of the offence under section 302 of I.P.C. and under section 324 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of rupees one thousand, in default to undergo R.I. for four months and imprisonment for three months and fine of rupees two hundred, in default to undergo R.I. for seven days, respectively. This order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed by the P.W. 1 Rehman before the trial Court is that his father Mohd. Usman and original accused No. 2 Mohd. Israil are real brothers and the appellant is the son of Mohd. Usman. The incident in question which gave rise to this prosecution against the appellant and his father took place on 25-10-1996 around 11.00 a.m. just in front of the house of Mohd. Usman. The appellant and his father are residing in the neighbourhood of Mohd. Usman. There was dispute between Mohd. Usman and his brother between Mohd. Israil over the property and on that count there used to be frequent quarrel between them. On the date of the incident Mohd. Usman and his daughters namely Saibunnisa (P.W. 5) and Rafiqunnisa (the victim since deceased) were in the house. The appellant and his father Mohd. Israil came to the house of Mohd. Usman and there ensued a quarrel between them. It was almost oral wrangle between them, but in that as a natural consequence there was scuffle between them. It so happened that the complainant Abdul Rehman (P.W. 1) Mohd. Sultan (P.W. 4) (real brother of witness Abdul Rehman) on hearing noise of the quarrel and having been informed that the appellant and his father were quarrelling with Mohd. Usman rushed to the place of occurrence and intervened and separated Mohd. Usman as well as appellant Mohd. Ismail and his father Mohd. Israil. The appellant and his father in fact went away from that place, but both of them returned in a short while and they were armed with knives. Usman rushed to the place of occurrence and intervened and separated Mohd. Usman as well as appellant Mohd. Ismail and his father Mohd. Israil. The appellant and his father in fact went away from that place, but both of them returned in a short while and they were armed with knives. They rushed to attack Mohd. Usman. There was scuffle between Mohd. Ismail and witness Abdul Rehman. In that process the weapons fell on the ground and they were interchanged. The appellant then came to assault, witness Abdul Rehman. In order to ward of the blow the witness Abdul Rehman turned back and at that time the victim Rafiqunnisa who was standing by the side of the door came to the rescue of her father Mohd. Usman and that time appellant-Mohd. Ismail assaulted her with the knife (article 11) giving a thrusting blow in her chest. She collapsed on the ground. She was immediately taken to Meyo Hospital, Nagpur where she was declared dead. The appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. His father Mohd. Israil who was also armed with the knife (article 12) caused injuries on the chest and chin of the witness Abdul Rehman. 3. The witness Abdul Rehman was also treated in the Meyo Hospital and he was taken to Police Chouki in the Hospital where his statement (Exhibit 36) came to be recorded. It was on the basis of that report Exhibit 36 offence was registered vide Crime No. 383/1996 under sections 302, 324, read with section 34 of I.P.C. against the appellant and his father. After completing the investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his father and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge the appellants stood trial for the charge Exhibit 11. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. At the trial the prosecution examine in all 10 witnesses including Abdul Rehman P.W. 1, Mohd. Sultan P.W. 4, Saibunnisa P.W. 5, Dr. Mohan Dubewar who examined witness Abdul Rehman for the injuries he sustained on account of assault by the father of the appellant and the injuries have been categorically noted in the Medical Certificate Exhibit 52, Sajan Sonawane P.W. 9, the Police Station Officer, Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur who conducted the investigation in this case and Dr. Mohan Dubewar who examined witness Abdul Rehman for the injuries he sustained on account of assault by the father of the appellant and the injuries have been categorically noted in the Medical Certificate Exhibit 52, Sajan Sonawane P.W. 9, the Police Station Officer, Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur who conducted the investigation in this case and Dr. Prakash Mohite P.W. 10 whose opinion was sought by referring the weapon of the assault (i.e. knife which is article No. 11) and he opined and issued a certificate at Exhibit 72 giving his opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by the knife. After the prosecution evidence was over the appellant was examined under section 313 Cri.P.C. his defence is that of denial. In his reply to the last question, he has stated : "I do not know how the incident had taken place. Police forcefully put me behind bars. These people falsely implicated me. Usman uncle was having iron bar with sharp points. Thereafter I do not know what happened. There was rumours in Mohalla that the said rod caused injury to Rafiqunnisa." In support of his case the appellant-accused examined one witness Khaiyam Kausar Abdul Latif as his defence witness. Learned trial Court accepted the direct evidence of witness Abdul Rehman, Mohd. Sultan and Saibunnisa, so also the substantial evidence in the nature of finding of blood on the clothes of the appellant having blood group "B" which was found to be the blood group of the deceased, so also the a human blood on the weapon of assault i.e. knife (article 11) and came to the conclusion that the appellant committed murder of deceased Rafiqunnisa and also caused injuries to witness Abdul Rehman and accordingly the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as stated above. 5. We have heard Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. He has taken us through the evidence of material witnesses on whose ocular testimony the trial Court placed reliance. He pointed out that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, he also pointed out that the prosecution has failed to examine the material witness namely Mohd. Usman who was in fact the target of assault of the accused and as admitted by the prosecution the incident took place, which resulted in the assault on the victim Rafiqunnisa ensued on account of quarrel between Mohd. Usman who was in fact the target of assault of the accused and as admitted by the prosecution the incident took place, which resulted in the assault on the victim Rafiqunnisa ensued on account of quarrel between Mohd. Usman and the appellant and his father. He submitted that the witness Sultan Usman (P.W. 4) claimed that the appellant was moving his hand and in that process the knife in his hand hit the deceased on her chest and resultantly she sustained injury. He pointed out that the evidence of witness Abdul Rehman and Saibunnisa, on this point, he is derogatory to the evidence of witness Mohd. Sultan in as much as both the witnesses further stated that the appellant gave thrusting blow in her chest with the knives. He also pointed out that the narration of the prosecution case as found in the report which witness Abdul Rehman lodged in the Police Station was not consistent with the testimony of the witness before the Court. This therefore brings out the material and inherent infirmity in the prosecution case. He also pointed out that substantial evidence regarding finding of blood on the clothes of the appellant and on the knife (article 11) is not conclusive and therefore, the trial Court was in error in convicting the appellant. 6. Mr. Gupta also propagated alternatively that it is a case of solitary injury and the victim came to be assaulted in the process when she came to rescue her father and therefore, it can not be said that the appellant intended to inflict that particular injury in question on the chest of the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. According to him on the basis of the prosecution evidence on record the offence disclosed would fall under section 304-III of the I.P.C. While pointing out the facts and circumstances of the case, in support of his alternate plea the learned Counsel submitted his emphasis on particular statement of witness Mohd. According to him on the basis of the prosecution evidence on record the offence disclosed would fall under section 304-III of the I.P.C. While pointing out the facts and circumstances of the case, in support of his alternate plea the learned Counsel submitted his emphasis on particular statement of witness Mohd. Sultan-P.W. 4 wherein he has stated that the appellant was moving hand in which he was holding knife and in that process knife just stuck on the chest of the deceased, thereby the learned Counsel submitted with emphasis that the appellant cannot attributed with the intention to cause particular injury to the deceased because of which she died and therefore, he claimed that the appellant be clothed with knowledge and not intention that the injury was likely to cause death and as such the offence would fall under section 304 Part II of I.P.C. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in 1995 Cri.L.J. 2907. (Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre and another v. State of Maharashtra, respondent)1. 7. Mr. Mujumdar, learned A.P.P. in his submission made before us, first made scathing attack on the alternate plea raised by the Counsel for the appellant. He submitted that having regard to the incident and the injury, it is not at all possible to hold that the said injury was caused in the manner in which the Counsel for the appellant has submitted placing reliance on the solitary version of witness Mohd. Sultan. He submitted that the evidence of other two witnesses namely 1) Abdul Rehman and 2) Saibunnisa was very much clinching and crystal clear that the appellant gave thrusting blow with the knife in the chest of the deceased who was just standing by the door of the house. No case has been made out on the evidence on record that the appellant gave blow with the knife when the deceased came to intervene to save her father or brother. He therefore, submitted that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court on the decision reported in 1995 Cri.L.J 2907 (supra) cannot have any bearing so far as the case in hand is concerned. He therefore, submitted that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court on the decision reported in 1995 Cri.L.J 2907 (supra) cannot have any bearing so far as the case in hand is concerned. He then submitted that the trial Court has committed no error in accepting the evidence of witnesses and circumstantial evidence, particularly finding of blood of the blood group of the deceased on the clothes of the appellant as also the human blood on the knife (article 11) which was in fact the weapon of assault used by the appellant which has established beyond shadow of doubt that the appellant and the appellant alone was the person who caused the injury on the person of victim and the trial Court was right in holding the appellant guilty of the offence with which he was charged. He therefore, submitted that the appeal merits no consideration and same should be dismissed. 8. After having gone through the evidence led by the prosecution, as also the defence on the appellant and the material on record, we have found that the most material facts relating to the incident that occurred on the date and time in question, are either duly established or so also, admitted by the defence. The presence of the witnesses and the deceased Rafiqunnisa and that of the appellant and his father on the place of occurrence is admitted. The evidence of prosecution witnesses namely Abdul Rehman, Mohd. Sultan and Saibunnisa, that the appellant and his father had quarrel on that date initially with the father of witness namely Abdul Mohd. Usman in which they scuffled, is not shattered. The fact that after the oral wrangle ended because of the intervention by the sons of Mohd. Usman and other persons, the appellant and his father came back to the place of occurrence in a short while and that time they were armed with the knives. The evidence of witness Abdul Rehman, Sultan Mohd. and Saibunnisa is consistent, cogent and that evidence is not at all shattered by the defence. The presence of the victim Rafiqunnisa on the place of occurrence and also for the purpose of rescuing her father or brother is not disputed. The evidence of witness Abdul Rehman, Sultan Mohd. and Saibunnisa is consistent, cogent and that evidence is not at all shattered by the defence. The presence of the victim Rafiqunnisa on the place of occurrence and also for the purpose of rescuing her father or brother is not disputed. Then there is material evidence on evidence that the victim Rafiqunnisa came to be assaulted with knife (article 11) by the appellant, as a result of which she sustained bleeding injuries, no doubt of very serious nature of which she died. Defence has admitted the post-mortem report Exhibit 22. In column No. 17 of the report the Medical Officer who carried out autopsy over the dead body of Rafiqunnisa given details of the external injuries as follows : 1) Stab wound over right infraclavicolas region on medialside, verticle of size 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep margins clean cut blood oozing. 2) Confused abrasion below right knee 3 cm x 2 cm reddish brown in colour. 3) Confused abrasion below left knee 2 cm x 2 cm reddish brown in colour. 4) Contused abrasion with brown scab 2 cm x 1 cm black in colour right shin of tibia. 5) Contused abrasioneith brown scab over back in midline, 3 cm x 2 cm black in colour. The factum of the injuries sustained by the deceased is not disputed. It is very material to note that the stab wound over the right infraclavicolas region on medial side was of the size of 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep margins clean cut. It is also very clear from the postmortem report that the corresponding to this external injury there was internal damage and Ribs Rt 2nd and 3rd fractured in midclavicular line and the pleura was out and so far as right lung was concerned, there was through and through stab wound present over the right middle lobe. The Medical Officer has opined that the probable cause of death was injury to vital organs due to stab. So it is undisputed a fact that the deceased died homicidal death and as it is reinforced by the Medical Officer Dr. Prakash Mohite P.W. 10 to whom the knife (Article 11) was referred for opinion that the said injury was caused by the knife. This in fact lends assurance to ocular testimony of witnesses Abdul Rehman, Sultan Mohd. So it is undisputed a fact that the deceased died homicidal death and as it is reinforced by the Medical Officer Dr. Prakash Mohite P.W. 10 to whom the knife (Article 11) was referred for opinion that the said injury was caused by the knife. This in fact lends assurance to ocular testimony of witnesses Abdul Rehman, Sultan Mohd. Saibunnisa who have categorically stated that the injury was caused by the knife which the applicant was holding and as a result of thrusting blow given by him. 9. We have gone through the evidence of three eye-witnesses, we do not hesitate to agree with the Counsel for the appellant that as regards the discrepancy in the evidence of eye-witnesses. But in our opinion these discrepancies are very insignificant and as such in our view the testimony of the witnesses on material particular fact of assault has not been shaken. In fact minor omissions and contradictions are the hallmark, truthfulness of the statement of the witnesses before the Court. In addition to this in consistency do occur in the evidence of witnesses who observe and happen to witnessing the incident of assault as to power of observation differs from person to person. It is very difficult to expect a person to depict a picture consistently as it is depicted by other person who is also eye-witness to the incident. It is suffice to say that the discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses as pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant did not affect the main fabric of other statements which clinchingly establishes the fact that the appellant was the person who assaulted the deceased with the knife. 10. So far as the alternative plea taken by the Counsel for the appellant is concerned, according to us, it is falsified with the specific plea which the defence had at the trial Court. The defence has sought through the cross-examination of the witnesses and also by leading defence that the particular injury which proved to be fatal was caused by the father of the deceased Mohd. Usman by means of iron rod. The trial Court has found that the defence could not justify that plea either on the evidence of prosecution witness or by defence witness. 11. Usman by means of iron rod. The trial Court has found that the defence could not justify that plea either on the evidence of prosecution witness or by defence witness. 11. In our assessment made independently, we have found that the defence witness has not stated, nor he claimed that the particular injury was caused with the iron rod by the father of the deceased. All that was tried to bring out was that the deceased was brought from inside the house having sustained injuries on her chest and her father was that time armed with iron rod. It was on the basis of these facts alleged, that the defence tried to establish that the injury was caused by the father of the deceased with the iron rod. There was no material nor it can be said plausible that the injury was caused by the iron rod. That apart medical evidence on record and having regard to the nature of the injury caused, more particularly penetrating wound with margins clean cut, the possibility of the injury being caused with iron rod was totally ruled out. The result is that the plea of the defence that the injury caused by the rod was found to be false. 12. It is in this background, we have no hesitation to say that the alternate plea now raised by the appellant that the injury was caused with knife by the appellant in the process when the appellant was moving his hand, the knife in his hand just hit on her chest is also not plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the first place in our opinion version of the witness Mohd. Sultan-P.W. 4 before the Court that the appellant was moving his hand and in that process the knife hit on the chest of the deceased and she sustained injury does not give corroboration by the evidence of other two witnesses so also, does not stand to be plausible and probable having regard to the circumstances attending the case. We have already noted that the witness Mohd. Sultan and Saibunnisa have categorically stated that the appellant gave a thrusting blow with the knife on the chest when deceased was standing by the door. That statements of these two witnesses has not been shattered by the defence, though, both the witnesses were subjected to searching cross-examination by the defence. We have already noted that the witness Mohd. Sultan and Saibunnisa have categorically stated that the appellant gave a thrusting blow with the knife on the chest when deceased was standing by the door. That statements of these two witnesses has not been shattered by the defence, though, both the witnesses were subjected to searching cross-examination by the defence. That apart having regard to the extent of injury that has resulted and naturally as a consequence of the blow with the knife, it is very difficult to accept the injury was caused just as a consequence of hitting the knife on the chest of the deceased in the process the appellant was moving his hand. It is not case that the deceased in order to save her father or brother intervened physically and went near the appellant so as to come in contact with the knife. Therefore, what appears to us is that it was the method of describing the incident on the part of the witness Mohd. Sultan that he has stated that the knife was hit on the chest of the deceased when the appellant was moving the knife in his hand. We are fortified in saying so because of emphatic statements by the witnesses Abdul Rehman and Saibunnisa that the blow was given by the knife by the appellant on the chest and medical evidence totally ruled out the possibility of said injury being caused in an attempt of moving the hand. 13. Then we come to the case of the plea of the defence regarding single blow with the knife and thereby applicability of section 302 I.P.C. and bringing the case under section 304 II of Indian Penal Code. In this connection we would like to quote the observations made by Hon. Shri Justice Vivian Bose in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, as to how the intention is to be inferred in the case of single injury which reads as under : "The question is not whether the prisoner intended to inflict serious injury or a trivial one but whether he intended to inflict the injury that is proved to be present, if he can show that he did not, or if the totality of the circumstances justify such an inference, then, of course, the intent that the section requires is not proved. But if there is nothing beyond the injury and the fact that the appellant inflicted it, the only possible inference is that he intended to inflict it. Whether he knew of its seriousness, or intended serious consequences, is neither here nor there. The question so far as the intention is concerned, is not whether he intended to kill, or to inflict on injury of a particular degree of seriousness, but whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. But whether the intention is there or not is one of the fact and not one of law. Whether the wound is serious or otherwise, and if serious, how serious, is a totally separate and distinct question and has nothing to do with the question whether the prisoner intended to inflict the injury in question. It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be linked up with the seriousness of the injury. For example, if it can be proved, or if the totality of the circumstances justify an inference, that the prisoner only intended a superficial scratch and that by accident his victim stumbled and fell on the sword or spear that was used, then of course the offence is not murder. But that is not because the prisoner did not intend the injury that he intended to inflict to be as serious as it turned out to be but because he did not intend to inflict the injury in question at all. His intention in such a case would be to inflict a totally different injury. The difference is not one of law but one of fact." There is no principle that in all cases of single blow section 302 is not attracted. Single blow may, in some case, entail conviction under section 302 I.P.C., in some cases under section 304 I.P.C. and in some other cases under section 326 I.P.C. The question with regard to the nature of the offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. Single blow may, in some case, entail conviction under section 302 I.P.C., in some cases under section 304 I.P.C. and in some other cases under section 326 I.P.C. The question with regard to the nature of the offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of injury whether it is on the vital or nonvital part of the body, weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him. 14. In the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant in Ramesh Vitthalrao Thakre and another v. State of Maharashtra (supra) the Apex Court has no doubt found that the accused appellant can be clothed with knowledge and not intention that the injury was likely to cause death. In that case, deceased got single blow by knife in the abdomen by the accused. Learned Counsel for the appellant gave emphasis on this fact and submitted that in the case before hand deceased sustained injury on her chest and it was a single blow on the vital part and therefore as held by the Apex Court the appellant's case is covered under section 304 II of I.P.C. It is very difficult to hold that the decision of the Apex Court in the case relied upon is of any assistance or help to the appellant. It is significant to note that the finding in the case before Apex Court was that the deceased sustained injury while her brother was being attacked and she tried to intervened and save her brother. Now we come to the factual position so far as the case in hand is concerned, it is born on the basis of the material on record that when the blow was inflicted the deceased was standing by the door. There is no case made out on the evidence on record, nor the circumstances attending the case even by semblance point out that when the blow was given the deceased was in the process of physically intervening to save her brother or father. In fact the factual position is that the father of the deceased was not there when the assault was made. In fact the factual position is that the father of the deceased was not there when the assault was made. The brother of the deceased namely Abdul Rehman has clinchingly stated in his evidence that the appellant had rushed to assault him, but he just warded of the blow by turning himself to the side. Then the appellant rushed towards the deceased and gave blow with the knife on her chest. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to say that the deceased sustained injury with the blow of the knife at the hands of the appellant when she was trying to intervene to save her brother. As the evidence stands in our view the blow by the appellant with knife was independent and that itself goes to show that he intended to inflict injury on her. Therefore, it is not plausible and possible also to infer that the appellant had no intention to cause particular injury sustained by the deceased. 15. The circumstantial evidence particularly the finding of blood on the clothes of the appellant and the human blood on the knife (article 11) again lends assurance to the conclusion arrived at as regards the involvement of the appellant in commission of the crime so far as the assault on deceased is concerned. In the light of the evidence and facts and circumstances attending the case it is clinchingly established by the prosecution that the appellant has committed offence under section 302 of I.P.C. by committing murder of deceased Rafiqunnisa so also offence under section 324 for causing injury to the complainant Abdul Rehman. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----