JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Sessions Case No. 2/2000. Learned Judge vide judgment dated January 23, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 302 IPC to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/-, in default to further suffer simple Imprisonment for Three Months. 2. The prosecution story runs as under:- A report (Ex.P-2) was incorporated in Rojnamcha at 6.30 PM on May 12, 2000 by Police Station Udyog Nagar, Kota to the effect that one Govind Singh (now deceased) was lying unconscious in a tempo. Constable Poonam Chand immediately proceeded to take the injured to MBS Hospital Kota, but he died on the way. A case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body of Govind Singh was performed. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 were got recorded and necessary memos were drawn. The appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kota. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the case because one Shabana was residing with him as his wife and because of this Kanhaiya, Rajendra and Nafis Mohammad had enmity with him. Shabana was examined as defence witness. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Mr. Amarjit Singh Narang, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant at the outset canvassed that the appellant had no intention to kill Govind Singh and it was Govind Singh who along with Kanhaiya Lal went to the house of appellant at the time when the appellant was taking bath. Seeing them corning, the appellant entered to the house and bolted it from inside. Kanhaiya Lal (PW-1) and Govind Singh forced the appellant to come out of the house. After the appellant came out scuffle ensued and Govind Singh sustained injury. Under these circumstances Exception IV to Section 300 IPC attracted and the appellant could not have been convicted under section 302 IPC. 4. Kanhaiya Lal (PW-1) and Govind Singh forced the appellant to come out of the house. After the appellant came out scuffle ensued and Govind Singh sustained injury. Under these circumstances Exception IV to Section 300 IPC attracted and the appellant could not have been convicted under section 302 IPC. 4. Per contra, Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that in view of the nature of the injury sustained by the deceased the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC. 5. We have pondered over the submissions and scrutinised the evidence. 6. Kanhaiya Lal (PW.1), who is the star witness of the prosecution, in his cross examination deposed thus:- " ------;g lgh gS fd gekjs le>kus ds midze dks jktw isUVj us ;gh le>k fd ge mls ekjus vk;s gSa blfy, og gekjs Mj ds ekjs edku ds vUnj ?kqlk FkkA--- ge Lo;a gh mlds ?kj ds ckgj [kM+s jgs Fks] eSaus jktw isUVj dks vkoktsa yxkbZ FkhaA ;g lgh gS fd vkokt blfy, yxkbZ Fkh fd jktw isUVj us fdaokM+ cUn dj j[kk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd nks rhu vkoktsa nsus ds ckn og ckgj vk;k FkkA---- xksfoUn vkSj jktw xqReFkexqRFkk gks x;s] vkSj xksfoUn ds blh nkSjku pkdw yx x;kA----- " 7. At this juncture it will be appropriate to refer to the post Mortem Report (Ex.P-20) according to which Govind Singh sustained one Stab Wound measuring 3cm x 1, 1/2cm X CD over left side of the chest. The cause of death was shock as a result of ante mortem injury to heart. 8. It is thus evident that the assault on the deceased was not a premeditated one or a calculated move. The fatal injury was inflicted on the chest of the deceased by only one blow. The act of the appellant appears to have been done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause the death, but without any intention to cause death. Under these circumstances where the deceased himself initiated the quarrel and the place of incident was in front of the house of appellant and the deceased sustained only one injury in the course of scuffle, the appellant could not be held guilty of an offence under section 302 IPC. Under these circumstances where the deceased himself initiated the quarrel and the place of incident was in front of the house of appellant and the deceased sustained only one injury in the course of scuffle, the appellant could not be held guilty of an offence under section 302 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case Exception IV to Section 300 IPC is attracted and the appellant can be held guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appellant has been remained in custody continuously since May, 2000 and the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. 9. For these reasons we partly allow the appeal and instead of section 302 IPC we convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. The appellant Raju Singh @ Raju painter who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.The impugned judgment of learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above. *******