ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, JJ. Heard both sides. This is a petition from Jail. The petitioner Johny was found guilty by the Sessions Court, Trissur for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The second accused Louis was acquitted by the Sessions Court. 2. The incident happened on 22.9.1988. The deceased Mary was the wife of Varghese, who died prior to the occurrence of the incident. Thereafter the deceased Mary was staying with the brother of Varghese, namely, second accused. The deceased Mary had a daughter by Varghese and on her marriage Louis, the second accused, had advanced a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as loan. The second accused, on the date of the incident, demanded the amount so advanced from the deceased Mary and it appears that there ensued a quarrel between the second accused and the deceased Mary. The deceased Mary said that she was not prepared to talk to him as he was drunk and there is also evidence to show that Louis, the second accused was also standing behind her. When the second accused demanded the amount from the deceased Mary, the first accused Louis, who was standing behind her, stabbed her on her back and this caused the death of Mary. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the crime committed by the petitioner can come only under 304 Part I of the IPC as there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the death though he had the requisite knowledge. It is true that there was only one stab injury on the deceased. It is also not clear as to what was the origin and genesis of the whole incident leading to this crime and apparently there was no reason for the petitioner to cause the injury to the deceased. These matters are shrouded in mystery. There must have been some other reasons and witnesses are not fully speaking out the truth. 4. Taking the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the offence committed by accused no.1 would come under Section 302 of the IPC. 5. These matters are shrouded in mystery. There must have been some other reasons and witnesses are not fully speaking out the truth. 4. Taking the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the offence committed by accused no.1 would come under Section 302 of the IPC. 5. Accordingly, the we set aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 and found him guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7 years. The petitioner would be at liberty to get set off the period he has already undergone. 6. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.