Judgment B. Prasad, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the factum of incident. However, his assertion is that the offence as made out under Section 302, IPC, is not a correct disposition of the incident. It was an incident, which occurred on the spur of the moment while the young chaps were playing. The accused has however, taken a extreme step and has caused an injury resulting into cut of a major blood vessel. Since, immediately appropriate medical help could not be given, the injured succumbed to his injury. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor was at loss to defend the case because it was not a case where pre-meditation was there. No criminal background was available, also there was no previous rivalry between the parties except that the parties had quarreled on a petty matter. On the spur of the moment, in the heat of passion, the injury has been inflicted. The injury was not repeated. Undue advantage was not taken by the accused appellant. 3. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that offence under Section 302 has wrongly been made out by the trial Court. The case at best comes within the ambit of Section 304-II, IPC. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused appellant is altered from Section 302 to Section 304-II, IPC. Since, the conviction has been altered, the sentence also deserves to be altered. The appellant is behind the bar since February, 2000. It is considered appropriate that the substantive sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is however maintained. The accused appellant Rakesh @ Rakesh Kumar S/o Bhagwan Singh is behind the bar, he is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.