Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 12.07.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur, convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302,IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has also been awarded a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22.05.2001, PW. 8 Vena lodged a First Information Report Exhibit P-7 at Police Station Kotra stating inter alia that in the afternoon at about 1:00 P.M., when he returned to the house, his brother-Bheras daughter PW. 10 Mst. Kali informed that Kaka Ba (deceased) has been killed by Prabhu. Accordingly, he rushed to his brother deceased-Bheras house, and found appellant Prabhu standing outside of the house in drunken condition armed with a kulhari. Seeing him the appellant took his heels and escape. The incident was narrated by PW. 2 Meva, daughter of the deceased. She stated that while her father had just returned from the job, appellant Prabhu arrived in drunken condition carrying a kulhari in hand. He started abusing her deceased father and inflicted kulhari blow from the opposite side. It was also stated that deceased scummed to the injuries on the spot. On this information, police registered a case for offence under Sections 302, 323, IPC and proceeded with the investigation. Police prepared the site plan and inquest report of the dead-body. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under Sections 302, 323, IPC. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses and produced certain documents. 4. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the evidence appearing against him. The learned trial Court having found the prosecution case proved, convicted and sentenced the appellant-Prabhu as indicated above. 5. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the only witness PW. 10 Mst. Kali is not creditworthy, as such, the conviction of the appellant on her testimony is not sustainable. The learned trial Court having found the prosecution case proved, convicted and sentenced the appellant-Prabhu as indicated above. 5. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the only witness PW. 10 Mst. Kali is not creditworthy, as such, the conviction of the appellant on her testimony is not sustainable. In the alternate, it is submitted that the appellant inflicted only single blow and that too from the opposite side of Kulhari and, as such, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus, the conviction of the appellant cannot travel beyond Section 304 Part-II, IPC. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the Judgment of the learned trial Court. .6. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence and considered the rival contentions. It is not in dispute that deceased-Bhera died of homicidal death. PW. 5 Dr. Dhanraj Koli has stated that on 22.05.2001 he conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of Bheria vide Exhibit P-4 and noticed the following injuries. 1. On Dissection of Scalp.-There is sub dural hemorrhage on left occipital Region. There is superficial contusion of the brain matter at occipital Region. 2. Injury noted on P.M. Exam- A swelling 3 ½ cm x 3 cm at left post 1/3 of the skull just above left ear. 7. In his opinion, deceased-Bhera died due to head injury. He further opined that the said injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 8. Before we advert to the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel, it would be convenient to briefly survey the evidence produced by the prosecution. 9. PW. 1 Mst. Duti is the widow of deceased-Bhera. She stated that on the date of incident, in the afternoon at about 1:00 P.M., she alongwith her deceased husband were sitting on the cot. At that time, appellant-Prabhu arrived armed with kulhari in the drunken condition. He abused her husband and gave a kulhari blow from the opposite on the head of her husband Bhera. He also inflicted injuries on the other part of the body. She identified appellant Prabhu as her nephew. As a result of the assault, deceased Bhera scummed to the injuries on the spot. Her daughter PW. 10 Mst. Kali informed PW. 8 Vena brother of deceased-Bhera. The incident was also witnessed by PW. 10 Mst. Kali and PW. 2 Mst. Meva. She identified appellant Prabhu as her nephew. As a result of the assault, deceased Bhera scummed to the injuries on the spot. Her daughter PW. 10 Mst. Kali informed PW. 8 Vena brother of deceased-Bhera. The incident was also witnessed by PW. 10 Mst. Kali and PW. 2 Mst. Meva. She has been cross-examined at length. Nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit the testimony of the witness. 10. PW. 2 Mst. Meva is an another eye-witness. Her statement was recorded on 11.02.2002. Her statement remained incomplete as before she could resume her statement, it was reported that she has died. 11. PW. 10 Mst. Kali is a child witness of ten years. The learned trial Court after testifying her capability to depose, recorded her statement. She is daughter of deceased-Bhera. She stated that appellant-Prabhu killed her father by kulhari. She has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit her testimony. 12. PW. 8 Vena is brother of deceased-Bhera. He stated that in the afternoon, at about 2:00 P.M., Mst. Kali came to his house and informed that her father Bhera has been killed by appellant Prabhu. He rushed towards the house of Bhera. He also stated that he had seen appellant Prabhu escaped from the spot armed with a kulhari. He also stated that he lodged the First Information Report Exhibit P-7. He also proved the several police memos. There is a lengthy cross-examination but nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit his testimony. On the contrary, it has been reaffirmed in the cross-examination that he had seen the appellant-Prabhu escaping from the spot armed with a kulhari. Though, this witness is not an eye-witness but the fact that he had seen the accused running away from the spot armed with a kulhari is a relevant fact admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. 13. PW. 3 Lokiya and PW. 4 Lala are the punch witnesses of the police memos. PW. 6 Hindhu and PW. 7 Rupa are motbirs of recovery of kulhari and the police memo. Both the witnesses have not supported the recovery and, as such, they have been declared hostile. PW. 9 Dungar Singh is the SHO of Police Station Kotra. He has given details of the investigation. PW. 6 Hindhu and PW. 7 Rupa are motbirs of recovery of kulhari and the police memo. Both the witnesses have not supported the recovery and, as such, they have been declared hostile. PW. 9 Dungar Singh is the SHO of Police Station Kotra. He has given details of the investigation. He stated that the appellant while in police custody gave information vide Exhibit P-9 which led to the recovery of kulhari vide memo Exhibit P-5. The kulhari was packed and sealed on the spot. However, there is no evidence that kulhari was stained with human blood, as prosecution has not produced FSL report. Thus, recovered kulhari cannot be connected with the alleged crime. Be that as it may, it is evident from the analysis of the oral evidence that the statements of two witnesses i.e., PW . 1 Duti and PW . 10 Mst. Kali are creditworthy. The version given by both the witnesses finds corroboration from the statement of PW . 8 Vena and the medical evidence. Thus, there is sufficient evidence as indicated above that deceased-Bhera died as a result of injuries caused by appellant-Prabhu. 14. As far as nature of offence is concerned, submission of the learned Counsel is that the appellant inflicted a single injury and that too by opposite side of kulhari and, as such, an inference should be drawn that he did not intend to commit murder. Thus, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting of murder. He has placed reliance on the decisions of the Honble Apex Court in Mavila Thamban Nambiar vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1997 SC 687 and Adu Ram vs. Mukna & Ors., reported in AIR 2004 SC 5064 . Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. V.R. Metha, leaned Public Prosecutor that it is not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The single blow was given with such a force that deceased-Bhera died on the spot, as such it is clearly a case of murder. 15. Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the view that as far as the nature of offence is concerned, the contention raised by the learned Counsel deserves to be accepted. If the appellant had an intention to commit murder of deceased-Bhera he could have used the kulhari by sharp aged side. 15. Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the view that as far as the nature of offence is concerned, the contention raised by the learned Counsel deserves to be accepted. If the appellant had an intention to commit murder of deceased-Bhera he could have used the kulhari by sharp aged side. The fact that he has used the weapon like kulhari from the opposite side, in other words not from the sharp edged but blunt side and further that he did not repeat the blow, it can be conveniently inferred that he did not intend to commit murder. Reference be also made to decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh & Anr. vs. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1506 . The appellant arrived in the drunken condition, abused and inflicted a blow from the opposite side on the head of deceased-Bhera, no intention of murder can be attributed to him, at the most he may be clothed with “Knowledge”. Thus, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302, IPC. The appellant is liable to be convicted only for offence under Section 304 Part-II, IPC. 16. Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant-Prabhu is altered from Section 302, IPC to Section 304 Part-II, IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for life is substituted by sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment. As far as the order of fine is concerned, the same shall remain intact.