JUDGMENT 1. Jahid Hussain, appellant herein, has been found guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing death of Kayum Bhai, and thus sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a year. This order of conviction and sentence has been passed against the appellant on 2.5.2003 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 1, Kota. The co-accused of appellant Mohd. Akhlakh and Manoj Mehra, were acquitted vide same judgment. 2. In the context of limited controversy, pertaining to nature of offence, the facts that need to be noticed, reveal that the incident took place on 15.11.2002 at 9.30 PM, and FIR regarding the same came to be lodged by Liyakat Ali, PW-15 on the same day at 10.30 PM. On the written statement of Liyakat Ali, Ex. P-10, the police registered the FIR Ex.P-11 on 15.11.2002 at 10.30 PM. Unfolding the prosecution version, Liyakat Ali stated that, he alongwith Kayum Bhai was going towards his house after completing prayer (Namaj) at 9.30 PM. When both of them had reached near the guest-house of Water Works Department, they saw a motor cycle coming from front, on which three people were sitting. The moment, motor-cycle came near them, it was stopped. The person sitting in between two, on motor-cycle got down, and came towards them. He was appellant Jahid Hussain. When he came near them, he told Kayum Bhai that how could he kill him, and in fact he will kill him (Kayum Bhai) today. The moment he said so, he started beating Kayum Bhai with fists and blows. He tried to rescue Kayum Bhai, but his two companions caught hold of him; whereas appellant Jahid Hussain kept on beating Kayum Bhai continuously with fists and legs. Kayum Bhai had fallen on the road, but appellant kept on beating him continuously. The blood was oozing out from his mouth. The people tried to rescue Kayum Bhai, but appellant did not agree, and kept on beating him with fists and legs. Kayum became unconscious, and after thinking that he had died, the appellant went alongwith his companion on motor-cycle towards CAD road. 3. The prosecution in support of its case, examined Dr. The blood was oozing out from his mouth. The people tried to rescue Kayum Bhai, but appellant did not agree, and kept on beating him with fists and legs. Kayum became unconscious, and after thinking that he had died, the appellant went alongwith his companion on motor-cycle towards CAD road. 3. The prosecution in support of its case, examined Dr. Govind Gupta, PW-13, who had deposed that at 11.25 PM, he had conducted post-mortem of Kayum Bhai, who had died between 12 to 24 hours when his post mortem was conducted. The doctor found the following three injuries on the dead body of Kayum:- (i) Abrasion 2 x 2cm. blow (R) knee. (ii) Abraded Bruise 3 x 11/2cm. on (R) loin. (iii) Diffuse swelling over scalp. 4. In the opinion of doctor, Kayum Bhai died because of haemotama on fore-head. This injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In his version, doctor has stated that all the injuries sustained by Kayum Bhai could be because of falling on the ground. Injury No. 3 was not infront of head. There was no fracture in the head. 5. There is no need at all to give further details of the case, as Mr. Biri Singh, counsel appearing for the appellant states that even if statements of first informant and Dr. Goving Gutpa, PW-8 are taken to be true in entirety, the facts of present case would not go beyond the offence as described in section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records. There appears to be force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, as noted above. As per prosecution case itself, appellant Jahid Hussain was not armed with any weapon. He had caused injuries to Kayum by fists and blows, or at the most, he had kicked him as well. As per medical evidence, Kayum Bhai did not sustain any fracture, and this fact is not only clear from the post mortem report, but also from the statement of Dr. Govind Gupta. In so far as other injuries are concerned, the same are not on any vital part of the body. While giving fists blows or at the most kicking Kayum Bhai, the appellant could at the most have knowledge that he is likely, by such act, to cause death. Govind Gupta. In so far as other injuries are concerned, the same are not on any vital part of the body. While giving fists blows or at the most kicking Kayum Bhai, the appellant could at the most have knowledge that he is likely, by such act, to cause death. It is not a case where the appellant had intention of causing death or intention of causing such bodily injuries that may result in death. The offence committed by the appellant in considered view of this court, would saddle him, at the most with the knowledge that by his said act, he was likely to cause death, and his case would thus be covered under Section 304 Part II IPC only, 7. From the discussion made above, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is held guilty for an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. We are informed during the course of arguments that appellant has already undergone sentence for a period of 2 years, 10 months and 15 days. In the circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. The order of conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC is set aside.Appeal Partly allowed. *******