JUDGMENT 1. - Both these appeals stem from the judgment dated February 14, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambharlake District Jaipur, whereby Chandra Mohan, the appellant in appeal No. 354/2003, was convicted and sentenced under section 304 Part II IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation. Since the State of Rajasthan in appeal No. 1262/2003 has prayed to convict and sentence Chandra Mohan under section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine, these appeals have been placed before us. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on October 5, 1999 the informant Malkhan Singh (Pw. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) at Police Station Jobner to the effect that on the said day around 10.30 AM while the informant, Om Prakash, Chhotu Ram and Dheeraj Kumar Yadav were attending computer class, Chandra Mohan, who was sitting behind them, gave a razor-blow on the neck of Dheeraj, who was removed to Hospital where he was declared dead. On that report a case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sambhar Lake District Jaipur. 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 29 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellant claimed innocence and stated that it was Chhotu Ram who inflicted razor blow on the neck of Dheeraj. Chhotu Ram after the incident squeezed the neck of Dheeraj and did not allow him to speak. After incident Chhotu Ram remained absconded. Since he (Chandra Mohan) was a member of Scheduled Caste, he was falsely implicated in the case on account of party politics. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record. 4. Death of deceased Dheeraj was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per post-mortem report (Ex. P-28) he received following ante mortem injuries: 11 cm. x 4 cm. x muscle deep spindle shaped incised ante mortem wound deeper on right side & tailing on left of neck running across all of neck. 4. Death of deceased Dheeraj was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per post-mortem report (Ex. P-28) he received following ante mortem injuries: 11 cm. x 4 cm. x muscle deep spindle shaped incised ante mortem wound deeper on right side & tailing on left of neck running across all of neck. In the opinion of Dr. Manoj Kumar (Pw. 20) the cause of death was shock secondary to excessive bleeding caused by injuries of neck. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor took us to the evidence on record and canvassed that Chandra Mohan ought to have been convicted under section 302 IPC in view of the nature of injury sustained by the deceased. We have considered the submissions. From the scheme of the Penal Code we notice that it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicidal is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word "likely' in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury ... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature". Whenever the court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death to another. Proof of such causal connection between the fact of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' punishable under the first Part of Section 304, Penal Code. 6. To invoke Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC four requirements must be satisfied: (i) it was a sudden fight, (ii) there was no premeditation, (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion, and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. In the instant case all these ingredients are found present. The appellant inflicted solitary blow. His act appears to us sudden and unpremeditated. There was no previous enmity and the appellant did not take undue advantage of the situation. Taking an overall view of the incident, we are inclined to think that the appellant was rightly granted the benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. On the facts and circumstances, of the case looking to the fact that the appellant had undergone the confinement for a period of more than six years it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence from ten years and fine to the period already undergone by the appellant in confinement. 7. For these reasons, we dispose of the instant appeals in the following terms: (i) Appeal No. 1262/2003 preferred by State of Rajasthan stands dismissed. (ii) We partly allow the Appeal No. 354/2003 of appellant Chandra Mohan and while maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC, we, looking to the fact that he has already undergone the confinement for a period of more than six years, sentence him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. (ii) We partly allow the Appeal No. 354/2003 of appellant Chandra Mohan and while maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC, we, looking to the fact that he has already undergone the confinement for a period of more than six years, sentence him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. The appellant Chandra Mohan, who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. (iii) The impugned judgment of learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above. Appeal of accused partly allowed - State Appeal praying conviction U/S. 302 Dismissed. *******