Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo one years simple imprisonment by the Judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jalore-Camp-Bhinmal dated 23.08.2004. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed during trial is that deceased Teja Ram, who used to graze cattle of his brother-in-law Mada Ram. On 26.03.2004 took them to public well for watering, which was objected by Amba Ram. This led to oral altercation between them. It is alleged that the appellant Amba Ram gave two kicks hitting Teja Ram near the testicles. The incident was witnessed by PW. 4. Kuiya Ram and PW. 14 Agra Ram. The deceased Teja Ram complained to pain. As such he entrusted the cattle to Kuiya Ram and boarded the bus for Dhansa. He hired a jeep for going to PW. 5 Mada Ram. As Mada Ram was not available, he relaxed in the night and met him next day in the morning and narrated the incident to him. The uncle of the appellant Amba Ram namely Chamna and 2-3 persons visited Mada Ram and expressed sincere regret for the act of appellant Amba Ram. The deceased Teja Ram made complaint of difficulty in urination. Thus, he was taken to the hospital at Bhinmal. He died in the Hospital at Bhinmal. An information of the incident was lodged by PW. 3 Gepa Ram at Police Station, Modra on 27.03.2004 at about 11.15 PM. Police registered a case for offence under Section 302, IPC, and proceeded with investigation. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. He pleaded innocence. The trial Court found the prosecution case proved and as such convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment . The prosecution has examined PW. 3 Gepa Ram, PW. 4 Kuiya Ram and PW. 14 Agra Ram as witnesses of the occurrence. They narrated the incident as given in the First Information Report. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment . The prosecution has examined PW. 3 Gepa Ram, PW. 4 Kuiya Ram and PW. 14 Agra Ram as witnesses of the occurrence. They narrated the incident as given in the First Information Report. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of these witnesses PW. 9 Dr. Gopal Chand runs a Private Hospital at Bhinmal. He stated that deceased Teja Ram was admitted in his hospital on 27.03.2004. He complained pain in the stomach. However, looking to his serious condition, he was referred to the Government Hospital. PW. 10 Dr. Rajumal was one of the member of the Medical Board which conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Teja Ram. The Board noticed following injuries:- (1) 2x 1 ½ Oval shape perforation present on loop adjacent to peritonium. Darkish fluid oozes from perforation. Loop congested. 4 in number haematoma 2 x 1 ½ cm .present. Major portion of small intestine shows signs of severe peritonitis. In the opinion of the Board the cause of death was shock due to intestinal perforation. 5. Thus, the narration of the incident as given by the witnesses finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel that even if the prosecution case is admitted as it is, it cannot be said that in giving two kicks the appellant intended to cause an injury which he knew was likely to cause death or he intended to cause an injury which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death or the appellant committed an act which was so dangerous to human life that in all probability it must have caused death and, therefore, the act of the appellant does not fall within the ambit of culpable homicide amounting to murder as provided in Section 300, IPC. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Dunga Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1996 CrLR P 593 (Raj.). He has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Sardul Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) Page 23. 7. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Dunga Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1996 CrLR P 593 (Raj.). He has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Sardul Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) Page 23. 7. On thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the contention raised by the learned Counsel merits acceptance. It is not in dispute that the incident took place all of a sudden. The appellant was not armed with any weapon. He simply gave two kicks. The victim was not immediately taken to the hospital. He was taken to the hospital on the next day. Thus, the intention to cause death or cause such a bodily injury as was likely to cause death in the normal and ordinary course cannot be imputed to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot condemn to have committed the murder. The appellant can also not be attributed knowledge that his act was of a nature which may cause death. Thus, on the facts proved, the maximum case against appellant can be of causing grievous hurt, punishable under Section 325, IPC. 8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant of offence under Section 302, IPC, is set aside. He is acquitted of offence under Section 302, IPC instead he is convicted of offence under Section 325, IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. The fine shall remain intact. The appellant is in Jail. He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence.