JUDGMENT 1. - Can it be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever a single blow is inflicted, application of Section 302 Indian Penal Code is ruled out? This is the Core question which arises for consideration in this appeal preferred by sole appellant against the judgment dated August 30, 2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. It is the prosecution case that on November 13, 2002 informant Shaheen Parvez (Pw.11) submitted a written report (Ex.P-7) at Police Station Clock Tower Ajmer wherein he alleged that on the said day around 2 PM Laxman Gurjar, ex-student of GCA College (appellant) came to the informant and said that he wanted to talk with a girl. Informant opposed him, which led to the hot exchange of words between them. When Sanjay Tamboli intervened Laxman hurled abuses at him. At about 2.45 PM when the informant along with Sanjay Tamboli, Piyush (since deceased), Pankaj and Tarun reached at College gate, Laxman came running with knife and caused injury with knife on the right side of the abdomen of Piyush as a result of which Piyush fell down and blood started oozing out. Piyush was removed to the hospital where he was declared dead. On that report case under section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer. Charge under section 302 Indian Penal Code was framed. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec.313 CrPC, the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. 3. Death of Piyush was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex.P-10) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 4cm x 3cm x skin deep on Rt.from 2 below elbow with completely fluid skin flap. 2. 3. Death of Piyush was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex.P-10) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 4cm x 3cm x skin deep on Rt.from 2 below elbow with completely fluid skin flap. 2. Stab wound 4cm x 1cm x ?deep at lower part of chest laterally in hypochondria region in 9th inter costal space obliquely place both angles of the wound are acute. Cause of death of deceased according to Autopsy Surgeon Dr. H.S. Dua (Pw.5) was excessive bleeding from the vital organ liver due to ante mortem injury. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of informant Shahin Parvez (Pw.11), Sanjay Tamboli (Pw.12), Tarun Gotwal (Pw.7) and Pankaj Gurjar (Pw.8) and canvassed that appellant had no enmity with Piyush. Even at 2 PM when altercation ensued between appellant and informant Shahin Parvez as well as Sanjay Tamboli, Piyush was not present. It was at 2.45 PM when Shahin Parvez, Sanjay Tamboli, Piyush, Tarun Gotwal and Pankaj Gurjar were standing at college gate, that the appellant armed with knife came running to them and made assault with knife that hit on the right side of abdomen of Piyush. 5. Having scanned the material on record we notice that fatal blow was the result of the provocation involving loss of self control. This possibility cannot be ruled out that action of group of students including informant Shahin, Sanjay Tamboli, Piyush, Tarun and Pankaj placed the appellant in the situation that he lost his self control and made assault at them. Sanjay Tamboli's statement establishes this fact: 6. Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, consisting of 80 Sections deals with all offences involving personal injury. The scheme of the Chapter appears to be to take capital crime first, then other cognate offences, imperilling life and then minor offences such as hurt, assault and the like offences falling into the category of personal injuries. The Chapter classifies them into five principal heads according to the act and effect. These are:- (i) Voluntary culpable homicide; (ii) Murder; (iii) Grievous hurt; (iv) hurt; and (v) assault. The difference between (i) and (ii) is the subject of section 299 and 300. 7. The Chapter classifies them into five principal heads according to the act and effect. These are:- (i) Voluntary culpable homicide; (ii) Murder; (iii) Grievous hurt; (iv) hurt; and (v) assault. The difference between (i) and (ii) is the subject of section 299 and 300. 7. After laying down the cases which the presence of certain ingredients aggravate culpable homicide to murder Section 300 Indian Penal Code, next turns to certain exceptional cases in which the offence is mitigated by certain circumstances, which, though not offering a complete vindication of the conduct of the accused, are yet such as the dictates of humanity and reason prescribed as fit grounds of mitigation. Shortly stated these circumstances are those arising out of:- (i) Provocation; (ii) Private Defence; (iii) Exercise of legal powers; (iv) Absence of premeditation; (v) Consent. 8. The defence of provocation may arise where a person does intend to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm but his intention to do so arises from sudden passion involving loss of self control by reason of provocation. Before an accused can draw any benefit from Exception I to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, there should be some circumstance to indicate that the act of the accused was done in the same transaction in which he received the grave and sudden provocation. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 695 ) is the leading case wherein the Apex Court summarised the law of this country on the subject in the following words:- The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry may be stated thus:- (i) The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self control. (ii) In India, the words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation, to an accused so as to bring his act within the first exception to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. (iii) The mental background created by the previous act of victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused a grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (iii) The mental background created by the previous act of victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused a grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (iv) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to influence of passion arising from the provocation and not alter the passion had cooled down by lapse of time or otherwise giving room and scope of premeditation and calculation. 9. The whole doctrine relating to provocation depends on the fact that it causes or may cause, sudden and temporary loss of self control, whereby malice, which is the formation of an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, is negatived. 10. In the instant case it appears that the appellant, who was the ex-student of the college, lost his self control when the students of the college, treated him as an outsider and by words and gestures provoked the appellant that forced him to inflict a fatal blow. It cannot however be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever a single blow is given, application of Section 302 Indian Penal Code is ruled out. It would depend upon several factors (vide Katta Surendra v. State of A.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1525 decided on June 13, 2008 ) by the Apex Court]. It is not that in every case of single blow, a case cannot be made out under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. It will depend upon the nature of the injury, the part of the body where the injury was caused and other circumstances. In the instant case this possibility cannot be ruled out that it was the complainant party, who first took cadged against the appellant and started provoking him by words and gestures that followed the assault made by the appellant with knife. The single knife blow given by the appellant to the deceased was as a result of provocation which he got in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel and he is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 11. That takes us to the issue whether the case of appellant would fall under section 304 Part I or Part II. A look at Section 304 demonstrates that if such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is intentionally caused and results in the death of victim, the case would fall under Part I and not Part II. 11. That takes us to the issue whether the case of appellant would fall under section 304 Part I or Part II. A look at Section 304 demonstrates that if such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is intentionally caused and results in the death of victim, the case would fall under Part I and not Part II. Stated differently, Part II comes into play when death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death and when such act is the infliction of bodily injury, the infliction must not be intentional. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the act of appellant comes within the First Exception of Section 300 Indian Penal Code and the appellant is held guilty under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code. 13. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of section 302 Indian Penal Code we convict appellant Laxman Singh under section 304 part I Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. The impugned judgment of learned trial court stands modified as indicated above. Appeal allowed in part *******