JUDGMENT V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. 1. The appellant/orig. accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.211 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 354 of IPC. For the offence under Section 302 of IPC, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/. For the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, he was sentenced to suffer RI for one year. Learned Sessions Judge directed both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under :PW2 Rupa, a young girl of about 18 years of age at the time of the incident, was residing along with her family including her mother PW3 Nirmala in Maa Saheb Ambedkar Nagar Slum, Mumbai. Deceased Islam and his wife PW1 Nafisa were residing in the room adjoining to the room of PW2 Rupa. Opposite the room of Rupa, there was a shoe making factory. The accused was working in the said shoe making factory. On 28.11.1999 at about 9:00 a.m., PW2 Rupa had gone to fetch water from the public water tap. PW1 Nafisa and her husband deceased Islam had also come to the tap to take water. PW2 Rupa filled water in a pot. While she was returning home on the way, she came across the accused. The accused smiled at her and then he caressed her cheek with his hand. PW2 Rupa went home and narrated the incident to her parents. Her parents then went to question the accused as to why he did the said act. In a little while, PW1 Nafisa and Islam also came to the spot where the accused was standing at the door of the shoe making factory. Islam also asked the accused why he had teased Rupa. Islam told the accused why the accused used to tease girls from that locality and he questioned the accused whether he did not have mother or sister in his house. On hearing this, the accused got angry. He went inside the factory and came with a rapi i.e. a sharp edged weapon and pierced it in the abdomen of Islam. As Islam tried to avoid further blows, he sustained injuries on his hand and arm. On hearing this, the accused got angry. He went inside the factory and came with a rapi i.e. a sharp edged weapon and pierced it in the abdomen of Islam. As Islam tried to avoid further blows, he sustained injuries on his hand and arm. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot. PW1 Nafisa took her husband to the police station and from there, she took her husband to Sion Hospital. Her husband was admitted to the ICU Unit. FIR of PW1 Nafisa came to be recorded. At about 4:30 p.m or 4:45 p.m., her husband succumbed to his injuries. The dead body of Islam was sent for postmortem. One Dr. Samberkar conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Islam. The doctor noticed the following external injuries on the dead body of Islam : i) a incised wound 4 cm. long, 5 cm. from the umbilicus with 4 sutures intact on right side of abdomen. ii) 12 cm. long incised wound, obliquely placed on the inner surface of right forearm 5 sutures intact. iii) 5.5 cm long incised wound, obliquely placed on the inner surface of right elbow joint 3 sutures intact. iv) 3.5 cm X 0.1 cm incised wound on the palmar surface of left hand, with 2 cm tailing. v) 2.5 cm X 0.3 cm. incised wound on the inside of left index finger at the base. vi) 22 cm long surgical wound in the midline of abdomen with 16 sutures intact. . The Doctor noticed the following internal injuries: (I) Hamotoma diffused and spread over the mesentric inferior mesentric vein sutures which are intact. The operative finding as per the indoor paper are as follows : 4 ltrs of hemoperitoneum inferior mesentric vessels cut partially and suturing done. . According to the Doctor going by external injuries, the victim must have been stabbed giving 4 to 5 blows and injury mentioned in Sr. No.1 had penetrated right upto abdomen cutting mesentric vessels causing loss of blood profusely. As per the postmortem report the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock following stab injuries and the death was unnatural. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant/orig. accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing death of Islam and under Section 354 of IPC for outraging the modesty of PW2 Rupa. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant/orig. accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing death of Islam and under Section 354 of IPC for outraging the modesty of PW2 Rupa. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence, as revealed from the cross-examination of witnesses, is that the deceased had fall near the water tap and sustained injuries. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in para1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. Arfan Sait, learned Advocate (appointed) for the appellant and Mr. S.A. Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for the State. We have gone through the record pertaining to the present case. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion, for the below mentioned reasons, that there is no merit in this Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. There are four eye witnesses in the present case i.e. PW1 Nafisa who is the wife of the deceased, PW2 Rupa the girl whose modesty was outraged by the accused, PW3 Nirmala mother of Rupa and PW5 Marium who was residing nearby. 6. As the prosecution case has been taken from the evidence of PW2 Rupa in her examinationinchief, we do not wish to overburden this judgment by repeating the same here in detail. Suffice to say that her evidence shows that her modesty was outraged by the accused and the accused assaulted Islam with a rapi a number of times. Nothing has been elicited in the crossexamination of this witness so as to disbelieve her testimony. Hence, we are of the opinion that we can safely rely on her testimony. 7. The evidence of PW1 Nafisa shows that she came to know through PW3 Nirmala that Rupa was teased by the accused. Her husband too went to tell the accused not to indulge in the act of teasing girls of the locality. The accused became angry and the accused went inside the shoe factory and came out with a rapi. He pushed rapi in the abdomen of her husband. Her husband tried to save himself from further blows and received injuries on hand. Thereafter the accused ran away. 8. The accused became angry and the accused went inside the shoe factory and came out with a rapi. He pushed rapi in the abdomen of her husband. Her husband tried to save himself from further blows and received injuries on hand. Thereafter the accused ran away. 8. The evidence of PW3 Nirmala shows that her daughter Rupa came home and informed her that the accused had smiled at her and caressed her cheek with his hand. Her husband questioned the accused about this act. Their neighbour Islam also told the accused why he teases girls from that locality and he questioned the accused whether he did not have mother or sister in his house. On hearing this, the accused got angry. The accused went inside the factory and came back with a rapi i.e. a sharp edged weapon. He pierced the rapi in the abdomen of Islam. As Islam tried to avoid further blows, he sustained injuries on his hand and arm. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot 9. The evidence of PW5 Marium who is an eye witness to this incident also shows that the accused assaulted Islam in the abdomen with rapi. She has also stated that the said accused gave further blows to Islam which landed on his hand. We find that the evidence of all eye witnesses inspires implicit confidence. Hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 10. We have already stated above the defence taken by the accused that is the deceased fell on the tap and sustained injuries. On going through the injuries sustained by Islam which we have reproduced in para2 above, it is clear that the injuries could not have been caused due to fall over a tap. 11. Mr. Arfan Sait, submitted that the case would not fall under Section 302 of IPC, but it would fall under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC. He submitted that the accused had inflicted only one blow on the vital part of the body i.e. abdomen of the deceased. He further submitted that this blow was inflicted when Islam told him why he used to tease girls from that locality and he questioned the accused whether he did not have mother or sister in his house. Mr. He submitted that the accused had inflicted only one blow on the vital part of the body i.e. abdomen of the deceased. He further submitted that this blow was inflicted when Islam told him why he used to tease girls from that locality and he questioned the accused whether he did not have mother or sister in his house. Mr. Sait submitted that on account of this, the accused was provoked and he went inside the shoe factory, brought rapi and assaulted Islam in the abdomen. He further submitted that there was no premeditation, but the accused immediately went inside the factory and brought rapi and assaulted Islam in the abdomen. He submitted that there was absence of premeditation, there was provocation given to the accused on account of Islam uttering those words to him and the fact that there was only one blow on the vital part of the body clearly brings the case under Section 304 (part II) of IPC. 12. In view of the submissions made by Mr. Arfan Sait, we have to decide the pivotal question that is whether there was intention to cause death and as to whether the case falls under Section 302 of IPC or 304 (part II) of IPC. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 3010. He pointed out that in the said case also there was one blow on the vital part of the body i.e. neck. The said injury was caused by stabbing. He pointed out that the facts are similar to one in the present case. However, on carefully going through the decision, we find nothing therein which would be of any help to the appellant in the present case. It is further noticed that in the said decision, the conviction and sentence under section 302 of IPC was confirmed. 13. In many petty or insignificant matters like straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in death. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occured by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. 14. In this case, as noticed above, the appellant was carrying a rapi a dangerous weapon. The deceased was unarmed. There was no provocation, sudden quarrel or fight. There was no indication of any cause for an apprehension on the part of the appellant that the deceased may attack him. The stabbing was with great force, causing an injury on a vital part of body, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The deceased was unarmed. There was no provocation, sudden quarrel or fight. There was no indication of any cause for an apprehension on the part of the appellant that the deceased may attack him. The stabbing was with great force, causing an injury on a vital part of body, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The description of the injuries and cause for death given in the postmortem notes is telling. The postmortem notes shows a severe injury in the abdomen. Besides which there were four other injuries on the right forearm, right elbow joint, left hand and the index finger of left hand. The injuries on the right elbow and right forearm was such that they were required to be sutured. Large number of injuries on the forearm, elbow and hands of the deceased show that the accused was trying to assault the deceased, whereas the deceased was making desperate effort to see that the blow does not fall on a vital part of his body by avoiding every blow with his hands. This clearly goes to show that the accused did not deal a single blow during that assault but dealt various blows on the body of the accused at least five in number. This shows the intention of the accused. 15. Thus in this case looking to the nature of the weapon used, number of injuries sustained by Ismail, nature of the injuries and the other factors show that the intention was to cause bodily injuries which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the present case, the circumstances to bring the case under exception 1 or even exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC do not exist. 16. We accordingly find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Sessions Court convicting and sentencing the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 17. Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is in jail. 18. At this stage, we wish to place on record our appreciation for the way in which Mr. Arfan Sait, learned appointed Advocate appearing for the appellant has conducted the matter. He was thoroughly prepared with the matter and he has very ably argued the matter. We quantify his fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay at Rs.2500/(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only). Arfan Sait, learned appointed Advocate appearing for the appellant has conducted the matter. He was thoroughly prepared with the matter and he has very ably argued the matter. We quantify his fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay at Rs.2500/(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only). The same to be paid to the learned Advocate Mr. Arfan Sait within a month from today.