JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. In the present criminal appeal, criminal law was set into motion at the instance of informant Devendra Kumar s/o late Sohan Lal, resident of Haripur Nawada, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Clement Town, District Dehradun. He lodged a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) enumerating the facts therein that on 29.04.2002 at 06:30 P.M., he proceeded on bicycle for a ride. When he reached Tilwadi diversion, he found that his brother Santosh, brother’s friends Paras, Badal, Rajesh and Mukesh, all residents of Nawada came running in front of Mehar Singh’s house. They were being chased by Jaipal s/o Phool Chand, Ravindra alias Addu s/o Mahohar, Digambar s/o Padam and Sunil s/o Nand Lal, all residents of Majri Mafi. They were armed with knife, khukhri (dagger) and sticks. They were also abusing Santosh and others. Santosh, Badal, Paras, Mukesh and Rajesh were surrounded by the accused persons no sooner they reached the field. Accused / appellant Jaipal inflicted a blow of knife on the chest of Santosh with the intention of killing him. Co-accused Sunil was armed with khukhri (dagger). Digambar was having a stick. They alongwith Ravindra alias Addu beat Rajesh, Mukesh, Paras and Badal. When the informant Devendra Kumar along with Om Prakash tried to save the victims, accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Santosh was bleeding profusely. When he was being taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries received by him. The incident took place as a repercussion of altercation which took place between them on 27.04.2002 in the marriage ceremony of one Arjun. Accused persons threatened the injured persons with dire consequences. Dead body of Santosh was kept in Asha Nursing Home. 2. On the basis of said complaint, chick FIR (Ext. Ka-9) was lodged by the police on 29.04.2002 at 07:30 P.M. Police registered Case Crime No. 37 of 2002 against accused Jaipal, Ravindra alias Addu, Digambar and Sunil in respect of offences punishable under Section 302, 323 and 504 of IPC. The occurrence took place on the same day i.e. 29.04.2002, at 06:30 P.M. The distance between the place of occurrence and police station concerned was 20 Km. Hence, there appears to be no delay in lodging the FIR. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-8) against four accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Section 302, 323, 504 of IPC. Hence, there appears to be no delay in lodging the FIR. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-8) against four accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Section 302, 323, 504 of IPC. 3. Trial began before learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Charges against accused Jaipal, Ravindra alias Addu, Digambar and Sunil were framed relating to offences punishable under Section 302/34, 323/34 and 504/34 of IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, viz., P.W.1 Devendra Kumar, P.W.2 Paras, P.W.3 Manoj Kumar, P.W.4 Mukesh Thapa, P.W.5 Rajesh Kala, P.W.6 Dr. K.B. Joshi, P.W.7 Om Prakash Thapa, P.W.8 S.I. Chandan Singh Bisht, P.W.9 Constable Hira Singh and P.W.10 Dr. S.S. Tolia. All the evidence was put to accused persons. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they said the evidence against them was false. They also pleaded that Devendra (brother of deceased) tendered evidence against them because of enmity. No evidence was adduced in defence. 4. After considering the evidence on record, trial court held the accused / appellant Jaipal and other accused persons, viz., Ravindra alias Addu and Sunil guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and one punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Each one of the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 / 34 of IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Each one of the convict was also sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC. It was directed by the trial court that in default of payment of fine, the convicts shall further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 19.11.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/I F.T.C., Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2002, appeal was preferred by three convicts namely, Jaipal, Ravindra alias Addu and Sunil. During course of arguments it was noticed by this court that accused/appellant Jaipal was not represented through any counsel. It was considered proper that he too should be heard. An Amicus Curiae was appointed to defend him. Therefore, his case was delinked from the case of other two accused namely, appellant no. 1 Ravindra alias Addu and appellant no. During course of arguments it was noticed by this court that accused/appellant Jaipal was not represented through any counsel. It was considered proper that he too should be heard. An Amicus Curiae was appointed to defend him. Therefore, his case was delinked from the case of other two accused namely, appellant no. 1 Ravindra alias Addu and appellant no. 3 Sunil and their appeals were decided by this court on 28.06.2012. Later on Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate entered appearance for appellant Jaipal and argued the appeal assisted by Mr. Mritunjay K. Chand, Amicus Curiae on his (appellant Jaipal’s) behalf. This appeal shall now proceed only in respect of appellant Jaipal. 5. Informant P.W.1 Devendra Kumar in his examination-in-chief said that deceased Santosh was his brother. The incident took place on 29.04.2002 at around 06:00 P.M. When he was going on bicycle towards Jogiwala and as soon as he reached Tilwadi diversion, he saw that his brother Santosh, his friends Paras, Badal, Rajesh and Mukesh were running in front of Mehar Singh’s house towards a field situated in the north. They were being chased by Jaipal, Ravindra alias Addu, Digambar and Sunil. Ravindra alias Addu and Digambar were having sticks in their hands. Jaipal was armed with a knife and Sunil was also armed with a deadly weapon (dagger). The assailants were abusing Santosh and others. When Santosh and others reached the field of Pratap, the assailants surrounded them. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar said that the accused were present before the court on the day his evidence was recorded. Jaipal inflicted a blow of knife on the chest of Santosh with the intention of causing death. Others beat the victim with sticks and fists. They committed assault on Paras, Badal, Mukesh and Rajesh and also beat them with lathis. Om Prakash Thapa and other villagers reached on the spot. When P.W.1 Devendra Kumar and other villagers reached there the assailants fled away towards Tilwadi. Santosh was bleeding in his chest. The victim was taken to Asha Nursing Home but his life could not be saved. He died on way to Asha Nursing Home. The dead body was kept in said nursing home. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar informed his brother Manoj on telephone. A complaint was lodged. This witness proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence whereupon the sticks left by some of the assailants were recovered. He died on way to Asha Nursing Home. The dead body was kept in said nursing home. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar informed his brother Manoj on telephone. A complaint was lodged. This witness proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence whereupon the sticks left by some of the assailants were recovered. A recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) to this effect was prepared. The Investigating Officer collected blood stained soil and simple soil from the spot and prepared a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) in respect thereof. Informant P.W.1 Devendra Kumar identified sticks as material exhibits 1 and 2. He also proved small containers containing simple soil and blood stained soil as material exhibits 3 and 4. 6. When this witness was cross examined on behalf of the defence, he said that he was a teacher in a private school. When the incident took place his school used to open at 08:30 A.M. and closed at 01:00 P.M. His brother (victim) was studying in Guru Nanak School in Class XII. Brother of this witness appeared in Intermediate examination. He proceeded to school on foot on the date of incident. This witness also gave the details of apparels the victim was wearing on that day. His brother P.W.3 Manoj Kumar was posted in police headquarters when the incident took place. He saw his brother Santosh (victim) and his friends running from a distance of 100 meters. They were running from south to north. Assailants were chasing his brother. Initially there was hardly a distance of 2-3 paces between them. When this witness saw this incident, he was riding on a bicycle. Witness Om Prakash was at a distance of 20 meters from him. Om Prakash too was going on cycle. Standing crop of wheat was there on the field where the marpeet took place. This witness knew the names of accused persons along with their parentage before this incident took place. One of the accused (Sunil) was a singer in the orchestra of this witness. This witness had seen the houses of all the accused persons before this incident. Present appellant Jaipal was a carpenter. Name of his father was Phool Chand. Another accused (Digambar) was a failure in high school. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar also said that he had told the reporter that one of the accused (Ravindra) was having stick in his hands. This witness had seen the houses of all the accused persons before this incident. Present appellant Jaipal was a carpenter. Name of his father was Phool Chand. Another accused (Digambar) was a failure in high school. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar also said that he had told the reporter that one of the accused (Ravindra) was having stick in his hands. He could not count the number of blows of lathis. This witness was a graduate. The injured was taken to a three wheeler with great difficulty. Thereafter he was taken to Asha Nursing Home. When this witness lifted his injured brother, his clothes were stained with blood. He did not show his T-shirt to the Investigating Officer. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot. Asha Nursing Home was situated at a distance of 1-1½ km. from the place of occurrence. A police station was situated at a distance of 50 meters from Asha Nursing Home. Police personnel had reached the nursing home. He along with his mother and family members were weeping (in mourning). When he went to police station, Om Prakash accompanied him. He went to police station on motorcycle which was brought by his brother (P.W.3 Manoj). Investigating Officer took his statement in the police station. Dead body of victim Santosh was kept in Asha Nursing Home till morning. This witness could not see the apparels worn by accused Jaipal. He could not say whether apparels worn by Jaipal were stained with blood or not. Many other insignificant questions were asked to this witness in his cross examination and he replied to the queries of learned counsel for the defence. 7. Thus nothing has come in the cross examination of this witness which may cast a shadow of doubt on the testimony of P.W.1 Devendra Kumar. Learned counsel for the appellant Jaipal submitted that since he was a related witness therefore, his testimony should not be believed. We do not countenance with the said argument of learned counsel for the appellant Jaipal, in as much as the law only enjoins upon the court to scrutinize the evidence of related witness with vengeance. We have found that the evidence tendered by P.W.1 Devendra Kumar is trustworthy even after having closed scrutiny of the evidence thus tendered. 8. The fact that victim Santosh sustained injuries was evidenced by his postmortem examination (Ext. Ka-5). We have found that the evidence tendered by P.W.1 Devendra Kumar is trustworthy even after having closed scrutiny of the evidence thus tendered. 8. The fact that victim Santosh sustained injuries was evidenced by his postmortem examination (Ext. Ka-5). The dead body of Santosh was examined by P.W.6 Dr. K.B. Joshi, Cardiologist, Doon Hospital, Dehradun on 30.04.2002 at 02:00 P.M. He found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of victim Santosh: i) Stab wound of 2 X 1 cm X 17 cm depth clotted blood present at wound at right side chest 3 cm medial to right nipple at 2 o’ clock position. ii) Multiple abraded contusions on upper half of back in area of 9 x 4 cm, 5 cm left to medial border right clavicle. P.W.6 Dr. K.B. Joshi proved his report Ext. Ka-5 and said that the cause of death of victim was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injury no. (i) i.e. stab wound. The Medical Officer also said that the death of victim was possible on 29.04.2012 at 06:30 P.M., if he sustained injuries caused by sharp edged weapon like knife. Injury no. (i) alone was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death of the victim. In cross examination this witness said that no smell of alcohol was emanating from the body of the victim. 9. Thus the oral testimony tendered by P.W.1 Devendra Kumar was corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.6 Dr. K.B. Joshi, wherein he affirmed that there was a stab wound found in the ante mortem injury of the deceased Santosh, apart from multiple abraded contusions. 10) Prosecution story was further substantiated by the testimony of P.W.10 Dr. S.S. Tolia, Emergency Medical Officer, Doon Hospital, Dehradun when he examined the injuries of injured persons Rajesh Kala and Badal Thapa. Dr. Tolia found following injury on the person of injured Rajesh Kala: i) Contusion 2 x 2 cm right side of head 4 cm behind right ear. ii) Complaint of pain on the left foot. This Medical Officer also proved his injury report (Ext. Ka-11) and opined that the injury no (i) sustained by Rajesh Kala was simple in nature. Duration was fresh and caused by hard and blunt object. 11. P.W.10 Dr. S.S. Tolia, Medical Officer found following injuries on the person of second injured Badal Thapa: i) Contusion 3 x 2 cm just behind right ear. Ka-11) and opined that the injury no (i) sustained by Rajesh Kala was simple in nature. Duration was fresh and caused by hard and blunt object. 11. P.W.10 Dr. S.S. Tolia, Medical Officer found following injuries on the person of second injured Badal Thapa: i) Contusion 3 x 2 cm just behind right ear. ii) Contusion 3 x 3 cm on right side face just below right eye. iii) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on the right middle finger (dorsal aspect). This Medical officer also proved Badal’s injury report Ext. Ka-12 and opined that all the three injuries sustained by Badal Thapa were simple in nature and 11 caused by hard and blunt object. Duration of injuries was fresh. 12. The same Medical Officer Dr. Tolia found following injury on the person of third injured Paras: i) Complaint of pain on left side face. No external injury found present. ii) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm on the left side neck. 5 cm below left ear. This Medical officer also proved injury report Ext. Ka-13 of Paras and opined that injury no. (ii) sustained by Paras was simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. Duration of injury no. (ii) was fresh. 13. The Medical Officer who examined the injuries of the above three injured persons also opined that the injuries sustained by them were possible to have been caused on 29.04.2002 at 6-6:30 P.M. by lathis and dandas (sticks). 14. Thus the oral evidence is further corroborated by the testimony of P.W.10 Dr. S.S. Tolia, wherein he said that Rajesh, Badal and Paras sustained injuries from hard and blunt object. The fact that Rajesh, Badal and Paras sustained injuries strengthens the fact that they were present on the place of occurrence where they also sustained injuries (from the hands of the assailants). 15. P.W.3 Manoj Kumar is elder brother of deceased Santosh. On 29.04.2002 when he was coming from his office at around quarter to seven and reached near Asha Nursing Home, he met his younger brother P.W.1 Devendra Kumar. Devendra Kumar narrated the incident occurred with Santosh. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar dictated the complaint to P.W.3 Manoj Kumar. P.W.3 Manoj Kumar scribbled the complaint (Ext. Ka-1) as per the narration of his brother Devendra Kumar (who was eyewitness to the incident). P.W.3 Manoj Kumar was also signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-4). Devendra Kumar narrated the incident occurred with Santosh. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar dictated the complaint to P.W.3 Manoj Kumar. P.W.3 Manoj Kumar scribbled the complaint (Ext. Ka-1) as per the narration of his brother Devendra Kumar (who was eyewitness to the incident). P.W.3 Manoj Kumar was also signatory to inquest report (Ext. Ka-4). In the cross examination this witness said that he was Asstt. Sub Inspector posted in Police Headquarters. There were no fixed working hours assigned to the post he was holding. Various other questions were asked to this witness in the cross examination, but it will be a futile exercise to reproduce those insignificant questions (and answers) here. 16. P.W.8 Sub Inspector Chandan Singh Bisht was posted on 29.04.2002 in the same capacity at police station Clement Town. He said that Devendra Kumar gave him a complaint on 29.04.2002 at 07:30 P.M. that his brother Santosh was killed by assailants. P.W.8 S.I. Chandan Singh Bisht proved site plan (Ext. Ka-6), recovery memo (Ext. Ka-7) in respect of taking into possession of knife on the pointing /disclosure of accused /appellant Jaipal and charge sheet (Ext. Ka-8). He also proved report received from Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra and also identified knife (Ext.1) recovered from the possession of accused Jaipal. 17. P.W.9 Constable Hira Singh was a formal witness who proved check FIR (Ext. Ka-9) and copy of entry made in the G.D. (Ext. Ka-10). 18. Although P.W.2 Paras, P.W.4 Mukesh, P.W.5 Rajesh and P.W.7 Om Prakash Thapa did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile, yet there was no explanation on their behalf as to how P.W.2 Paras, Badal s/o P.W.7 Om Prakash and P.W.5 Rajesh received injuries on 29.04.2002 at around 6-6:30 P.M. It was difficult to believe that they were not present on the spot because they sustained injuries on the same day and at the same time when this occurrence took place. Their names were mentioned in the FIR, but it appears that they have deliberately chosen to defy the prosecution and not to support prosecution story. The following reasons may be assigned to hold that their testimony goes in favour of prosecution obliquely: i) P.W.2 Paras said in his examination-in-chief that he knew deceased who was his friend. He also said that an incident took place on 29.04.2002 at around 05:30 P.M. He along with Badal, Mukesh, Rajesh and Santosh (deceased) were going to play. The following reasons may be assigned to hold that their testimony goes in favour of prosecution obliquely: i) P.W.2 Paras said in his examination-in-chief that he knew deceased who was his friend. He also said that an incident took place on 29.04.2002 at around 05:30 P.M. He along with Badal, Mukesh, Rajesh and Santosh (deceased) were going to play. When they reached Tilwadi, some 15-16 persons committed assault on them. This witness said that nobody inflicted blow of knife on Santosh in his presence. Accused persons did not commit assault with them. P.W.2 Paras had no answer to the question as to how a stab wound was found on the chest of victim Santosh? He said a very important thing that he himself along with deceased and others sustained injuries. Having had a look at the injury reports, which have been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, it was clear that the testimony of assault tendered by P.W.2 Paras is corroborated by said injury reports. ii) The fact of assault and receiving injuries have been corroborated. It is true that P.W.2 Paras did not name the accused persons, but he admitted that he sustained injuries along with deceased and others. Further he sustained injuries from the same weapon (lathi-danda) which was ascribed to accused persons by P.W.1 Devendra Kumar. No doubt he denied that nobody inflicted a blow of knife on Santosh, but the fact remains that Santosh sustained a stab wound, as was evident from the testimony tendered by P.W.6 Dr. K.B. Joshi, whereby he found stab wound in the ante mortem injuries of said victim. In the circumstances, a prudent person will always believe that P.W.2 Paras deliberately avoided factum of injury of knife on Santosh because he admitted in his cross examination that recruitment for Army was to commence within 3-4 days (of recording of his evidence) and he also said in no uncertain terms that nobody wants that he should be called for evidence before the court time and again. He also admitted in his cross examination that he did not want to invite enmity with the assailants. iii) P.W.4 Mukesh Thapa also admitted in his examination-in-chief that an occurrence took place on 29.04.2002 at around 05:30 P.M. on the diversion of Tilwadi. He fled away to sugarcane field. Later on he came to know that Santosh was dead. He also admitted in his cross examination that he did not want to invite enmity with the assailants. iii) P.W.4 Mukesh Thapa also admitted in his examination-in-chief that an occurrence took place on 29.04.2002 at around 05:30 P.M. on the diversion of Tilwadi. He fled away to sugarcane field. Later on he came to know that Santosh was dead. Since he was not an injured, therefore, it could not be said that he really saw the appellants committing the crime, as he himself had fled to sugarcane fields. But he said in no uncertain terms that an occurrence took place on 20.04.2002 at 05:30 P.M. iv) P.W.5 Rajesh Kala admitted in his examination-in-chief that he knew Paras, Badal, Santosh and Mukesh. All of them were going to play on 29.04.2002 at 05:36 P.M. He also admitted that a few boys had danda in their hands and they assaulted them on Tilwadi diversion. He admitted having received injuries. v) P.W.7 Om Prakash Thapa was father of Badal Thapa (injured). He admitted in cross examination that he took one injured to hospital around 05:30 P.M., but he did not know his name. Some 38-40 persons were present with the injured. The fact shows that P.W.7 Om Prakash Thapa was present on the scene of occurrence, but he did not name any accused, although the incident was admitted to him. 19. Learned counsel for appellant Jaipal submitted that P.W.1 Devendra Kumar did not see the assailants and therefore, the prosecution story should not be believed. We are unable to agree with the said contention of learned counsel for the appellant. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar said in his oral eyewitness account that he saw the assailants from very close quarter. The evidence has it that the victim was being chased by the appellants. P.W.1 Devendra Kumar had occasion to see the same from very close quarter. The assailants, who were chasing victim and others, overcame and surrounded these people. Deceased was stabbed. The others were assaulted. Since the assailants came running from behind, as they were chasing the victim and injured persons, therefore, there was no question of disbelieving the testimony of P.W.1 Devendra Kumar. In the cross examination there was not a single sentence on behalf of appellant Jaipal as to how far the injured and this witness were from the assailants? Since the assailants came running from behind, as they were chasing the victim and injured persons, therefore, there was no question of disbelieving the testimony of P.W.1 Devendra Kumar. In the cross examination there was not a single sentence on behalf of appellant Jaipal as to how far the injured and this witness were from the assailants? Thus there was no question to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.1 Devendra Kumar. 20. Learned counsel for appellant Jaipal also argued that since P.W.1 Devendra Kumar lifted the victim and his wearing apparels were stained with blood, yet the Investigating Officer did not produce the blood stained shirt of brother of victim. This court is of the view that the said argument does not help the appellant in any way for the reasons (a) that the witness himself said before the trial court that neither did he give his shirt to the Investigating Officer nor did the Investigating Officer enquire about the same to him and (b) failure on the part of Investigating Officer will not render prosecution story doubtful, for the prosecution cannot be held liable for the lapses on the part of Investigating Officer. If shirt of P.W.1 Devendra Kumar was soaked in blood and he did not tell the Investigating Officer about the same, that was not the fault of Investigating Officer. Otherwise also, prosecution story does not become doubtful on this insignificant fact alone. 21. In the said incident, one victim died and three persons received injuries. The witnesses who came before the trial court never said that those three persons did not suffer injuries. The date, occasion and time of assault was almost the same. So the fact of four witnesses becoming hostile does not help the defence at all. Defence has not been able to create suspicion that P.W.1 Devendra Kumar was untruthful witness. His testimony is supported by medical evidence as also other hostile witnesses at least to the extent that three other persons received injuries at the same time, same date and on the same occasion. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on account of stab wound on his chest. 22. Deceased sustained injuries of knife and lathis. Knife was ascribed to appellant Jaipal. It was injury no. (i) sustained by deceased which was fatal. According to P.W.1 Devendra Kumar, as also hostile witnesses, the injured persons sustained simple injuries of lathis. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on account of stab wound on his chest. 22. Deceased sustained injuries of knife and lathis. Knife was ascribed to appellant Jaipal. It was injury no. (i) sustained by deceased which was fatal. According to P.W.1 Devendra Kumar, as also hostile witnesses, the injured persons sustained simple injuries of lathis. Deceased also sustained injuries of lathi on his back, besides stab wound of knife on his chest. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He submitted that there was only one blow of knife on the person of victim, as was evidenced by the doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased. There was no intention on the part of accused/appellant to cause death of the victim. He also argued that it was a case of sudden provocation. We are not inclined to accept this contention of learned counsel representing appellant, for nothing was sudden here. It cannot be said that it was a case of sudden and grave provocation. It can only be said here that it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. The injury caused by the appellant was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of victim. The intention of appellant was to cause such injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of deceased. It is culled out from the evidence that the accused/appellant had taken the risk with the knowledge that if blow of knife was inflicted on victim it will most probably result into his death. The appellant inflicted blow of knife which pierced victim’s vital organ (chest). He knew it fully well that even one blow of knife on such vital organ was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of the victim. In our perception it was a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. 24. Culpable homicide is the genus of which murder is a species. Every murder is a culpable homicide but not vice versa. Where there is an intention to kill, the offence is always murder. Whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide. If it is the most probable result, it is murder. Every murder is a culpable homicide but not vice versa. Where there is an intention to kill, the offence is always murder. Whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of risk to human life. If death is a likely result, it is culpable homicide. If it is the most probable result, it is murder. The offence is culpable homicide if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death; it is murder if such injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but appreciable. 25. 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 of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of accused and death leads to the second stage for consideration whether that act of accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299 IPC. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 IPC is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution brings the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of definition of murder contained in Section 300 IPC. If the answer to the question is in the negative, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 IPC is applicable. If this question is answered in the affirmative but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 IPC. Judging by the yardstick, instant case of appellant does not fall within the category of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. It certainly falls within the category of ‘culpable homicide amounting to murder’. 26. Judging by the yardstick, instant case of appellant does not fall within the category of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. It certainly falls within the category of ‘culpable homicide amounting to murder’. 26. To recapitulate, it was the principal submission of learned counsel for the appellant Jaipal that there was only one blow of knife which was inflicted by appellant on the victim. Appellant did not inflict repeated blows. Learned counsel of the appellant also submitted that the incident took place all of a sudden while playing cricket and therefore the case was covered by first part of Section 304 IPC. We are unable to countenance with the view of learned counsel for appellant in as much as fatal blow of knife was given by appellant at the right place. He knew it fully well that if a blow of knife was given on the vital part like chest, it was most probable that the same will cause the death of victim. Further, no plea of sudden and grave provocation was taken in statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. How can we hold that a cricket match was going on and dispute arose while playing cricket? While going to play cricket, will a person carry knife? Even if one of the hostile witness told about the game of cricket, but he said so after being declared hostile. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of learned counsel for appellant that the incident took place all of a sudden. It was absolutely pre-planned. There was no question of holding that the act committed by the present appellant Jaipal was covered by part I of Section 304 IPC. Appellant chased the victim and gave fatal blow on his chest. The Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination found that there was stab wound on the chest of deceased. The Medical Officer further opined in the autopsy report that cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injury no. (i) i.e. stab wound on chest. Suppose an accused gives a blow, not on the heart but on the back of victim and the victim dies because of septicemia, the same will be offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. But when an accused gives a blow on any vital organ and victim dies, the same will be ‘murder’. (i) i.e. stab wound on chest. Suppose an accused gives a blow, not on the heart but on the back of victim and the victim dies because of septicemia, the same will be offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. But when an accused gives a blow on any vital organ and victim dies, the same will be ‘murder’. We take another example–if an accused gives a blow of stick on the head of victim which results in his death then it becomes a borderline case. It may fall into the ambit of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or it may fall within the periphery of offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. The intention on the part of the accused will have to be seen in such case. In the instant case accused/appellant not only chased the victim but gave him a fatal blow on vital organ therefore, he could not be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. He was certainly guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 27. Convict/appellant Jaipal is thus held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. There is no scope of application of Section 34 IPC in as much as the injury which caused the death of deceased was sustained by the knife of appellant Jaipal alone. He was directly responsible for the said murder without aid of Section 34 IPC (common intention). He is the prime assailant. He is guilty of committing murder of Santosh. Aid of Section 34 IPC is not required in order to convict appellant Jaipal for the killing of Santosh. 28. Appellant Jaipal is however, exonerated of the charge of committing offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC giving him benefit of doubt because he was not having stick in his hand when the murder took place. The accused (Ravindra alias Addu) who was having lathi/danda in his hand was already convicted by this court in relation to offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC and the other one (Sunil) was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt as there was no overt act on his part. 29. The conviction recorded by the trial court as against accused / appellant Jaipal in respect of killing of deceased Santosh is accordingly upheld. Accused/appellant Jaipal is in jail. He is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC instead of Section 302 / 34 IPC. 29. The conviction recorded by the trial court as against accused / appellant Jaipal in respect of killing of deceased Santosh is accordingly upheld. Accused/appellant Jaipal is in jail. He is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC instead of Section 302 / 34 IPC. Criminal appeal preferred by him for seeking relief in respect of conviction in major offence stands dismissed. The sentence thus awarded to Jaipal by learned trial court for charge of murder does not warrant interference. 30. With the modification as above, present appeal stands disposed of in relation to appellant Jaipal. The Registry is directed to send the lower court record back to the trial court to make the convict/appellant Jaipal serve out the remaining part of sentence awarded by learned trial court and thus affirmed by this court. The sentence awarded to him in relation to offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC is however set aside. Let a copy of the judgment be also sent to the Superintendent of Jail concerned where convict/appellant Jaipal is presently serving out the sentence.