JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant-accused Vajiya has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.8.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, Camp Kushalgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), in Sessions Case No. 4/2006, State of Rajasthan v. Vajiya by which the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced as under:- 341 I.P.C. One Month's imprisonment. 302 I.P.C. Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo one month's imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.11.2005, at about 1:00 A.M., complainant Himji (PW-1) presented himself before the S.H.O., P.S. Kalinjra and submitted an oral information that on 9.11.2005, at about 5-5:30 P.M., his elder brother Jeetha and his daughter Saka, were returning from Sajjangarh and when they reached near the agricultural field of Halu, then accused Vajiya came there with lathi and with the intention to kill him, inflicted lathi blows or his chest. On this, Saka cams to the house crying. On this, he, Halu and Hakri rushed to the spot where he found Jeetha died. 3. On this information, the police registered F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) and started investigation and after investigation, submitted charge-sheet before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarh, District Banswara, from where the case was committed for trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara. The learned Sessions Judge, Banswara transferred the case to the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C. The appellant-accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the charges and stated that he has been falsely-implicated and did not choose to adduce evidence in defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, after considering the material on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as aforesaid vide impugned judgment dated 28.8.2006. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal, which was admitted for hearing vide order dated 8.1.2007 and record was called for. 5. Heard Mr. K.R. Bhati, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Mr. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal, which was admitted for hearing vide order dated 8.1.2007 and record was called for. 5. Heard Mr. K.R. Bhati, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Mr. K.R. Bhati, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the learned Trial Court erred while not appreciating the fact that only a single injury was given to the deceased and there was no intention of the accused to kill him. As such, as per the prosecution case itself, the offence, if any committed by the accused, does not travel beyond the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. 7. Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, Seamed Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. We have considered the arguments advanced and also scrutinised the record available. 9. Dr. Dilip Kumar Sharma (PW-11) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Jeetha. Thus, he proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-41). As per Ex.P-41, body of deceased Jeetha was having following ante-mortem injuries:- "(i) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on left external pinna. (ii) Contusion 1.5 cm x 3 cm on lower half of chest, left side antero lateral aspect, 2" below left nipple. (iii) Fracture of 6, 7, 8 and 9 ribs, left side in interior axillary line. (iv) Rupture of spleen with lacerated wound." The cause of death given was shock and hemorrhage due to rupture of spleen, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 10. Himjd(PW-l), who lodged first information report (Ex.P-2) stated that Vajiya restrained his brother Jeetha and inflicted lathi blows which resulted in his death. His niece Saka informed him regarding the incident, on which he went on the spot, where his brother was lying dead, having injuries on his chest, legs and hips. Halu and Veerji were also there who witnessed the incident. He further stated that daughter of Vajiya was engaged at Mona Doongar and Vajiya borrowed some money. He further demanded money and on refusal, he killed Jeetha. 11. Halu (PW-4) stated that on hearing cry of Saka, daughter of deceased Jeetha, he went on the spot where Vajiya inflicted lathi blows on Jeetha on his chest and hips. Saka, the younger daughter of Jeetha was also with him. He further demanded money and on refusal, he killed Jeetha. 11. Halu (PW-4) stated that on hearing cry of Saka, daughter of deceased Jeetha, he went on the spot where Vajiya inflicted lathi blows on Jeetha on his chest and hips. Saka, the younger daughter of Jeetha was also with him. He further stated that he saw Vajiya running with lathi. Jeetha died instantaneously. 12. Chhaganlal (PW-6) has supported the statements of Halu (PW-4) and stated that Jeetha was returning from Sajjangarh after purchasing fertilizers with his daughter Saka. Vajiya inflicted lathi blows on Jeetha which resulted in his death. He further stated that he saw the incident from his house and rushed there after hearing cry of the girl and saw Vajiya running. 13. Saka (PW-7), daughter of deceased, has also stated that she went to Sajjangarh with her father to bring fertilizers. While returning, Vajiya inflicted lathi blows on his father on back, which resulted in his death. 14. Veerji (PW-8) has also stated that while Jeetha and his daughter Saka were returning from Sajjangarh, Vajiya inflicted lathi blows on his chest, which resulted in his instantaneous death. 15. From the statements of Himji (PW-1) and other witnesses, viz., Halu (PW-4), Chhaganlal (PW-6), Saka (PW-7) and Veerji (PW-9), it nowhere transpires that the appellant-accused, in any manner was intending to kill deceased Jeetha. True it is, a dispute between Jeetha and accused Vajiya was relating to borrowings. However, that may be a motive for the happening but merely on that, inference cannot be drawn relating to intention of the accused for killing Jeetha. From the reading of the statements of witnesses, no intention of the accused for killing Jeetha reveals. The learned Trial Court reached at the conclusion that the accused was having intention to kill Jeetha on the basis of the gravity of the injuries received by the deceased. No doubt, deceased suffered with an injury at his chest but merely on that ground, no inference regarding intention of the accused for committing murder could have been drawn. On the basis of the available evidence, at the most, it can be said that the accused gave a grievous injury resulting in fracture of ribs Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 and rupture of spleen, but nothing is available on record-to reach at the conclusion that such injury was given with intention to commit murder. 16. On the basis of the available evidence, at the most, it can be said that the accused gave a grievous injury resulting in fracture of ribs Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 and rupture of spleen, but nothing is available on record-to reach at the conclusion that such injury was given with intention to commit murder. 16. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant-accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is erroneous. However, the case of an offence, as per the provisions of Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. is certainly established. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. is quashed. The sentence of life imprisonment, therefore set aside. The appellant-accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. and looking to the all the facts and circumstances of the case it is appropriate to sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment in the event of failure to make payment of fine amount. The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. is maintained.Appeal partly allowed. *******