JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment dated 22.1.2007 passed by the fained Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur in Special Sessions Case No. 33/2006, appellant-accused Ashiq Mohd. @ Guddu has been bund guilty of committing the murder of Narsingh Khatik and has been convicted of the offence punishable as under:- S.No. Offence under Section Sentence for the Period Fine Imposed Default in sentence in event of payment of fine 1 302 I.P.C. Life Imprisonment L 5,000/- One Month's S.I. 2 4/25 Arms Act One Year's S.I. L 500/- Ten Days' S.I. 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The appellant-accused has preferred this appeal against the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence which was admitted for hearing order dated 14.2.2007 and notice was issued to Public Prosecutor and the record of the learned Trial Court was called for. 4. From the perusal of available record, it reveals that on 26.6.2006 at about 8.45 A.M., an unknown person informed on the telephone to Dalpat Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Fateh Nagar (Udaipur) that near the old building of Maharashi Dayanand School someone has stepped Narsingh Khatik. this, Station House Officer Sri Dalpat Singh, Police Station Fatehnagar, Udaipur reached at the spot and from there, Narsingh Kahtik was shifted to C.H.C. Sanwad but he died on the, way. this, Station House Officer Sri Dalpat Singh, Police Station Fatehnagar, Udaipur reached at the spot and from there, Narsingh Kahtik was shifted to C.H.C. Sanwad but he died on the, way. At about 10.15 Mukesh Kumar (PW-3) brother of deceased submitted a written report (Ex.P-9) to Station House Office, at CHC, Sanwad stating therein as under:- " fuosnu gS fd vkt lqcg djhc 9-30 A.M. dh ckr gS eSa esjh nqdku usg: ikdZ ds ikl ctjax xksVk lsaVj ij cSBk Fkk fd nks O;fDr ,d LdwVh ls vk;s o eq>s crk;k fd rqEgkjs HkkbZ ujflag dks vHkh pkdw ekj fn;k gS tks egf"kZ n;kuUn Ldwy iqjkuk Hkou ds ikl iM+k jgk gS bl ij eSa rqjUr ekSds ij igqWapk ogkWa ns[kk fd esjk HkkbZ Jh ujflag ds lhus esa cksbZ rjQ [kwu fudy jgk Fkk o rM+i jgk Fkk ftldks iwNus ij cM+h eqf'dy ls :drs&:drs crk;k fd vkf'kd] eUlqj] guhQ rhuksa ,d eksVj lkbZfdy ls vk;s o grhQ] eUlqj us eq>s idM+ fy;k vkSj vkf'kd us esjs lhus esa ckbZ rjQ tksj ls pkdw ekj fn;k ftlus esjs ,d ne [kwu fudy uhps fxj x;k oks eksVj lkbZfdy ij pys x;s cksyrs&cksyrs gh csgks'k gks x;k fd iqfyl ekSds ij vk xbZ ftldks ge luokM+ vLirky ys tk jgs Fks fd e'R;q gks x;h esjs HkkbZ dh eksVj lkbZfdy ekSds ij gh iM+h Fkh esjs HkkbZ ujflag dh yk'k luokM+ vLirky esa iM+h gS esjs HkkbZ ujflag dh gR;k vkf'kd dks viuh Hkrhth ds lkFk esjs HkkbZ ujflag ds lkFk izse laca/k gksus dh 'kadk gksus ds dkj.k vkaf'kd] eUlqj] guhQ us feydj esjs HkkbZ ujflag dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls pkdw ekj dj gR;k dj nh gS fjiksVZ djrk gwWa dk;Zokgh djkosA " 5. On the above said report (Ex.P-9), the First Information Report No. 64/2006 under Section 302/34 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Preventions Atrocities) Act and Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered at Police Station Fatehnagar, Udaipur, Raj. and the investigation was commenced arc after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet for offences under Section 302 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act against the appellant-accused and two co-accused Mansoor and Hanif before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, District Udaipur. and the investigation was commenced arc after investigation the police submitted charge-sheet for offences under Section 302 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act against the appellant-accused and two co-accused Mansoor and Hanif before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mawli, District Udaipur. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the case of trial to the Court of learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Atrocities) Case Udaipur for trial (hereinafter to be referred as "the learned Trial Court". The learned Trial Court, after hearing, framed charges under Section 302/34 I.P.C under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act against the appellant-accused along with co-accused Mansoor and Hanif, for which, they denied and claimed trial. 6. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined as many as IS witnesses and proved Ex.P-l to Ex.P-42. Thereafter the appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed prosecution evidences false and submitted that he is innocent and he has been implicated falsely. 7. In defence, the appellant-accused failed to examine any defence witness even after availing opportunity. Thereafter, after hearing learned Special Puim Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel for the accused,tie learned Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him a; aforesaid and acquitted him for the offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/S (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide impugned judgment dated 22.1.2007. Learne Trial Court also acquitted other co-accused Mansoor and Hanif. 8. Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant-accused preferred this appeal. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Kalu Ram Bhati and learned Public Prosecutor Sri Vishnu Kachhawaha and perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence with available record. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused Sri Bhati has submitted that prosecution introduced two witnesses namely PW-3 Mukesh and PW-18 Dal [hand as eye-witnesses who have been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court and PW-1 Mangi Lal deposed that deceased made dying declaration before him which has also been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused Sri Bhati has submitted that prosecution introduced two witnesses namely PW-3 Mukesh and PW-18 Dal [hand as eye-witnesses who have been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court and PW-1 Mangi Lal deposed that deceased made dying declaration before him which has also been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court. Still without considering any material, learned Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused only on the basis of recovery of knife which has not been proved as per law. further, the blood group has also not been ascertained on the knife, therefore, lie learned Trial Court without considering this fact has wrongly acquitted the appellant-accused and sentenced aforesaid, therefore, the appeal of the appellant-accused may be allowed. 11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that soon after incident appellant-accused absconded and after his arrest, in pursuance of his formation blood stained knife was recovered from his conscious possession. He further submitted that as per medical evidence the cause of death of Narsingh khatik was incised wound on the chest, which was found dangerous to life and incised wound was inflicted by the knife. He further submitted that the incident took place on the way in front of the shop of brother of deceased where accused brought in his pocket and inflicted injury on the vital part of the deceased. The injury was inflicted by a grave force on the chest, which resulted in instant death I if deceased. Bringing knife by him in pocket without any sudden provocation appellant-accused gave blow on the chest of deceased and single blow was found sufficient to cause death instantly which shows that there was a premeditation of the accused committing the alleged crime and with intention to cause death. He inflicted knife blow on the chest which is the vital part of the deceased with such a grave force that single injury was found sufficient for causing his death, therefore, it is a clear case of murder. 12. To decide the issues raised by the learned Counsel, a brief synopsis of evidence on record as laid by the prosecution may be apposite. 13. Mangilal (PW-1), in his statement, deposed that on 26.6.2006, at about 15-9-30 A.M., he and Dalchand were going to Sanvad on a Scooty, belonging to Manoj. 12. To decide the issues raised by the learned Counsel, a brief synopsis of evidence on record as laid by the prosecution may be apposite. 13. Mangilal (PW-1), in his statement, deposed that on 26.6.2006, at about 15-9-30 A.M., he and Dalchand were going to Sanvad on a Scooty, belonging to Manoj. They saw four persons, viz., Munna, Hanif, Aahiq and Narsingh quarrelling near a private school at Fateh Nagar. Munna and one other person, whose name snot known, caught the hands of Narsingh and Ashiq put a knife blow on the nest of Ashiq (sic Narsingh), which was in his pocket. He informed about this accident to the brother of Narsingh, viz., Mukesh. 14. Vinod (PW-2) proved Panchnama of dead body (Ex.P-l). 15. Mukesh (PW 3) brother of deceased, in his statement deposed that he rent to his shop on 26.6.2006 at about 9.9.30 A.M. as usual, then Mangilal came to his shop and informed that somebody has killed his brother Narsingh on which he went to the place of occurrence on his cycle where he saw his brother Narsingh lying there and on his asking, Narsingh told that Ashiq, Mansoor and Sanifcame on motorcycle and Mansoor and Hanif caught him and Ashiq put a knife blow on his chest. Thereafter, he became unconscious and he was taken to lie hospital. It was further deposed by him that Ashiq was having doubt that his brother Narsingh was having illicit relation with his niece. 16. Nathulal (PW-4) in his statement, deposed that on 26.6.2006, he went to Sanvad Hospital at about 10-10.30 A.M. He saw the dead body of Narsingh and the police prepared Panchanama (Ex.P-l) in his presence. 17. Hemraj Yadav (PW-5), in his statement, deposed that on 3.7.2006, he and his friend Mool Shanker were going to his field. On the way, he was asked hi the SHO to accompany with him to the house of Ashiq wherefrom, he got recovered a blood-stained knife and he proved recovery memo of knife (Ex.P-10) and Naksha Mauka (Ex.P-11). 18. Mool Shanker (PW-6) corroborated the statement of Hemraj Yadav (PW-5). 19. Dr. Narendra Bhati (PW-7) deposed in his statement that he was working as Medical Officer at C.H.C., Sanvad on 26.7.2006 and on that day he post-mortemed the body the body of Narsingh. 18. Mool Shanker (PW-6) corroborated the statement of Hemraj Yadav (PW-5). 19. Dr. Narendra Bhati (PW-7) deposed in his statement that he was working as Medical Officer at C.H.C., Sanvad on 26.7.2006 and on that day he post-mortemed the body the body of Narsingh. He found one incised wound 3 err X ½ cm x 5 cm which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary coursed nature. 20. Bodhraj (PW-8), in his statement, deposed that the deceased Narsingh was his son who was murdered on 26.6.2006. Prior to the incident, Ashiq came to his shop with two other persons on motorcycle and asked him to make understand Narsingh. Thereafter, Narsingh was murdered. It was also stated by him that he saw the dead body of Narsingh on which there was one injury on the right side of chest. It was further stated by him that Ashiq was having sort: doubt that Narsingh was having illicit relation with his niece and thus he ha: committed murder of Narsingh. 21. Smt. Manju (PW-9), in her statement, deposed that on 26.6.2006, he husband Narsingh went to the shop on motorcycle at about 9.00 A.M. and about 10.00 A.M. she got the information that somebody has inflicted knife blow on his husband and he is admitted in Sanvad Hospital. Thereafter, she with her father-in-law, went to the hospital where her brother-in-law Mukesh told he that Ashiq has inflicted knife blow on the body of her husband. It was also deposed by her that prior to the incident Ashiq used to make telephonic calls or her house for threatening to make understand her husband otherwise he won kill her husband. 22. Prem Singh (PW-10), in his statement, deposed that on 26.6.2006, 1k was posted as ASI at P.S. Fatehnagar. At about 9.45 A.M., SHO, P.S. Fatehnagz received a telephonic information that somebody has inflicted knife blow to Narsingh near Maharishi Dayanand School. On this information, he with SHO Sir Dalpat Singh reached at the place of occurrence where they saw one person lying unconscious and one person was sitting near him. On asking he stated, name as Mukesh Khatik who told that he is his brother. Mukesh further told that when Narsingh was conscious, he told that Ashiq injured him. There after Narsingh was taken to hospital at Sanvad where he was declared dead. 23. On asking he stated, name as Mukesh Khatik who told that he is his brother. Mukesh further told that when Narsingh was conscious, he told that Ashiq injured him. There after Narsingh was taken to hospital at Sanvad where he was declared dead. 23. Rajendra Prasad (PW-11), constable, P.S. Fatehnagar, corroborated the statement of Prem Singh (PW-10). 24. Salim Khan (PW-12), Malkhana Incharge, proved the deposition c articles and sending them to the FSL. 25. Rakesh Kumar (PW-13) corroborated the statement of Prem Singh (PW-10). 26. Lokesh (PW-14) is the photographer who proved the photographs Ex. 19A to Ex.P-30A and negatives Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-30. 27. Dalpat Singh (PW-15), SHO, P.S. Fatehnagar corroborated the statement of Prem Singh (PW-10) and also deposed about the investigation. 28. Rajesh Bhardwaj (PW-16) Circle Officer, P.S. Vallabh Nagar, deposed about the further investigation in the matter. 29. Dr. Mahesh Prakash (PW-17) corroborated the statement of Dr. Narendra Bhati (PW 7). 30. Dalchand (PW-18), though Was a declared hostile but in his statement, he deposed that on the date of incident, he and one Mangu Harijan were going from Fatehnagar to Sanwad on a scooty and when they reached near school, they saw 20-25 persons standing and on being seen they saw person lying on which Mangu told that the said person is the brother of Mukesh and Mangu told to inform Mukesh about the incident and he brought Mukesh on the place of incident. Mukesh tried to asked the injured person but he could not say anything. 31. Mukesh tried to asked the injured person but he could not say anything. 31. From the above evidence, it reveals that prosecution introduced Mukesh PW-3 and Dal Chand PW-18 as eye-witness and Mangi Lal PW-1 before whom as per his statement deceased made dying declaration before him but considering the statements of these three witnesses, learned Trial Court disbelieved their statement by observing as under:- " Mkypan ds c;kuksa ls ekaxhyky ds dFku fdlh Hkh rjg ls lefFkZr ugha gksrs gSa vr% ekaxhyky }kjk fd;s x;s dFku vfo'oluh; gks tkrs gSaA xokg ekaxhyky ds dFku fcYdqy Hkh fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrs gSa D;ksafd bl xokg us u rks >xM+rs gq, O;fDr;ksa dks NqMkus dk iz;kl fd;k] u gh pkdw yxus ds ckn eqyfteku dks Hkkxrs gq;s dks idM+us dk dksbZ iz;kl fd;kA xokg dk mDr vizkd'frd vkpj.k mldh ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr dks lafnX/k cuk nsrk gSA bu xokgksa dh ifjoknh ih0MCY;w0 3 us u rks oDr ?kVuk ekSds ij mifLFkfr crk;h gS u gh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ gksus ds ckn ifjoknh eqds'k us vius iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ Mh0 6 esa ekaxhyky o Mkypan dh ekSds ij mifLFkfr gh crk;h gS tcfd ih0 MCY;w 1 ekaxhyky us vius izfrijh{k.k esa Li"V crk;k gS fd ujflax ds HkkbZ eqds'k dks tkurk gwWaA eqds'k esjs dks uke ls tkurk gSA ekjihV djus okyksa dks igys ls gh uke ls tkurk Fkk bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tc ekaxhyky bl xokg dks eqds'k uke ls tkurk Fkk ,oa ekaxhyky ekjihV djus okys O;fDr;ksa ds uke Hkh tkurk Fkk rks ;fn ekaxhyky ekSds ij gksrk o ?kVuk ds ckjs esa ih0MCY;w0 3 dks crkrk rks fuf'pr :i ls eqds'k izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih0 9 esa bl xokg dk uke of.kZr djrk rFkk eqds'k }kjk iqfyl dks fn, c;kuksa esa Hkh bu xokgksa dk ekSds ij gksuk crkrkA vfHk;kstu dgkuh ds vuqlkj ?kVukLFky ds ikl fuekZ.k dk;Z py jgk FkkA ih0M0 3 eqds'k ds vuqlkj tc og ekSds ij igqapk rks ogka 2&4 O;fDr igys ls ekStwn FksA xokgku ds c;kuksa ds vuqlkj ?kVukLFky ls fuekZ.k dk;Z okyk LFkku fn[kkbZ nsrk gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dsoy ih0M0 1 ekaxhyky us gh ?kVuk ns[k yh ,oa fuekZ.k dk;Z djus okyksa us dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ns[kh ;g rF; Hkh bl xokg ds c;kuksa dks vfo'oluh; cuk nsrk gSA vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh jkts'k Hkkj}kt ds vuqlkj mlus xokg Mkypan ,oa ekaxhyky ds c;ku fnukad 5-7-2006 dks ys[kc) fd, gSaA ?kVuk fnukad 26-6-2006 dh crkbZ xbZ gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fnukad 26-2-2006 dks xokg ekaxhyky ,oa Mkypan ds c;ku ys[kc) ugha djuk ,oa ekaxhyky dk Fkkukf/kdkjh ds vkus ds le; ekSds ij mifLFkr gksrs gq, Hkh ?kVuk ds ckjs esa Fkkusnkj dks dksbZ rF; ugha crkuk Hkh xokg ekaxhyky o MkypaN dh ekSds ij mifLFkfr vfo'oluh; cuk nsrk gSA tSlk fd mij foospu fd;k tk pqdk gS fd ih0M0 18 Mkypan tks fd ?kVuk dk izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh crk;k x;k gS mlus fdlh Hkh izdkj ls vfHk;kstu dgkuh dk leFkZu ugha fd;k gS tcfd Mkypan o ekaxhyky dh ?kVukLFky ij ,d lkFk mifLFkfr vfHk;kstu dgkuh ds vuqlkj crkbZ xbZ gSa mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Hkh ih0M0 1 ekaxhyky ds c;ku ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa fo'oluh; ugha eku tk ldrs gSaA xokg ih0MCY;w0 3 eqds'k us vius c;kuksa esa ;g rF; Hkh crk;k gS fd mls lwpuk feyus ij og ekSds ij igqWapkA izfrijh{k.k esa mlus crk;k gS fd mldh nqdku ls ?kVukLFky ij iSny 3&4 feuV o lkbZfdy ls Ms<+ nks feuV dk jkLrk gSA ysfdu ih0MCY;w0 1 ekaxhyky us vius c;kuksa esa ;g rF; crk;k gS fd ?kVukLFky ls mUgsa eqds'k ds ikl igqWapus esa 5&7 feuV yxs FksA ?kVuk ds ckjs esa mUgksaus eqds'k dks crk;k ,oa eqds'k dks ysdj ikl ?kVukLFky ij igqWaps ftlesa mUgsa 5&7 feuV dk le; yxkA bl izdkj tc ,d eksisM lokj dks ?kVukLFky ls eqds'k dh nqdku ij tkus esa 5&7 feuV dk le; yxrk gS tc eqds'k }kjk ;g dguk fd ?kVukLFky ij mldh nqdku ls vkus esa iSny dsoy 3&4 feuV o lkbZfdy ls Ms<+ nks feuV gh yxrk gS] vfo'oluh; gSA tSlk fd ih0MCY;w0 17 egs'kizdk'k us vius izfrijh{k.k esa Li"V crk;k gS fd ftl izdkj dh pksV e'rd ds Fkh ml izdkj dh pksV vkus ij O;fdr 5&10 feuV esa gh ej tkrk gSA blh izfjizs{; esa ekaxhyky ih0MCY;w0 1 ds c;ku dk voyksdu djs rks mlus izfrijh{k.k esa Li"V crk;k gS fd og pkdw yxus ds ckn ujflag ds ikl x;s Fks rRi'pkr~ o eqds'k ds ikl x;s Fks ftlesa 5&7 feuV okil LdwVh ls vkus esa le; yxk rks fuf'pr :i ls lkbZfdy ls vkus okys xokg eqds'k ih0MCY;w0 3 dks Hkh 8&10 feuV dk le; de ls de yxk gksxk bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Hkh eqds'k }kjk fd;s x;s dFku fd mlus HkkbZ us mls rM+irs gq, ;g crkrk fd rhuksa eqfYteku vk, o eUlqj rFkk guhQ us gkFk idM+ o vkf'kd us pkdw ekjk vfo'oluh; gks tkrs gSa D;ksafd vof/k rd e'rd dk ftUnk jguk mldh pksV dks ns[krs gq, laHko ugha Fkk ,oa pksV dh vof/k dks ns[krs gq;s mls pksV Hkh djhc 8-15 cts dkfjr dh tk pqdh FkhA " blh ifjizs{; esa ih0MCY;w0 18 Mkypan ds c;kuksa dk voyksdu djs rks mlus rks vius c;kuksa esa ;g Li"V crk;k gS fd tc og ekaxhyky ds lkFk eqds'k ds HkkbZ ds ikl x;s rks og O;fDr dN cksy ugha jgk FkkA eqds'k dks cqykdj tc okil ?kVukLFky ij vk;k ,oa eqds'k us vius HkkbZ dks lh/kk fd;k vkSj dqN iwNus yxk rks O;fDr dqN ugha cksykA mDr rF; Hkh ih0MCY;w0 3 eqds'k ds bu dFkuksa dks vfo'oluh; cuk nsrs gSa fd mlds HkkbZ e'rd ujflax us mls vkf'kd }kjk pkdw ekjuk ,oa guhQ ,oa eqUuk }kjk mlds gkFk idM+s crk;k gksA----------------------- " 32. The above finding of learned Trial Court was not challenged by the prosecution and co-accused Mansoor and Hanif were acquitted by the learned Trial Court by considering the statements of Mangi Lal PW-1, Mukesh PW-3 and Dal Chand PW-18. 33. However, from the statements of Mukesh (PW-3), Bodhraj (PW-8) and Smt. Manju (PW-9), it reveals that the appellant-accused Aahiq was having doubt that the deceased Narsingh was having illicit relation with his niece and he used to threaten the deceased and his family members to make him understand other wise to kill Narsingh. Thus, the motive of the appellant-accused is clear. Further, on the date of incident, when he saw the deceased Narsingh, he was provoked and on sudden provocation, he put knife blow on the chest of the deceased Narsingh. 34. Further, as per the statement of Dalpat Singh (PW-15), the Investigating Officer, the appellant-accused himself surrendered on 1.7.2006 and during the custody, he gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and got recovered the knife, which was blood stained. 35. Thus, in view of the above, we find that the prosecution has proved, adducing cogent and reliable evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused caused the death of deceased by inflicting knife blow and thus, he was guilty of committing culpable homicide. 36. Now the question is whether the appellant-accused was guilty of committing murder under Section 302 I.P.C. or culpable homicide not amounting to a murder under Section 304 I.P.C. 37. 36. Now the question is whether the appellant-accused was guilty of committing murder under Section 302 I.P.C. or culpable homicide not amounting to a murder under Section 304 I.P.C. 37. Except, in the cases, mentioned in Section 300 I.P.C., culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused with the intention of causing death, or: Secondly - If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or - Thirdly - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or - Fourthly - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." Section 300 I.P.C. provides the following exception:- "Exception 1. When culpable homicide is not murder.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender., whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisions First-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person Secondly-That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Exception 2. Thirdly - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Exception 2. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence or person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Exception 3. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation. - It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5. - Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent." 38. The punishment for culpable homicide, not amounted to murder, has been prescribed in Section 304 I.P.C. Section 304 I.P.C. reads as under:- "304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of caused death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." 39. Under Section 304 I.P.C., depending upon different circumstances, two kinds of punishments have been prescribed. Under Section 304 I.P.C., depending upon different circumstances, two kinds of punishments have been prescribed. Firstly, under Part-I of Section 304 I.P.C. if the act by which death is caused with intention of causing death or sue bodily injury as is likely to cause death the punishment is imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 year; and fine. Secondly, if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, the punishment 6 imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. Therefore, if the act is done with intention of causing death, for such bodily injury, as is likely to cause death, then the offender liable of Part-I of Section 304 I.P.C. Whereas, if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death, then the offence committed by the person would fall under Part-II of Section 304 I.P.C. 40. In view of the above, in a murder case, the Court is required to make proper appreciation of the evidence and of law before reaching the conclusion that the case proved is culpable homicide, because all "murder is culpable homicide" but not vice-versa. 41. Under the first exception, culpable homicide is not murder if the death is caused by offender, whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave ant sudden provocation, similarly, under the 4th exception, if the death is caused. the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having take undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner the death does not amount to murder. From the statements of Mukesh (PW-3), Bodhraj (PW-8) and Smt. Manju (PW-9), it reveals that the appellant-accused Ashiq was having doubt that the deceased Narsingh was having illicit relation with his niece and he use to threaten the deceased and his family members to make him understand otherwise to kill Narsingh. Thus on the date of incident, when the appellant-accused saw the deceased Narsingh, he was provoked and under the sudden provocation, he inflicted a knife blow on the chest. Had there been no such thing, the appellant-accused would not have assaulted the deceased. Thus on the date of incident, when the appellant-accused saw the deceased Narsingh, he was provoked and under the sudden provocation, he inflicted a knife blow on the chest. Had there been no such thing, the appellant-accused would not have assaulted the deceased. Mangilal (PW-1) has clearly stated in his statement that it was the appellant-accused who gave knife blow on the chest of the deceased, which was, as per the statement of Dr. Narendra Bhati (PW-7), sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 42. In view of the above, we hold that the appellant-accused committed the offence amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder i.e. the offence under Section 304 I.P.C. 43. From the evidence on record, as discussed above, in the present case, the appellant-accused inflicted fatal blow on the chest with sharp object. He did not repeat the blow on the chest, therefore, in our considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellant is covered by Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C., the punishment prescribed for which is imprisonment for life or imprisonment either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 44. Therefore, considering the entire aspects of the matter and the attending facts and circumstances of the case, in which the offence was committed and only single blow was inflicted on the chest of the deceased and the age of the appellant accused at the time of committing offence was 19 years, we are of the considered view that the appellant will serve the imprisonment for ten years and fine awarded by the learned Trial Court, that will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 45. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. is modified to one under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. and the sentence of life term imprisonment is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment without interfering regarding payment of fine and conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 46. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed with the modifications as above, copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur for information to the appellant.The record of the Court below be returned with the copy of the judgment.Appeal partly allowed. *******