JUDGMENT 1. - Shri Bharat Yadav, appearing for the appellant has stated at The bar that the appellant has undergone ten years, four months and seventeen days. The learned counsel has submitted that since he will be only confining his arguments regarding conversion of the offence and sentence to be awarded in case offence is converted, we have taken up this appeal for hearing. 2. Appellant Guddu @ Anwar @ Kanna Son of Asraf was tried by the Court of Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota for offence under Section 302 IPC. It is the case of prosecution that the appellant on 20th April, 2000 at 9.00 P.M., in Shama Colony near cremation ground, caused two injuries with incised weapon in the thigh of Om Prakash, the deceased. Thus, he committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The appellant for having committed offence punishable for more than ten years, under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, was also charged for the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 23rd August, 2005, acquitted the appellant so far as the charge under Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned. However, the Court below found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. By a separate order of even date, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default thereof, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that he will not be able to impeach the testimony of first informant, Mukesh Kumar (P.W.2) brother of the deceased and another brother of deceased Girraj Prasad (P.W.3) and also deposition of son of the deceased Arun Prakash (P.W.4). The learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his argument to say that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. Since appellant had caused injury to Omprakash (deceased) on the thigh, which is lower part and non-vital portion of the body, offence if any, will fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. 4. We shall deal with medical evidence in the later portion of the judgment. Since appellant had caused injury to Omprakash (deceased) on the thigh, which is lower part and non-vital portion of the body, offence if any, will fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. 4. We shall deal with medical evidence in the later portion of the judgment. Suffice it to say, in the present case, death has taken place due to cutting of femoral artery. In case where injuries are caused on the thigh and result into cutting of femoral artery or on clevical and result into cutting of superior vencava, what will be the offence? question raised is not new to the Courts. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1968 Supreme Court 867 , Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1390 and Gokul Parashram Patil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1441 has come to the conclusion that offence will fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. A similar view has also been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Raju @ Jasvinder v. State of Rajasthan 2006(2) R.C.C.899 . 5. Before we deal the question regarding offence raised, we are of the view that it is our duty to satisfy ourselves whether from the record, guilt of the present appellant is established or not. Therefore, we shall briefly notice the evidence led by the prosecution. 6. Mukesh Kumar (P.W.2) on 20th April, 2000 lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station, Gumanpura Distt.Kota. In the FIR, he stated that on 20th April, 2000 at about 9.00 P.M. his brother Omprakash, accompanied by his son Arun, was going from his house to Kotri. Om Prakash was followed by two brothers, namely Mukesh (P.W.2), and Girraj (P.W.3). When Omprakash reached near the liquor vend situated at Shama Colony near the cremation ground, accused armed with a knife came and stated to the deceased that he consider himself to be a 'big dada' and saying so, he gave an injury on the left thigh. Accused gave another injury on the thigh and thereafter, with the reverse side of the knife, he caused an injury on the head. Immediately both the brothers took Omprakash to the hospital where he was declared dead. 7. We have perused the testimony of Mukesh Kumar (P.W.2), Girraj Prasad (P.W.3) and Arun Prakash (P.W.4) son of the deceased. Accused gave another injury on the thigh and thereafter, with the reverse side of the knife, he caused an injury on the head. Immediately both the brothers took Omprakash to the hospital where he was declared dead. 7. We have perused the testimony of Mukesh Kumar (P.W.2), Girraj Prasad (P.W.3) and Arun Prakash (P.W.4) son of the deceased. Except minor discrepancy here and there, the testimony of the witnesses inspire confidence. Shri Bharat Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly stated that he will not be able to impeach the credibility of the witnesses. Since the witnesses had immediately taken the deceased to the hospital, their presence at the spot cannot be questioned. 8. To answer the limited controversy raised before us it is necessary for us to notice the medical evidence. Dr. V.C. Vyas (P.W.12) being a Member of the Medical Board, on 21st April, 2000, had conducted an autopsy on the dead body of Omprakash. Following injuries were found on the person of deceased:- (1) Stab Wound : 3x1cmx? Deep on back of left thigh, upper ⅓rd 23 cms below the iliac crest, placed on lateral aspect in oblique direction on transverse place. The wound is spindle shape. The outer angle is obtuse with abraded contusion and inner angle is painted. (2) Stab Wound:- 3x1cmx? Deep on back of left thigh in middle ⅓rd, 35 cms below the iliac crest placed in the middle, placed obliquely in transverse plane. The outer angle is obtuse with abraded contusion and inner angle is panted. Wound is stab shape. (3) Abrasion - 0.5 x 0.5 cm. anter aspect of left eye. (4) Abrasion : 2 x 1 cm on left buttock at upper crease. (5) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on lumbar area of back bone. As per the medical opinion of the doctor, cause of death in this case is shock due to excessive bleeding from the ante mortem injury terminating into transaction of Major Blood Vessel i.e. Left Femoral Artery. 9. Thus, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that deceased had died due to cutting of artery. 10. In Harjinder Singh (supra), it was held as under:- "It cannot, therefore, be said with any definiteness that the appellant aimed the blow at this particular part of the thigh knowing that it would cut the artery." 11. 9. Thus, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that deceased had died due to cutting of artery. 10. In Harjinder Singh (supra), it was held as under:- "It cannot, therefore, be said with any definiteness that the appellant aimed the blow at this particular part of the thigh knowing that it would cut the artery." 11. A similar view was reiterated in Laxman Kalu Nikalje (supra). In the case of Laxman Kalu Nikalje the injury was given on the right clavicle, and it resulted into cutting of the auxiliary artery and veins. Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking into consideration the entire conspectus and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, came to the conclusion that offence will fall under Section 304 Part I IPC, as the appellant therein never knew that the injury will cut an artery inside the chest. 12. Considering the law laid in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) and Laxman Kalu Nikalje's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court in Gokul Parashram Patil (supra) has held as under:- "Even a medical man perhaps may not have been able to judge the location of the superior venacava with any precision of that type. The fact that the venacava was cut must, therefore, be ascribed to a non-intentional or accidental circumstance. This was precisely the view taken in Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration ,by Sikri, J., and in Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. The State of Maharashtra , by Hidayatullah, C.J. In the former of these cases, the injury in question was a stab wound on the left thigh which had cut the femoral artery and vessels. In the latter, the damage caused consisted of a cut in the auxiliary artery and veins." 13. The similar view was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Raju @ Jasvinder (supra) as under:- "9. We have given our anxious thoughts to the only contention as noted above but in the facts and circumstances of the present case we find same to be having merit even though half way through. It is indeed a case of single injury and that too on non-vital part of the body. We have given our anxious thoughts to the only contention as noted above but in the facts and circumstances of the present case we find same to be having merit even though half way through. It is indeed a case of single injury and that too on non-vital part of the body. Injury No.2 in the postmortem report has been described by the doctor to be the result of injury No.1, whereas injuries No.3 and 4 are abrasions of small dimensions and could well be caused when Shankar Sindhi was being dragged by the appellants at the time when Swaraj Mal Meena along with other officials had seen them. The injury though, therefore, may be one but it was a serious in nature. The doctor while describing injury no.1 mentioned in the postmortem report as also in the evidence that the same on dissection had shown that would track extended down wards medially and after piercing subcutaneous tissues and also piercing medially border of quadriceps femoris muscle of right thigh at middle ⅓rd, where a cut wound size 2½ x 1cm. was present, large amount of blood clots present in right thigh muscles. Wound track further extending upto middle portion of right femoral artery, where a cut wound of length 5 cm. was present transversely in femoral artery. 10. This finding has been given on the dissection of injury NO.2 which as mentioned above, was result of injury NO.1. The injury is quite serious and has indeed ultimately caused death. The appellants in our view, whereas, may not be certain that the injury caused by them would result in death but surely while causing such an injury they knew that they were likely to cause death of Shanker Sindhi. The appellants even though had no intention to kill, at the same time they must have known that they were inflicting bodily injury as was likely to cause death as a consequence of which death did happen. In considered view of this Court the case would not be covered under Section 302 IPC but it will surely not be covered under Section 304 Part II IPC as well. The appellants in our view thus deserve to be held guilty for an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. Ordered accordingly." 14. In considered view of this Court the case would not be covered under Section 302 IPC but it will surely not be covered under Section 304 Part II IPC as well. The appellants in our view thus deserve to be held guilty for an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. Ordered accordingly." 14. In the present case, the cause of death was due to cutting of femoral artery, and the appellant had caused injuries on the thigh i.e. on the lower part and non-vital portion of the body. We are of the view that the plea raised by Shri Bharat Yadav that the offence will fall not under Section 302 IPC, but under Section 304 Part I IPC must be accepted. 15. Consequently, we convert the offence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and set aside the sentence of life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant and modify the same by awarding seven years rigorous imprisonment upon the appellant. However, we maintain the sentence of fine and default clause as ordered by the trial Court. 16. With the above modification in the offence and sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******