JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Om Prakash @ Omi S/o Shadiram under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Hanumangarh, Headquarter Nohar dated 4.7.2008 passed in Criminal Case No. 97/2007 (7/2007) by which the learned Trial Court held the accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and passed the following sentence against him : Under Section 302 I.P.C. : Imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year imprisonment. Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act : Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case the F.I.R. Ex. P-37 was registered on the basis of statement of deceased Raj Kumar (Ex. P-13) recorded by the S.H.O., Police Station, Rajiyasar-Camp in the Government Hospital, Rawatsar O.P.D. in which the injured gave statement that today on 2.12.2006 at about 7.30-7.45 P.M. in the evening my brother Om Prakash asked me that Ashok and Dharmpal has come, therefore, to meet them accompany me. Upon asking by brother Om Prakash deceased, Rajkumar took his motor cycle and a his brother Om Prakash sit in the back side of the deceased Rajkumar. The motorcycle was driven by the deceased Raj Kumar but upon Rampur road in front of Nahar Colony, his brother Om Prakash inflicted injury by pistol in his back and due to the said injury the injured fell down and his brother Om Prakash took motorcycle and ran away from the place of occurrence. The deceased Rajkumar further stated that he was having mobile phone by which he made a call to Jagsir Singh and informed that he has received one injury by pistol and lying upon Rampura Road. At that time from Rampura side one Dilip Singh Bhadiya came in the jeep, along with two other persons who were also sitting in the jeep. Shri Dilip Singh Bhadiya and other persons stop the jeep and took Rajkumar immediately in the jeep to the Government Hospital for treatment. At that time from Rampura side one Dilip Singh Bhadiya came in the jeep, along with two other persons who were also sitting in the jeep. Shri Dilip Singh Bhadiya and other persons stop the jeep and took Rajkumar immediately in the jeep to the Government Hospital for treatment. As per allegation of Rajkumar due to conspiracy his brother Om Prakash inflicted injury his back by fire arm, therefore, action may be taken against him. 3. Upon above statement of the injured Rajkumar the S.H.O., Police Station, Rawatsar registered an F.I.R. No. 2978/2006 under Sections 307 and 27 of Arms Act and commenced the investigation. 4. The injured Rajkumar was examined by the Medical Officer PW-8-Hanuman Singh immediately in the hospital upon requisition of police and after treatment referred to the Hanumangarh Hospital. The accused appellant was arrested vide Ex. P-14 on 5.12.2006 at 9-10 P.M. and upon information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the motorcycle Bajaj Discover bearing No. RJ-31-SD-8641 was recovered on 8.12.2006 at 5.30 P.M. vide Ex. P-15. The police prepared site plan Ex. P-11 of the place of recovery of motorcycle and pent of the accused-appellant Om Prakash was taken into possession on 8.12.2006 vide Ex. P-16 upon which blood was found. Vide Ex. P-19 one pistol of 12 bore was recovered upon information given by Om Prakash on 9.12.2006 at 10.00 P.M. in front of two witnesses Ram Pal and Dula Ram. The site plan Ex. P-20 and P-20A of place of recovery of pistol was also prepared by the Investigation Officer and after recording statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. processed for further investigation. 5. As per prosecution case soon after the occurrence, the injured Rajkumar was examined by the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Rawatsar in which one fire arm injury of 5 x 5 cm was found upon the back side of the body of the injured Rajkumar. The injury report Ex. P-12 was prepared by the Medical Officer PW-8-Dr. Hanuman Singh on 2.12.2006 itself at 8.30 A.M. and injured Rajkumar was referred to the Hanumangarh Hospital. 6. The injury report Ex. P-12 was prepared by the Medical Officer PW-8-Dr. Hanuman Singh on 2.12.2006 itself at 8.30 A.M. and injured Rajkumar was referred to the Hanumangarh Hospital. 6. The prosecution has come out with the case that injured Rajkumar was further referred by the Hanumangarh Hospital to Ludhiyana Hospital were during treatment injured Rajkumar died on 22.12.2006, therefore upon receiving information, offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was added and A.S.I. Leeladhar and Ram Pal, Head Constable were sent to C.S.C. Ludhiyana to take dead body of Rajkumar for post mortem. The said Police Officials took the dead body of deceased Raj Kumar from Ludhiyana and came back to the Hanumangarh Hospital where post mortem of the body was conducted by the Dr. Agarwal, Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Rawatsar. In the post mortem 7 injuries were found upon the body of the deceased. After post mortem, the body of Rajkumar was handed over to the family members for cremation. 7. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar where from case was committed for trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. Ultimately, the trial took place in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Hanumangarh Headquarter Nohar. 8. The learned Trial Court framed the charge against the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and proceeded to record evidence of prosecution. In support of the prosecution case the statements of 17 witnesses were recorded and 46 documents were exhibited in the trial. 9. After recording evidence of prosecution, the learned Trial Court recorded statement of accused-appellant Om Prakash @ Omi under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in spite of granting opportunity to evidence was produced by the accused-appellant in his defence. 10. The learned Trial Court finally heard the case and vide Judgment dated 4.7.2008 held accused-appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and passed the sentence aforesaid. 11. In this Appeal filed by the accused-appellant the accused-appellant is challenging the validity of the Judgment dated 4.7.2008 by which appellant was convicted and sentenced of life imprisonment was imposed against him. 12. 11. In this Appeal filed by the accused-appellant the accused-appellant is challenging the validity of the Judgment dated 4.7.2008 by which appellant was convicted and sentenced of life imprisonment was imposed against him. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no corroboration of the allegation levelled by the deceased Rajkumar in his statement Ex. P-13 because in the statement the name of Jagsir Singh, Dilip Singh Bhediya and two other persons were mentioned but all these persons turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. While inviting attention towards the statement of PW-3-Jagsir Singh it is submitted that the said witness not only turned hostile but said in the Court that my mobile No. is 9414509822 and upon said mobile phone no news or information was received from the deceased Rajkumar and the information with regard to injury sustained to Raju was received by him in workshop. PW-4-Dilip Kumar also turned hostile and submit that on 2.12.2006 when he was going along with Hajari Lal Sharma of Forest Department in jeep in between Rawatsar Rampura road one person was lying on road and upon calling by him they stopped the jeep but injured was not in a position to speak, therefore, he along with Hajari Lal Sharma took the said person to the Rawatsar Hospital for treatment. The learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that although these witnesses turned hostile, but they categorically stated before the Court hat nothing was said by the deceased Rajkumar when they reached at the place of occurrence. The witnesses PW-5-Hajari Lal, PW-6-Lal Chand and PW-7-Daulat Ram did not support the prosecution case because they were declared hostile. The crux of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that except statement of the deceased which is not corroborated by other witnesses there is no evidence on record to support the allegation levelled by the deceased against accused-appellant. Therefore, the finding given by the learned Trial Court to held accused-appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is totally illegal, perverse and contrary to evidence on record. 13. Therefore, the finding given by the learned Trial Court to held accused-appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is totally illegal, perverse and contrary to evidence on record. 13. It is vehemently argued that all the recoveries were made in presence of police officials because there was no independent witnesses on the incident, therefore, the allegation of recovery of pistol upon information of the accused-appellant cannot be treated to be proved by the prosecution, therefore, judgment impugned is contrary to law and evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that learned Trial Court has relied upon the statement of deceased (Ex. P-13) recorded on 2.12.2006 by the S.H.O., Police Station, Rawatsar in the hospital and the statement recorded by the S.H.O. at Ludhiyana Hospital Ex. P-42 dated 15.12.2006 but none of the witnesses supported the allegation of deceased Rajkumar levelled by him in both the statements. The persons whose names were mentioned by the deceased also turned hostile not supported the prosecution case, therefore, it is a fit case in which the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that bare perusal of the statement Ex. P-13 and P-42 of the deceased Rajkumar it will reveal that before recording both the statements no certificate of doctor was obtained by the S.H.O., Police Station, Rawatsar nor any action was undertaken for recording statements of accused by the Magistrate and ultimately Rajkumar died on 22.12.2006, therefore, in absence of any independent corroborative evidence, it can be said that learned Trial Court has committed a grave error of law to convict the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 15. 15. With regard to question of intention, it is submitted that as per allegation of the prosecution deceased Rajkumar was having insurance policy of Rs.5 lacs and only to get Rs.5 lacs the accused-appellant caused injury by pistol to cause death of his own brother to get the insurance claim, but as per the statement of PW-1-Krishan Kumar and PW-2-Satyaprakash it is abundantly clear that prosecution has failed to prove intention because both these witnesses turned hostile and categorically said that in the insurance policy the wife of Rajkumar was nominee and Om Prakash has nothing to do with the amount of insurance, therefore, the learned Trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. because allegations are far from the truth. 16. Lastly, it is argued that even if evidence of prosecution is accepted in to, then also it can be said that deceased Rajkumar died due to non-availability of proper treatment, which is evidence from the cause of death given in the post mortem report by the Medical Officer, therefore, the instant Appeal may kindly be allowed and judgment impugned may be quashed. 17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that although the independent witnesses turned hostile but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that F.I.R. was registered upon statement of deceased recorded by the S.H.O., Police Station, Rawatsar in the hospital in which specific allegation was levelled by the deceased Rajkumar in Ex. P-12 that injury was caused by his brother (accused-appellant) when he was sitting behind him upon motorcycle. Similarly, in the statement Ex. P-42 recorded by the S.H.O., Police Station, Rawatsar at Ludhiyana Hospital, the injured categorically said that on 15.12.2006 injury by pistol was caused by the accused-appellant when they were going on motorcycle and at that time accused-appellant was sitting behind him, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of deceased even though the other witnesses turned hostile. As per Public Prosecutor there is no strength in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because in the F.S.L. report Ex. As per Public Prosecutor there is no strength in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because in the F.S.L. report Ex. P-42 human blood of group 'A' was found upon the cloths shirt, Baniyan to the deceased Rajkumar and upon pent of the accused-appellant, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty for committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 18. While inviting attention towards the fact that recovery of pistol was made upon information given by the accused-appellant vide Ex. P-19 in front of Police Officials Ram Lal and Dula Ram, but only for the said reasons, it cannot be said that prosecution has failed to prove recovery of 12 bore pistol upon information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, therefore this Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 19. It is also submitted that in the statement of PW-8-Dr. Hanuman Singh it is said that soon after the occurrence the deceased was examined by him in the Government Hospital, Rawatsar and find that there was no injury caused by fire arm in the back of injured Rajkumar. The PW-12-Dr. Ganesh Agarwal who performed the post mortem of the deceased stated that there was injury of fire arm upon the back side of body of the deceased. Meaning thereby, the allegation of deceased in his statement Ex. P-13 and Ex. P-42 recorded by the S.H.O., Police Station, Rawatsar that accused-appellant inflicted fire arm injury is well proved by the prosecution by leading trustworthy and reliable evidence, therefore, even if the statements are recorded in absence of doctor or without taken any certificate from the doctor that patient is fit to give statement, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of deceased, who made allegation that his real brother Om Prakash @ Omi inflicted fire arm injury upon him, therefore, there is no strength in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of above ground learned Public Prosecutor prayed that Appeal may kindly be dismissed. 20. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties we have thoroughly examined the entire evidence in the light of the allegation levelled by the deceased Rajkumar in his statement Ex. In view of above ground learned Public Prosecutor prayed that Appeal may kindly be dismissed. 20. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties we have thoroughly examined the entire evidence in the light of the allegation levelled by the deceased Rajkumar in his statement Ex. P-13 recorded by the S.H.O., Police Station, Rawatsar upon which F.I.R. Ex. P-37 was registered. It is true that in the statement a specific assertion was made by the deceased that after receiving injury inflicted by accused-appellant he fell down and first of all made a call by mobile to Jagsir Singh and asked him that injury has been caused by fire arm to him and I am lying upon Rampura road. Further, it was stated that Dilip Singh Bediya came there in jeep with 2-3 persons and took him in the hospital for treatment but unfortunately PW-3-Jagsir Singh, PW-4-Dilip Singh, PW-5-Hajari Lal, and PW-7-Daulat Ram turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case but question arises why the allegation of causing injury by fire arm is levelled by the deceased Rajkumar against his real brother Om Prakash, in our opinion, there was any hidden conspiracy for causing injury by fire arm to the deceased Rajkumar real brother by the accused-appellant which has not come on record. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that PW-8-Dr. Hanuman Singh first examined the deceased on 2.12.2006 and PW-12-Dr. Ganesh Agarwal who performed the post mortem categorically stated in the statement that fire arm injury was found upon the body of the deceased. Meaning thereby, by leading trustworthy medical evidence prosecution has established that there was fire arm injury upon the body of the deceased Rajkumar in the back side. The Investigating Officer PW-16-Bala Ram stated before the Court that condition of the deceased Rajkumar became so serious, therefore, from Hanumangarh Hospital he was advised to go for treatment in Ludhiyana Hospital where the treatment was taken by the deceased Rajkumar but unfortunately, during treatment he died on 22.12.2006 after 20 days on the date of incident. PW-8-Dr. The Investigating Officer PW-16-Bala Ram stated before the Court that condition of the deceased Rajkumar became so serious, therefore, from Hanumangarh Hospital he was advised to go for treatment in Ludhiyana Hospital where the treatment was taken by the deceased Rajkumar but unfortunately, during treatment he died on 22.12.2006 after 20 days on the date of incident. PW-8-Dr. Hanuman Singh gave following statement before the Court in trial, which reads as under:- ^^fnukad 02-12-2006 dks eSa jktdh; fpfdRlky; jkorlj esa izHkkjh fpfdRld ds in ij rSukr Fkk] ml fnu jkf= ds 8-30 ih0,e0 ij iqfyl izfrosnu ij Jh jktdqekj iq= Jh lknhjke mez 35 o"kZ tkfr lksuh iatkch fuoklh okMZ uEcj 20 jkorlj dh pksVksa dk eqvk;uk fd;k o fuEu pksVsa ik;h%& ¼1½ izos'k dk ?kko 5 x 5 ls0eh0 vkdkj dk ftlds fdukjs bj&jsxwyj Fks] mlds vklikl dh peM+h tyh gqbZ FkhA Vs&Vksbax ekStwn Fkh] ikl ds cky flatMs FksA ,fDtDV ¼fudkl½ dk ?kko ekStwn ugha FkkA ?kko ls [kwu cg jgk Fkk] [ka[kkj esa [kwu ekStwn FkkA ?kko Nkrh ds ihNs dh rjQ FkkA ?kko dh xgjkbZ ugha ns[kh xbZA D;ksafd xgjkbZ ns[kus ls QsQM+k vksj frYyh ds {kfrxzLr gksus dh vk'kadk FkhA pksVxzLr O;fDr gks'k esa Fkk] mldh ukM+h dh xfr 120 izfrfeuV] jDr pki 110@80 ,e0,e0 vkWQ edZjh FkkA pksV vkXus; vL= ls dkfjr FkhA pksV dh izd`fr ds fy, ,Dl&js dh jk; nh xbZ FkhA pksV dh vof/k 12 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA pksVxzLr O;fDr dks izkFkfed mipkj tSls vkbZ0oh0QY;wV] fgek'khy] dksfVdksLV~ksbM] ,UVhckW;ksfVd] VsVosd bUtsD'ku vksj y{k.kksa ds vuqlkj mipkj nsus ds mijkar guqekux<+ ljdkjh vLirky ds fy, vkxs ds bykt ds fy, jSQj dj fn;k x;kA^^ 21. As per above statement of PW-8-Dr. Hanuman Singh there was only one fire arm injury upon the back side of the deceased Rajkumar and after treatment he was referred to the Hanumangarh Hospital for further treatment. There is no evidence of Hanumangarh Hospital on record or any letter to refer the deceased Rajkumar for treatment to the Ludhiyana Hospital but Investigating Officer categorically stated before the Court that due to deteriorated condition of deceased Rajkumar he was referred to the Ludhiyana Hospital for treatment where he was died on 22.10.2006. 22. After death on 22.10.2006 when post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted PW-12-Dr. Ganesh Agarwal at Hanumangarh Hospital 7 injuries were found upon the body of the deceased. 22. After death on 22.10.2006 when post mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted PW-12-Dr. Ganesh Agarwal at Hanumangarh Hospital 7 injuries were found upon the body of the deceased. The following statement is given by the said witness, which reads as under:- fnukad 23-12-2006 dks eSa jktdh; fpfdRlky;] jkorlj esa fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA ml fnu eSaus jktdqekj iq= lknhjkt vk;q 35 o"kZ tkfr lksuh fuoklh okMZ uEcj 20 jkorlj dk iksLVekVZe fd;k Fkk tks iqfyl izfrosnu ij fd;kA iksLVekVZe esa eSaus 'ko dh fuEufyf[kr fLFkfr ik;hA eSaus 'ko dks ns[kk rFkk tks iqfyl us eq>s bfRryk nh fd 02-12-2006 dks xksyh yxus ls mijksDr ?kk;y voLFkk esa bykt ds fy, lh0,e0lh0 vLirky yqf/k;kuk jSQj fd;k x;k tgka bykt ds nkSjku 02-12-2006 dks mijksDr dh e`R;q gks xbZA ckg;~ fLFkfr%& jkbxj eksfVZl ekStwn] iksLVekVZe LVsuh dej o isV ds ihNs ds Hkkx esa ekStwn Fkh isV Qwyk gqvkA ?kko%& 1- fLVp ow.M ds lkFk esa fLVp dkQh la[;k esa ftldk jax isy Fkk tks fd ,ihxsLV~he ls ysdj lw.Mh ds uhps rd FkkA 2- rhu ow.M 3 x 2 lseh0] 2 x 2 lseh0 o 2 x 1 lseh0 ds bj&jsxwyj ekftZu ds lkFk isV ds mijh cka;s fgLls esa ekStwn FksA rFkk nks ?kko 2 x 2 o 2 x 2 lseh0 ds isV ds nkfgus mijh Hkkx ij tks fd lHkh isfjVksfu;y dsfoVy rd xgjs Mhi FksA 3- ,d ?kko 3 x 2 lseh0 dk xksykbZ esa ,Dtyjh fjtu esa cka;h cxy ds fcYdqy uhps Iywjy dsfoVh rd xgjs FksA 4- ,d ?kko 5 x 4 lseh0 dk xksykbZ esa cka;h Nkrh ds ihNs dh vksj Ldsiwyk ds fcYdqy uhps] Iywjy dsfoVh rd xgjk FksA 5- cka;h cxy ds {ks= esa] vkxs dh usd ij rFkk ihB esa peM+h mrjh gqbZ FkhA 6- ,d [kjksap 2 x 1 lseh0 dh ftlds lkFk esa cgqr lkjs fiu&iksbUV ?kko xnZu ds nkfguh rjQ FksA 7- Ldzsi ow.M 2 x 2 lseh0] 2 x 1 lseh0 nkfgus ?kqVus ij] 2 x 2 lseh0 dk nka;h tka?k ij] 3 x 2 lseh0 vkdkj dk cka;h Vkax esa uhps dh vksj Fks ;s lHkh ?kko Ldzsi ds :i esa vkSj v.Mj fgfyax esa FksA xnZu ij fdlh Hkh rjg dk ykbuspj ekdZ ugha FkkA vka[kksa dh iqryh QSyh gqbZ o fQDl FkhA dzsfu;e ,.M LikbZuy dksM%& 1- [kksiM+h o jh<+ dh gM~Mh LoLFk] esEcjsu LoLFk] czsu o LikbZuy dksM LoLFk o isyA FkksjsDl%& vkBoha o uoha cka;h lkbZM dh ilyh VwVh gqbZA cka;h rjQ dh Iywjy dsfofV esa eokn o [kwu rFkk uhps ds fgLls esa 2 x 4 lseh0 dk ?kkoA cka;k QsQM+k%& cka;s QsQM+s esa eokn iM+h gqbZ FkhA ckdh lHkh vkWxZu LoLFk FksA isV%& frYyh ds vUnj ?kko Fkk ckdh lHkh isV ds vax LoLFk o isy FksA eksM vkWQ MsFk%& eksM vkWQ MsFk 'kksd gS tks fd fofHkUu vkWxZu esa ,.VhekVZe pksV yxus ds dkj.k rFkk jLlh iM+us ls gqbZ gSA mijksDr pksVsa tks ,.VhekVZe Fkh] izd`fr ds lk/kkj.k vuqdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr FkhA eksM vkWQ MsFk%& eksM vkWQ MsFk 'kksd gS tks fd fofHkUu vkWxZu esa ,.VhekVZe pksV yxus ds dkj.k rFkk jLlh iM+us ls gqbZ gSA mijksDr pksVsa tks ,.VhekVZe Fkh] izd`fr ds lk/kkj.k vuqdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr FkhA^^ 23. Upon perusal of both the statements and opinion of cause of death giver by the Dr. Ganesh Agarwal, it is abundantly clear that death was caused due to septicemia that too after 20 days at Ludhiyana. In view of the above fact, this Court cannot lose sight upon the evidence that although the deceased was admitted in the hospital due to injury by fire arm caused by the accused-appellant but the deceased died in absence of proper treatment after 20 days. 24. Upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances , we are of the opinion that in absence of any evidence of intention and for the reason that deceased was died after 20 days of the incident, the case cannot travel beyond offence under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the similar type of evidence in the case of Kailash v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2007(2) WLC (SC) Page 94, gave verdict that offence cannot travel beyond offence under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C., which reads as under:- "41. However, in Rajinder v. State of Haryana, (2006) 6 SCJ 330 , another Division Bench of this Court upon analyzing the provisions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and referring to the celebrated case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1958) SC 465 stated the law thus: "These observations of Vivian Bose, J. have become locus classics. The test laid down by Virsa Singh's, case (supra) for the applicability of clause "thirdly" is now ingrained in our legal system and has become part of the rule of law. Under clause thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C., culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied : i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that. particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that. particular bodily injury which, in the ordinary course of nature, was sufficient to cause death, viz., that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh's case, even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder. Illustration (c) appended to Section 300 clearly brings out this point. Clause (c) of Section 299 and Clause (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the act causing death. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding clauses. " It will be sufficient to say that clause (4) of Section 300 would be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons - being caused from his imminently dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the Court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each other that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages." In the case of Johny v. State of Kerala, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 158, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made following adjudication which reads as under:- "2. The incident happened on 22.9.1988. The deceased, Mary was the wife of Varghese, who died prior to the occurrence of the incident. Thereafter, the deceased Mary was staying with the brother of Varghese, namely, the second accused. The deceased Mary had a daughter by Varghese and on her marriage Louis, the second accused, had advanced a sum of Rs.60,000/- as loan. The deceased, Mary was the wife of Varghese, who died prior to the occurrence of the incident. Thereafter, the deceased Mary was staying with the brother of Varghese, namely, the second accused. The deceased Mary had a daughter by Varghese and on her marriage Louis, the second accused, had advanced a sum of Rs.60,000/- as loan. The second accused, on the date of the incident, demanded the amount so advanced from the deceased Mary and it appears that there ensured a quarrel between the second accused and the deceased Mary. The deceased Mary said that she was not prepared to talk to him as he was drunk and there is also evidence to show that Johny, the first accused was also standing behind her. When the second accused demanded the amount from the deceased Mary, the first accused Johny, who was standing behind her, stabbed her on her back and this caused the death of Mary. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the crime committed by the petitioner can come only under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. as there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the death though he had the requisite knowledge. It is true that there was only one stab injury on the deceased. It is also not clear as to what was the origin and genesis of the whole incident leading to this crime and apparently there was no reason for the petitioner to cause the injury on the deceased. These matters are shrouded in mystery. There must have been some other reasons and witnesses are not fully speaking out the truth. 4. Taking the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the offence committed by the Accused 1 would come under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 and find him guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years. The petitioner would be at liberty to get set off the period he has already undergone. 5. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly." [Emphasis Supplied] 26. We have considered all the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and Public Prosecutor in the light of the evidence on record. The petitioner would be at liberty to get set off the period he has already undergone. 5. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly." [Emphasis Supplied] 26. We have considered all the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and Public Prosecutor in the light of the evidence on record. In our opinion, although the alleged injury was caused by fire arm but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that as per medical evidence after receiving single fire arm injury caused by the accused-appellant, deceased died after 20 days from the date of incident duet to lack of proper treatment so also there is no evidence of motive on record. 27. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances emerging from evidence, we deemed it appropriate to convict the accused-appellant under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. instead of under Section 302 I.P.C. while maintain the conviction under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 28. Consequently, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentenced passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Hanumangarh Headquarter Nohar vide Judgment dated 4.7.2008 in Sessions Case No. 97/2007 (7/2.007) under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant is hereby converted to offence under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. and sentenced for 10 years of R.1. with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment and the conviction and sentence against the accused-appellant under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is hereby maintained. Appeal partly allowed.