JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. Instant jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20/04/2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Churu (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No.42/2009, convicting appellant-accused Bhanwar Singh under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and further to undergo three months imprisonment in default of payment of fine. 2. Heard rival submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant has turned hostile and there is no positive evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the alleged crime. Prosecution has failed to establish motive and recovery has also not been made on the instant of the accused-appellant and it has been alleged that the infliction of Kalhari was made, while the deceased was sleeping, but no blood stains have been found on the cot, so the story of the prosecution is false and nearby several other houses are said to be there, but none other than the complainant turned up at the spot, which also makes the story of the prosecution doubtful and there was no discontent between the spouse, hence why a husband will suddenly rise in the night hours and blow a fatal weapon injury upon his own wife, hence the story of the prosecution is based on conjectures and there is no evidence against the accused-appellant, he has further argued that Smt. Manisha daughter of the accused and deceased was bit vindictive, since her husband was wrecking ill-will to grab property of accused person, so, she has falsely implicated her father, he has also contended that the alleged injury is singular, but the sentence is very harsh and has submitted to allow the appeal and acquit the accused-appellant. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has contended that prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case. Manisha PW.10 daughter of the deceased and accused, Bhanwar Singh, has given her actual evidence, because she was also there, when appellant gave a fatal axe blow to his own wife, on observing the same, she cried for the help and after hearing her scream, complainant also came there, Manisha is a major married daughter of deceased, who has got no reason to say anything adverse falsely against her own father, her statements cannot be discarded, because she has conveyed ocular version of what she witnessed, so, there is no flaw in the impugned judgment, hence appeal be rejected. 3. 3. Heard rival submissions of both the sides and carefully examined the record. Ex.P.14 F.I.R, which has been lodged by Khiv Ram narrates as under :- ^lsok esa] Jheku~ Fkkukf/kdkjh lkgc] iqfylFkkuk ljnkj 'kgj] egksn;] fuosnu gS fd xkWao esgjklj pkpsjk esa esjk ?kj esjs lxs HkkbZ Hkaojflag ds ?kj ds fprik gh iwoZ dh rjQ gSA Hkaojflag ds ?kj esa xbZ jkr mldh iRuh vuqidaoj o mldh yM+dh euh"kk Fks eSa jk=h djhc 9 cts [kkuk [kkdj lks x;k Fkk Hkaoj flag fd iRuh o yM+dh euh"kk ?kj ds ckgj pkSdh ij pkjikbZ Mkydj lks jgs Fks rFkk Hkaojflag pkSds ds uhps pkj ikbZ Mkydj lks jgs Fks jk=h dfjcu 3-30 cts euh"kk ds tksj tkjs ls fpYykus fd vkokt lqudj eSa tkxdj ckgj vk;k vkSj ns[kk fd Hkaojflag us viuh iRuh ds flj esa dqYgkM+h ls okj fd;k gqvk Fkk ftlds flj ls cqjh rjg [kwu vk jgk Fkk rFkk esjh HkkHkh vuqi daoj vpsr iM+h Fkh eq>s ns[kdj Hkaojflag if'pe lkbZM [ksrksa dh rjQ Hkkx x;k gkdk lqudj :?kfcjflag] ekuflag vkfn Hkh vk x;s geus ns[kk fd vuqi daoj fd dqYgkM+h ds okj ls e`R;q gks pqdh Fkh Hkaojflag us vkdzks'k esa vkdj mldh dqYgkM+h ls okj gR;k dj nhA fjiksVZ nsrk gwWa dkjZokbZ djsA* and this F.I.R has been lodged by complainant Khiv Singh son of Mangu Singh, who is none-else but real brother of accused Bhanwar Singh and contents of the F.I.R discloses that the complainant had himself witnessed, while he visited to the house of Bhanwar Singh on hearing cry of Manisha, blow of the axe upon head of the deceased and blood oozing out and Anop Kanwar had since died, this F.I.R has been registered under Section 302 of IPC on 9/7/2009 at 7.30 a.m. with Police Station Sardarshahar. 4. 4. Scrutiny and apprisal of the evidence depicts that prosecution has examined ten witnesses and complainant Khiv Singh has been examined as PW.8 and he has said that the incident belongs to one year retro, he was sleeping in his residence, on hearing sound of Manisha's weep, he rushed to the house of Manisha, which is situated nearby, on going there, he saw mother of Manisha lying down unconscious and axe was impinged upon her head, Manisha was there, incident belongs to around three of mid night, he informed to the police, he has further said that Ex.P.14 is the complaint given to the police, which bears his signature and on the basis of this Ex.P.15 was registered. He has further ratified Ex.P.16 Panchayatnama, Ex.P.17 status of corpse, Ex.P.18 seizure of Kulhari as made from the spot, Ex.P.19 sample of soil and has accepted signatures on these documents, he has further said that blood stained cloths of Smt. Anop Kanwar were taken vide Ex.P.20, which also bears his signatures. This witness has accepted that Bhanwar Singh was his real brother and has said that he did not see accused on the spot, since he had fled away. He has accepted recording of his Parchabayana, but has denied its A to B part and so has been declared 'hostile', in his cross examination, he has submitted that police had got his signatures at the place of occurrence. 5. PW.10 Smt. Manisha wife of Sohan Singh is a star witness of the prosecution because she is a real daughter of deceased Smt. Anop Kanwar as well as of accused Bhanwar Singh. 5. PW.10 Smt. Manisha wife of Sohan Singh is a star witness of the prosecution because she is a real daughter of deceased Smt. Anop Kanwar as well as of accused Bhanwar Singh. At the time of occurrence, which has taken place in mid night at about 3 to 3.30 a.m this 29 years old witness had visited to her parental house and was staying and sleeping near to her deceased mother, statements of this witness are important and she has said that :- ^eSa gkftj vnkyr eqyfte Hkaojflag esjs firkth gSA vkt ls djhc 2 lky igys dh ckr gSA eSa ml le; gekjs ?kj ij FkhA esjh ekrkth dk uke vuqi daoj Fkk og Hkh gekjs ?kj ij gh FkhA fnukad 08-07-2009 dks jkr dks eSa o esjh ekrkth 'kke dks ?kj ij [kkuk [kk;k vkSj fQj esjs iM+ksl esa gekjs pkpkth dk edku gS tgkWa ij ge nksuksa pyh xbZA ogkWa ij jkr ds 11 cts rd ckrsa dhaA mlds ckn eSa o esjh ekWa jkr ds 11 cts gekjs ?kj vkbZA ?kj esa esjs firkth pkSd ds uhps pkjikbZ Mkydj lks jgs Fks o eSa o esjh ekWa pkSd ds mij pkjikbZ Mkydj lks xbZA lksus ds ckn mlh jkr dks 3-30 cts lh vpkud vkokt lqukbZ nh rks esjh vkWa[k [kqyh rks eSaus ns[kk fd esjs firk th us esjh ekWa ds flj esa dqYgkM+h dh ekj j[kh Fkh o esjs ns[krs&ns[krs esjs firkth us ml dqYgkM+h dks f[kaprs gq, esjh ekWa dks pkjikbZ ls uhps Mky fn;kA fQj eSa tksj ls fpYykbZ gh esjs pkpk f[kaoflag tks gekjs ikl ds gh edku esa jgrs gS os nkSM+dj vk;sA f[kaoflag ds vkrs gh esjs firkth if'pe dh rjQ Hkkx x;sA tks dqYgkM+h esjh ekWa ds flj esa esjs firkth us ekjh Fkh og flj esa gh yxh jgh FkhA esjh ekWa mlh le; [kRe gks xbZ FkhA* 6. In her cross-examination, she has said that she had visited to her parental house four to five days ahead of incident and has said that during this period, her parents were on talking terms and she had come to her parental house alone. In her cross-examination, she has said that she had visited to her parental house four to five days ahead of incident and has said that during this period, her parents were on talking terms and she had come to her parental house alone. She has also said that in the evening, they had taken meal and she used to visit to her parental house off and on, and she was married eight years back and she has also explained that her cot was about fifteen to twenty steps away from her father's cot. She has also said that within the precinct of boundary of their house, house of her uncle Inder Singh is also situated and this area comprises of about one bigha, in which their houses are situated. She has also said that her uncle Inder Singh is no more and he is survived by his wife, one daughter and a son, she has also said that if somebody speaks loud from her house, then it could be heard in the adjacent house of Inder Singh, she has also said that the height of the platform, on which she and her mother were sleeping, is three ft. and its width is four to five feet, she has also said that when she witnessed the event, her father was standing in the north side and not in east side, she has also said that she had narrated entire incident to her uncle Khiv Singh and has denied not having seen her father inflicting axe injury upon her mother. She has also said that it is true that her brother is serving with Delhi Police. She has categorically said that relations of her father were amicable with all family members and there is no impediment in visiting each other's house, she has also denied that her father would have beaten his uncle's daughter-in-law or to his own younger brother. She has also said that it is correct that her father had left the Kulhari inflicted into the head of her mother. 7. Scrutiny of the evidence of this witness does not reflect any kind of frailty rather evidence of this witness, infuses confidence because of it being natural and trustworthy. 8. PW.3 Dr. Rajesh Gupta has corroborated the injuries found on the body of the deceased during autopsy and Dr. 7. Scrutiny of the evidence of this witness does not reflect any kind of frailty rather evidence of this witness, infuses confidence because of it being natural and trustworthy. 8. PW.3 Dr. Rajesh Gupta has corroborated the injuries found on the body of the deceased during autopsy and Dr. Rajesh Gupta has said that on 9/7/2009, he was working as a medical jurist in Sardar Sahar and had found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :- ^'kjhj ij fuEu pksVsa ikbZ xbZ%& 1- ,d Nsn cukrk gqvk ?kko] flj ij ckabZ rjQ] blesa flj dh gfM~M;ka VwVh gqbZ] ?kko dk vkdj 7x2x4 ls0eh0] FkkA laHkor;k dqYgkM+h tSlh pht ds }kjk dkfjr fd;k gqvk FkkA ?kko e`R;q ls iwoZ dk Fkk tks xaHkhj izd`fr dk ,oa izk.k?kkrd Fkk] ckabZ vkSj efLr"d dk Hkkx u"V gks x;k Fkk ?kko ds fdukjs dkQh Li"V Fks] iqrfy;ka nksuksa rjQ dh QSyh gqbZ o fLFkj FkhA efLr"d dh f>fYy;ksa esa jDr lapkj c<+k gqvk FkkA* and has opined that cause of her death was head injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature and the report is Ex.P.3. 9. Perusal of Ex.P.3, autopsy report, reveals that body of Smt. Anop Kanwar wife of Bhanwar Singh, which has been identified by Khiv Singh son of Mangu Singh, was examined on 9/7/2009 and autopsy was made by Dr. Rajesh Gupta and according to the opinion, the cause of death has been shown to be shock due to head injury. 10. PW.1 Raghuveer Singh has said that the incident belongs to twelve months back, he was sleeping at his residence and had gone to the house of Bhanwar Singh at about 5 to 5.30 a.m. Villagers were going there and police was there. He found Anop Kanwar dead there, blood was there on her head side. This witness has turned 'hostile' being cousin brother of accused and has refuted his Parchabayan recitals. He has also said that it is wrong that Bhanwar Singh inflicted injury upon her wife because of family discontent and this reply indicates that a suggestion naturing in positive was asked from this witness by the defence counsel that Bhanwar Singh inflicted injury upon the body of his wife because of certain family reason and scanning of this kind of suggestion clearly indicates his involvement and it goes against the defence. 11. 11. PW.2 Man Singh who is also a cousin brother of accused Bhanwar Singh has also turned 'hostile' but in his cross-examination, he has admitted that in Bhanwar Singh's house, his wife and his daughter Manisha were living and this aspect of admission brings a positive indication that Manisha was there at the time of occurrence, because she was staying with her parents as per Maan Singh's say. 12. PW.4 Pawan Kumar is a photographer, who has taken six photos under the directions of S.H.O and he has said that he had taken six photographs Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.9 and because the photos were taken by digital camera, so they were devoid of negatives and these photos have been exhibited and corroborated by I.O, which depicts axe lying stick upon the inflicted head injury. 13. PW.5 Mahendra Kumar is a Sub Inspector, who has arrested accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh vide Ex.P.10 and he has corroborated the same and has said that accused was arrested on 13th on the information of his son, who had come to thana to inform. 14. PW.6 Hanuman Singh is a cop- Malkhana incharge, who has said that on 9/7/2009, four packets vide Rojnamcha No.246 A to D were deposited by Suresh Kumar Aangod in Malkhana, which were entered in Malkhana at serial No.359, which were consigned to Sultan Singh on 16/7/2009 for getting them deposited with F.S.L, which was sent to F.S.L through Balbeer Singh constable on 22/7/2009 vide receipt No.208/2009, which is entered in the Malkhana register, its certified copy is Ex.P.11 and F.S.L receipt is Ex.P.12 and forwarding letter sent to F.S.L is Ex.P.13 and has said that the samples remained intact during his possession. 15. PW.7 Balbeer Singh is a constable depositing the samples in F.S.L has said that on 23/7/2009, four packets in sealed position were received through Hanuman Singh for depositing in the F.S.L, which were deposited in sealed condition and its receipt was submitted, he has further said that Ex.P.13 is letter of S.P and its receipt is Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.11 is Malkhana register. He has also said that the samples remained well intact during his custody, in his cross-examination, he has said that the Malkhana incharge had consigned him samples. 16. He has also said that the samples remained well intact during his custody, in his cross-examination, he has said that the Malkhana incharge had consigned him samples. 16. P.W 9 Suresh Chandra is SHO investigator and he has said that Khiv Singh had submitted Ex.P.14, which bears signature of complainant and his endorsement, on the basis of which, F.I.R Ex.P.15 was registered, which also bears his signature. On reaching at the site of occurrence, he had drawn Ex.P.22 spot map and status of Mauka is Ex.P.22A, status of corpse is Ex.P.17 and Panchayatnama is Ex.P.16 and has said that these papers contains his signatures, he has further said that he had recovered a Kulhari with wand, which was blood stained vide Ex.P.18, which contains signature of Khiv Singh, Birbal Singh, Dalip Singh as well as of this witness, which was sealed, blood stained soil was also taken vide Ex.P.19, blood stained cloths of deceased Smt. Anop Kanwar were taken vide Ex.P.20, which contains his signature and autopsy of the body was also got done and F.S.L report is Ex.P.24. He has further elucidated process and chronology of the investigation and the documents prepared thereto and their exhibits have also been corroborated, nothing adverse has emerged from the cross-examination of this witness. He has also said that it is wrong to say that the axe was not recovered from the spot of incident and it is also wrong that the incident was not seen by anybody and this suggestion has also been refuted that at the time of occurrence, the accused was not there at the place of occurrence. 17. Examination of Ex.P.18, Fard Recovery of axe, describes that an iron axe placed and fixed with a wooden wand has been recovered and size of axe has been said to be 8 c.m in length and 10 c.m. in width, whereas the size of wooden wand is of 2 ft. and sic inch. 18. 17. Examination of Ex.P.18, Fard Recovery of axe, describes that an iron axe placed and fixed with a wooden wand has been recovered and size of axe has been said to be 8 c.m in length and 10 c.m. in width, whereas the size of wooden wand is of 2 ft. and sic inch. 18. Perusal of Ex.P.22 sketch of the premises shows that it is a compound of multiple houses, in which house of accused Bhanwar Singh adjacent to it house of his brother Khiv Singh and little bit away house of his brother Inder Singh are situated, in a row and just ahead of the house of accused Bhanwar Singh, a platform has been shown and 'A' is the place, where deceased has stated to be slept and was assaulted upon., which perfectly matches with the oral evidence of the prosecution. 19. Ex.P.24, F.S.L report has given positive signs of detection of human blood of "B" group on Kulhari as well as on Kurti, Kanchali and Shawl of the deceased and the blood smeared soil has also been found tainted with 'B' group human blood and it is reported in the report that 1(from-A), 2(from-B) and 4, 5, 6 (from D) were found tainted with 'B' group human blood. 20. 20. Upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the afore discussed evidence it establishes and explicitly connects, accused-appellant Bhanwar Singh with the crime, because his own daughter 'Manisha' has narrated entire ocular story of the incident that her father Bhanwar Singh was responsible for causing fatal axe blow upon the head of her mother Smt. Anop Kanwar and when she found axe inflicted into the head of her mother, she screamed, hearing the same vicinity living brother of deceased Khiv Singh came there, who lodged the F.I.R, the axe has also been recovered from the place of occurrence, which has further been detected with 'B' group human blood, same kind of blood group has also been found on the soil and apparels of deceased lady, though blood relatives of accused have swayed under impulses of emotions by not supporting true version, while testified, but totality of the evidence, beyond the bounds of reasonable doubts, establishes the crime and connects the accused-appellant with the offence, because his own daughter Mansiha, sibling of deceased as well as of accused, has remained statistic in deposing and ratifying her true version, which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence without any frailty. 21. Defence has even put a suggestion to PW.1 Raghuveer Singh, cousin brother of accused Bhanwar Singh suggesting that Bhanwar Singh inflicted injury upon his wife because of family reasons and he has replied it in negative by saying that ;g xyr gS fd Hkaojflag us ikfjokfjd dkj.kksa ls viuh iRuh ds pksV ekjh gksA and it, goes to show that even such a factum was not denied, but was acceptable to the defence. 22. Perusal of entire evidence does not disclose any such discontent, which might have sustained between the couple or in the family but this aspect has clearly been refuted by Smt. Manisha and all the witnesses examined. Daughter of the deceased and accused Bhanwar Singh has been of 29 years of age at the time of her deposition and their one son was said to be in Delhi Police service, on whose information the accused has been arrested, so no such 'motive' or 'premeditation' of causing injury or leading to commit such an extreme misadventure has emerged from the evidence. 23. 23. The provisions of Section 304 IPC postulates; "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 causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death." 24. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the intention to cause death with the knowledge that the death will probably be caused, is a very important consideration for coming to the conclusion that death is indeed a murder with intention to cause death or the knowledge that death will probably be caused and in this case, evaluation of the evidence, does reveal that "motive" or any "premeditation" to cause murder was not there, both accused and the deceased were "husband and wife" and were living happily without any disharmony prior to the incident, because no such evidence has emerged that disharmony or displeasure was there in the family, their daughter Manisha is of 29 years of age and their son is a police cop in Delhi, neither 'intention' or 'motive' has come out and no such evidence has been found, which may suggest that the husband per-mediated to commit murder of his wife, moreover there is a single blow on the head, even the axe has been left stick into head after blow, which is suffice to infer, palpable perturbed status of mind of the accused and the evidence lacks to the reflect that the offence was strived in a premeditated way but there is no testimony to suggest that accused had prepondered and acted to eliminate his own wife and this much evidence has only emerged that the couple was living together peacefully and there was no strife but in the mid night, accused gave a fatal axe blow on his wife's head, which appears to be under some sudden impulse in a spur of movement, so we are of the opinion that so far as the conviction is concerned, it is alright, but the sentence requires to be intervened with and to be modified under Section 304(1) because of the nature of the bodily injury inflicted upon the deceased and its being singular as well. 25. Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with such an identical issue in Dayanand v. State of Haryana reported in 2008 Cri. L.J. 2975 has held :- "10. The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to be applied. In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. L.J. 2975 has held :- "10. The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to be applied. In the scheme of the IPC culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304. 11. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. Section 299 Section 300 A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done - INTENTION (a) with the intention of causing (1) with the intention of death; or causing death; or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (2) 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 (3) 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 KNOWLEDGE (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death (4) with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above. 12. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that the 'intention to cause death' is not an essential requirement of clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300. 13. Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration (b) appended to Section 300. 13. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a fist blow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given. In clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words 'likely to cause death' occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word 'likely' in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury.......sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature." Likewise in Arjun v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 506, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 17 and 18 of the judgment as under :- "17. Considering the background facts as well as the fact that there was no premeditation and the act was committed in a heat of passion and that the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner and that there was a fight between the parties, we are of the view that this case falls under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC and hence it is just and proper to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC and we do so. 18. We are informed that the appellant is in custody since 30.07.2003. In our view, custodial sentence of 10 years to the accused-appellant 15 would meet the ends of justice and it is ordered accordingly. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, altering the sentence awarded." 26. We have taken into consideration the law propounded by above judgments and after perusing the aforesaid judgments, in light of the evidence of instant case, we are of the opinion that even if the evidence is acceptable in entirety, then it goes to suggest that it is a case, in which there was no 'premeditation' and such bodily injury was inflicted which could likely to cause her death under sudden impulse with a singular blow. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence in lieu of 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC, while maintaining the conviction, thus on the basis of afore-referred deliberations, we feel to allow the instant appeal partly. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence in lieu of 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC, while maintaining the conviction, thus on the basis of afore-referred deliberations, we feel to allow the instant appeal partly. Resultantly, the impugned judgment is hereby modified and the sentence of the accused 22 appellant under Section 302 of IPC is set aside and he is hereby held guilty for offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and is sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment but sentence of fine is maintained. The appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms.