JUDGMENT : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. 1. The appellant is the accused. He was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) along with co-accused Smt. Sudesh Kumari, who expired during pendency of the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Bharatpur (Raj.) (for short ‘the trial Court’) vide judgment dated 12.01.2018 convicted him for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him as under:- Offence under Section Sentence Fine In default of payment of fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- One month Rigorous Imprisonment 201 IPC Three years’ Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- One month Rigorous Imprisonment 2. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 11.05.2016, complainant PW-1 Ramdhan submitted a typed report (Ex.P1) at Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur stating therein that he is resident of Village Wajna (U.P.). He had two daughters and one son to whom he could not maintain after death of his wife. Hence, he sent his two children to his sister’s house who resides at House No. 21/612 Gandhi Nagar Colony, Bharatpur. He sent his daughter Sapna aged 9 years to his niece who was residing at D-14, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur. On 27.04.2016 at 5:00 PM, his daughter went to a shop at the distance of 400 meter to recharge mobile but she did not return back. After inquiry from all the relatives and known persons everywhere, her whereabouts could not be known. 4. Upon this typed report (Ex.P1), Crime No.319/2016 (Ex.P2) was registered for the offence under Section 363 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and co-accused Smt. Sudesh Kumari for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, who transferred the same to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Bharatpur where charges were framed against both the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 IPC and in the alternative, under Sections 304/34 and 201 IPC. Both accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 57 documents. During the course of trial, the co-accused Smt. Sudesh Kumari expired as a result of which proceedings against her were dropped. Both accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 57 documents. During the course of trial, the co-accused Smt. Sudesh Kumari expired as a result of which proceedings against her were dropped. After completion of trial, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, which he denied and claimed to have been falsely implicated and stated that the seized mobile and sim did not belong to him; Sapna went to recharge the mobile, from where she did not return back. He made lot of search of her and when she did not return back, a missing person report was submitted. The explanation given by the appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:- ^^tIr'kqnk eksckby o fle u rks eq>ls tIr fd;s vkSj u gh esjs gSaA eq>s >waBk Qalk;k x;k gSA liuk eksckby fjpktZ djokus xbZ FkhA ogka ls ykSVdj ugha vkbZA eSaus dkQh ryk'k fd;kA okfil ugha vkus ij xqe'kqnxh dh fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZA** 5. In defence statement of Kaushal was recorded as DW-1. 6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and defence and after appreciating the evidence available against the appellant, the trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence him for the offences as stated above. 7. Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that this case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence available on the record against the appellant to convict him for the aforesaid offences. Counsel submits that the dead body was not identified. The post-mortem of an unidentified dead body was conducted. He submits that as per Forensic Science Lab Report (for short ‘FSL Report’) (Ex.P54), no DNA profile was obtained from bone and teeth of the deceased, hence no conclusion was drawn regarding its matching with DNA profile/blood sample of father and brother of deceased Sapna. Counsel submits that there is no evidence available on the record that the deceased was residing with the appellant or she was last seen alive in his company. He submits that no motive was established by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime. Counsel submits that there is no evidence available on the record that the deceased was residing with the appellant or she was last seen alive in his company. He submits that no motive was established by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime. Counsel submits that the recovered mobile did not belong to him and no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was taken. Counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, hence the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 8. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the cases of Navaneethakrishnan Vs. The State By Inspector of Police, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 161 and Parubai Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 566. 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions raised by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that this case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant by producing incriminating evidence against him. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the deceased was lastly residing with the appellant and co-accused Smt. Sudesh Kumari and this fact was admitted by the appellant himself in cross-examination with PW-2 Smt. Bhagwani, in response to the question that “whenever he went to meet Sapna she never said that Ashok and Sudesh gave beating to her or she was tortured by them”. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that mobile No. 8504035728 was recovered at the instance of the appellant vide recovery memo Ex.P15 which proves the presence of the accused at the scene of offence as well as at the location from where the dead body of the deceased Sapna was recovered. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that even certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was produced on the record and the appellant himself has identified the dead body of the deceased by seeing her photographs vide Seizure memo (Ex.P22). Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Therefore, no interference of this Court is warranted in the impugned judgment. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgment and material available on the record. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Therefore, no interference of this Court is warranted in the impugned judgment. 10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgment and material available on the record. 11. The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The case of prosecution is that deceased Sapna was residing with co-accused Sudesh (since expired) and she was missing since 27.04.2016. On 29.04.2016, her dead body was found at Bichpuri (Uttar Pradesh) near roadside of the lake and as per the Post-mortem Report (for short ‘PMR’) (Ex.P27), the cause of death was head injury. 12. PW1-Ramdhan is the father of the deceased who in his statement has stated that his son Deepak and daughter Sapna were residing with his sister Bhagwani, who sent Sapna to reside with her daughter Sudesh at Jawahar Nagar Colony. Bhagwani informed him (complainant) that his daughter had gone missing and thereafter, he had lodged the report with the Police Station. He has stated that Ashok and Sudesh misled him that his daughter had gone missing, whereas later-on he found out that Sudesh and Ashok murdered his daughter and left her near Bichpuri at Agra side. 13. PW2-Bhagwani in her statement has stated that after death of wife of her brother Ramdhan, she brought his children to look after them. She left Sapna with her daughter Sudesh. Later on she came to know that Sapna went missing. Thereafter her brother Ramdhan lodged a report in this regard. When this witness was cross-examined, a suggestion was made to her and she answered ^^eq>s liuk us dHkh ;g ugha crk;k fd v'kksd us esjs lkFk ekjihV dh gSA iqfyl us v'kksd vkSj lqns'k dks >wBk Qalk;k gSA eSa tc Hkh liuk ls feyus tokgj uxj xbZ rc eq>s dHkh Hkh liuk us ;g ugha crk;k fd esjs lkFk v'kksd vkSj lqns'k ekjihV djrs gS vkSj rax ijs'kku djrs gSA^^ 14. PW3-Umesh Chand Sharma, PW4-Govind Singh, PW6Mukesh Kumar, PW9-Lokendra, PW10-Jaipal Singh did not support the case of prosecution and have turned hostile. 15. PW3-Umesh Chand Sharma, PW4-Govind Singh, PW6Mukesh Kumar, PW9-Lokendra, PW10-Jaipal Singh did not support the case of prosecution and have turned hostile. 15. PW5-Smt. Abha Kumari, Constable in her statement deposed that she arrested co-accused Sudesh Kumari, who gave information to her under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P7 which led to the discovery of the place where the dead body of deceased Sapna was thrown. Co-accused Sudesh Kumari informed that she and her lover Ashok (the appellant) gave beating to Sapna in her rental house, as a result of which she died. Thereafter, they took her dead body in a car to throw in Bichpuri Lake Agra. On her information, the papers and the car were recovered vide Recovery Memos; Ex.P8 and Ex.P11. The toll tax receipt (Ex.P9) was also recovered at her instance. Before throwing the dead body of Sapna in the lake, they got it confirmed from a Doctor that she (Sapna) had died. 16. PW7-Kishan Singh, Constable in his statement has deposed that he arrested appellant Ashok Kumar vide Arrest Memo Ex.P14 and a mobile was recovered at his instance vide Recovery Memo Ex.P15 and a mobile was also recovered from co-accused Sudesh vide recovery memo Ex.P16. 17. PW8-Shivlal, Head Constable is the witness in whose presence the clothes of the deceased were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.P18 and the car was seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P23) at the instance of accused appellant Ashok Kumar and co-accused Smt. Sudesh Kumari in which the accused persons took the dead body to throw in Bichpuri Lake Agra. 18. PW11-Dr. Pushpendra Sharma has conducted the postmortem of an unknown dead body on 03.05.2016 and prepared her PMR Ex.P27. The brain membrane was decomposed and hematoma was found in the brain and as per his opinion the cause of death was ‘Coma’ as a result of ante mortem head injury and the deceased had died seven days ago. 19. PW13-Bhagwan Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector stated in his statement that he has conducted investigation in this case. He has stated that he came to know that accused Ashok Kumar was residing with co-accused Sudesh Kumari at D-14, Jawahar Nagar and found both of them there. Sudesh Kumari told that she and Ashok were residing together as husband and wife and wanted to marry. He has stated that he came to know that accused Ashok Kumar was residing with co-accused Sudesh Kumari at D-14, Jawahar Nagar and found both of them there. Sudesh Kumari told that she and Ashok were residing together as husband and wife and wanted to marry. When call details of the mobile phones of both accused persons namely; Sudesh and Ashok were collected, their location was found between Bichpuri and Fatehpur Sikri in U.P. During investigation, this came to the notice that on 26.04.2016, the accused Ashok asked Sapna (deceased) to bring water. When Sapna caused delay in bringing water, then Ashok kicked into breast of Sapna due to which she fell down on the ground and became unconscious. The accused thought that she was pretending to be unconscious, hence he again kicked into her breast three to four times. But she did not stand up and remained lying on ground, they called Govind Compounder who told them that her condition was serious. Then they took her to Vijay Hospital, where she was declared dead by the Doctor. Ashok brought the dead body home and the same was covered with the car cover. Then they took the dead body of Sapna in the car to Bichpuri and threw the same into the lake. After investigation, this witness found the allegations proved against the accused appellant Ashok Kumar and co-accused Smt. Sudesh Kumari under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. 20. PW14-Jogendra Singh, Constable stated that he was expert in the work of the call details. He examined and analyzed the call details of Mobile Nos. 8104363921 and 8504035728 and locations of these mobiles were found near Bichpuri and Fatehpur Sikri on 27.04.2016 at about 8 PM. 21. PW16-Pushpendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector in his statement has stated that he shown the photographs of the deceased Sapna to accused; Ashok and Sudesh and both of them identified her photos and stated that they had thrown her dead body in the Bichpuri Lake Agra. 22. PW17-Vijay Kumar, Sub-Inspector in his statement has stated that he got the call details of the mobiles of both the accused Ashok and Sudesh and on the basis of their call details, their presence was found at the scene of offence and he seized mobiles of both the accused. 23. 22. PW17-Vijay Kumar, Sub-Inspector in his statement has stated that he got the call details of the mobiles of both the accused Ashok and Sudesh and on the basis of their call details, their presence was found at the scene of offence and he seized mobiles of both the accused. 23. PW18-Surendra Bhatia has issued the certificate relating to the call details of mobile phones under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The location of the phone was found at U.P. in between 7:52 PM and 8:28 PM on 27.04.2016. The call details were exhibited as Ex. P49 and Ex.P50. 24. PW19-Rambhool Singh was the Malkhana Incharge in whose presence the accused Ashok and Sudesh had identified the clothes of the deceased Sapna. These clothes were seized by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P18 and deposited in Malkhana Register vide Ex. P57. 25. PW21-Dr. Vijay Pal Singh has stated that the girl Sapna was brought in the hospital in serious condition whose nerve and breath were not running. When CPR was done, no response was received from the patient. Hence, she was declared dead and this fact was recorded in the Emergency Admission Register Ex.P12 and on the letter pad Ex. P46. 26. PW22-Ramesh Singh is a Nodal Officer posted in Idea Company, who provided the call details of mobile No. 8504035728 for the period pertaining to 20.04.2016 to 30.04.2016 vide Ex.P50 and the certificate of the same was provided by him in view of Section 65-B of Evidence Act vide Ex.P52. The call details indicate the location at Bichpuri Tehsil District Agra at 8:02 PM on 27.04.2016. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the appellant and he remained firm on his ground that the location of mobile No. 8504035728 was shown to be at Bichpuri District Agra. 27. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 28. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj @ Bodha And Ors. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 28. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj @ Bodha And Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 45 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court quoted number of judgments and held as under:- “It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.” 29. From the perusal of the testimonies of PW2-Smt. Bhagwani, PW5-Smt. Abha Kumari, PW8-Shivlal and PW13-Bhagwan Singh, it is clear that deceased Sapna was residing with co-accused Sudesh. In the evidence of these witnesses, the fact has come on the record that the accused Ashok was also residing with Sudesh in her house at Jawahar Nagar. 30. This fact is established on the record that the accused asked the deceased on 26.04.2016 to bring a glass of water. When delay occurred in bringing water, the accused kicked her due to which she fell down and became unconscious. Then the accused took her to Vijay Hospital to verify whether she is alive or dead. When PW21-Dr. Vijay Pal Singh examined her and declared her dead on 27.04.2016, the appellant and co-accused brought the dead body of the deceased in the car and threw the same in Bichpuri Lake Agra (U.P.). Their presence near Bichpuri Lake in U.P. has been established by showing the locations of their mobile phones there. 31. When PW21-Dr. Vijay Pal Singh examined her and declared her dead on 27.04.2016, the appellant and co-accused brought the dead body of the deceased in the car and threw the same in Bichpuri Lake Agra (U.P.). Their presence near Bichpuri Lake in U.P. has been established by showing the locations of their mobile phones there. 31. The counsel for the appellant has tried to establish the fact that there is no evidence on the record that the dead body belonged to the deceased Sapna. It is true that when the PMR of the deceased was conducted, the name of the deceased was mentioned as unknown. It is also true that the bone and teeth of the deceased were sent to Forensic Science Lab for matching them with the blood of her father (Ramdhan) and brother (Deepak). FSL Report (Ex.P54) indicates that DNA could not be obtained from the bone and teeth of the deceased, hence no conclusion could be drawn regarding its matching with DNA profile obtaining blood samples of Ramdhan and Deepak. But it cannot be said or held that the DNA profile of the deceased was not matched with the blood samples of the father and brother of the deceased. Since no DNA could be obtained from the bone and teeth, hence no conclusion was drawn. 32. It is pertinent to mention here that when the photographs and clothes of the deceased were shown to accused Ashok, he identified the same. Hence, the identity of the deceased has been established on the record. 33. There is no substance in the argument of the counsel for the appellant that there was no motive of the accused appellant to commit the offence. It is well settled position of law that for committing an offence motive is not sine qua non. 34. Counsel for the accused appellant has raised an argument that though mobiles were recovered at the instance of the accused appellant and co-accused Sudesh but no evidence was produced on the record that the sims of their mobiles were issued in their names. There is no force in this argument of the counsel because this fact is not in dispute that the mobile was not recovered from the possession of the accused. 35. There is no force in this argument of the counsel because this fact is not in dispute that the mobile was not recovered from the possession of the accused. 35. After recovery of both the mobiles, the call details were collected which show the location of the accused was at the place of occurrence as well as the place where the dead body was thrown by them in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The call details of the mobiles phones recovered at the instance of the accused persons have been marked as Ex.P37 and Ex.P49 and the same has been proved by PW22-Ramesh Singh, Nodal Officer of Idea Company. We find that there was conversation of both the accused with each other on the date of the incident. It also appears from these documents that tower locations of their cell phones were showing at the same place i.e. at Jawahar Nagar Colony, Bharatpur and Uttar Pradesh. It has thus been established from the above evidence available on the record that both the accused persons were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time. 36. The whole defence of the appellant is that he has no concern with Sapna and he was not residing with the co-accused Sudesh. If it was so, then why the appellant suggested PW2-Bhagwani that Sapna was never beaten by the appellant. In suggestion given by the appellant, PW2 Bhagwani has stated that Sapna never told her that Ashok gave beating to her ever. Whenever she went to meet Sapna, she never told her that Ashok and Sudesh tortured, harmed or beaten her. It is the settled principle of law that the cross-examination is a double edged weapon. Here in this case, the appellant himself has admitted his company with the Deceased. 37. Even in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has given his explanation that Sapna went to recharge her mobile and did not return back, then he made efforts to search her and lodged the missing person report. Such statement of the accused is also significant to draw the conclusion that Sapna was there in his association and company. 38. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the cases of Navaneethakrishnan (supra) and Parubai (supra) are not applicable in this case looking to the peculiar facts and evidence of this case. 39. Such statement of the accused is also significant to draw the conclusion that Sapna was there in his association and company. 38. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the cases of Navaneethakrishnan (supra) and Parubai (supra) are not applicable in this case looking to the peculiar facts and evidence of this case. 39. Section 106 of the Evidence Act lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain. Here in this case the appellant has failed to furnish an explanation as to how and when he parted company of the deceased. He has failed to discharge the burden casted upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 40. In the present case there is clinching evidence available on the record that the accused appellant was present on the spot. He took her to Vijay Hospital where Sapna was declared dead. Thereafter, the accused and Sudesh threw the dead body of Sapna in Bichpuri Lake. 41. Now the question which remains to be considered by this Court is the intention of the appellant to cause injury which the deceased suffered. The evidence indicates that the appellant asked the deceased to bring water and when delay occurred in bringing water, the appellant pushed the deceased due to which she fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Both accused took her to Vijay Hospital, where she was declared as dead. Thereafter, they threw her dead body in Bichpuri Lake Agra (UP). The PMR (Ex.P27) indicates that there was hematoma in the brain of the deceased and there was no other injury found on any other vital part of the body of the deceased. It appears that due to the anger, suddenly the appellant pushed the deceased and she fell down on the ground and sustained injury and became unconscious. Hence, the accused was not having any intention to cause her death but he might have the knowledge that his such act may cause death of the deceased. It appears that due to the anger, suddenly the appellant pushed the deceased and she fell down on the ground and sustained injury and became unconscious. Hence, the accused was not having any intention to cause her death but he might have the knowledge that his such act may cause death of the deceased. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC would come to the rescue of the appellant as the act of the appellant, even though it tantamounts to the commission of culpable homicide, will not amount to murder as the same was committed without any pre-meditation and in sudden heat of passion. 42. A reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Daya Nand v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1823 would be most appropriate. In Para 20, it was held as under:- "20. 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". 43. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr., reported in 1976 (4) SCC 382 , the distinction between culpable homicide and murder was vividly drawn in Paras 20 and 21 of the judgment which are extracted hereunder:- "20. Clause (c) of Section 299 and Clause (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the causing death. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding clauses. Clause (c) of Section 299 and Clause (4) of Section 300 both require knowledge of the probability of the 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. 21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder,' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima jade found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes, within any of the Exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Penal Code". 44. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes, within any of the Exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Penal Code". 44. Learned trial Court has not considered this aspect of the case, that the accused had no intention to cause death, that the incident took place on the spur of the moment, the accused took the deceased to the hospital, where she was declared dead. 45. In view of the above stated proposition of law and evidence available on the record, the act of the appellant would be sufficient to clothe him with the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death of the deceased Sapna. In these circumstances, we are of the view that accused appellant - Ashok Kumar could not have been held guilty of offence of committing murder of Sapna, but rather he was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. 46. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal has to partly succeed. We, accordingly, acquit accused appellant - Ashok Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convert his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. 47. Consequently, the imprisonment of life awarded to accused appellant - Ashok Kumar is altered to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence awarded under Section 201 IPC is maintained. The sentences shall run concurrently. 48. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. 49. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the trial Court forthwith.