JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.32/2015, (CIS No.59/2015) whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as below:- Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 2 Months’ S.I. Section 324 IPC 3 Years’ Simple Imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 10 days’ S.I. Section 341 IPC One month’s Simple Imprisonment Rs.500/- 5 days’ S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:- 3. Smt. Nida Amrin (P.W.1), lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) to the SHO, Police Station, Rajnagar, District Rajsamand on 09.06.2015 at 9.00 pm alleging inter alia that she was at her home at about 8.00 pm. Her husband Mohd. Sharif had gone to fetch medicines. Shahrukh son of Altaf Hussain, resident of Nayakwadi, Rajnagar, District Rajsamand stopped her husband and asked him to provide some guthka. While this banter was going on, the appellant Shahrukh hurled an insinuation at her husband that he was responsible for elopement of his sister Sahiba. Saying so, Shahrukh took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed her husband on the back. One Mohd. Hakeem was standing nearby who tried to intervene on which, he too received an injury on his hand. She rushed to the place of incident where, her husband who was in a serious condition, told her the details of the assault. Her husband was taken to the hospital at Udaipur. The accused appellant Shahrukh escaped from the spot. On receiving this report, an FIR No.200/2015 came to be registered at the Police Station Rajnagar for the offences punishable under Section 341, 324 and 307 IPC. 4. Mohd. Sharif expired while undergoing treatment at MBG Hospital, Udaipur. Autopsy was conducted on his dead body by Dr. Sundeep Ingale. The doctor noted the existence of X incised stab wound measuring 4.5cm x 1.5cm cavity deep on the left side of infra scapular region between 6th and 7th intercostal space going downwards and medially. The wound was horizontally piercing the pleura and entered the lower lobe of left lung. Blood clots were present in the wound and left side chest cavity. The injury was caused by a sharp pointed weapon and was grievous and dangerous to life. The wound was horizontally piercing the pleura and entered the lower lobe of left lung. Blood clots were present in the wound and left side chest cavity. The injury was caused by a sharp pointed weapon and was grievous and dangerous to life. The cause of death was opined to be hemorrhagic shock due to antemortem injury to left lung and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Medical Jurist issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/17). 5. Pursuant to death of Shri Mohd. Sharif, the offence punishable under Section 302 was added to the case. The statements of the witness were recorded. The accused appellant was arrested and the place of incident was inspected. It is alleged that acting in furtherance of the information (Ex.P/18), provided by the accused to the Investigating Officer Shri Vivek Singh (P.W.15), a knife was recovered and seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P/8). Investigation was concluded and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 341 IPC. Since, the offence under Section 302 was exclusively sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Rajsamand from where it was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant herein in the above terms, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents to prove its case. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the same but did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellant as above vide impugned judgment dated 07.03.2019, which is assailed in this appeal. 7. Shri R.K. Charan, learned counsel representing the appellant, made very short and succinct submissions for assailing the impugned judgment. He urged that if the evidence of the sole eyewitness Mohd. Hakeem (P.W.2) is seen, apparently, the deceased Mohd. Sharif was sitting at some distance from the house of the witness. Shri Hakeem and the accused appellant arrived at the spot almost at the same time. Hakeem took guthka from the deceased. He urged that if the evidence of the sole eyewitness Mohd. Hakeem (P.W.2) is seen, apparently, the deceased Mohd. Sharif was sitting at some distance from the house of the witness. Shri Hakeem and the accused appellant arrived at the spot almost at the same time. Hakeem took guthka from the deceased. The appellant also asked Shri Sharif for guthka, on which, Sharif slapped him. A sudden quarrel flared up between them and in the heat of the moment, the appellant inflicted single blow of a small kitchen knife on the back of the victim. Shri Charan submitted that the appellant, neither had the knowledge, nor the intention that inflicting an injury on the back of the victim by a small knife could result into his death. He thus urged that the case of the appellant is covered by exception fourthly of Section 300 IPC and hence, his conviction deserves to be toned down from one under Section 302 IPC to that under Section 304 Part II IPC with corresponding reduction in sentence. He submitted that the appellant was arrested in the present case on 10.06.2015 and since then, he is in custody. He thus urged that while toning down the offence, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the appellant was carrying a grudge, suspecting that Shri Mohd. Sharif was responsible for elopement of his sister Sahiba. On the fateful date, the appellant purchased a knife from the witness Shri Ramesh (P.W.4), and thereafter, he approached the victim in a casual manner and put him off guard by asking for guthka. The deceased was totally unaware of the ensuing consequences. The accused who came to the spot well prepared in advance, took out the knife and stabbed the victim forcefully on the back of the chest. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the case of the appellant does not fall in any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. On these grounds, he sought affirmation of the impugned judgment, urging that the appeal has no merit whatsoever. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 10. On these grounds, he sought affirmation of the impugned judgment, urging that the appeal has no merit whatsoever. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 10. At the outset, we may notice that the court below committed a grave error while conducting the trial inasmuch as, the evidence of the Medical Jurist was closed without any justification and without adopting any effective measures to secure his presence for proving the postmortem report which was surprisingly got exhibited in the evidence of Narayan Singh, ASI (P.W.13). This was an act of gross negligence on part of the Presiding Officer. Be that as it may. The matter came up before this Court on 15.05.2019 in D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.376/2019 and the learned defence counsel raised this objection on which, exercising suo motu powers under Section 391 CrPC, Dr. Sundeep Ingale, the Medical Jurist, was summoned to record his evidence at the stage of appeal. Pursuant thereto, the statement of Dr. Sundeep Ingale was recorded on 22.05.2019 as (C.W.1). He proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P/17). An opportunity of cross-examination from the doctor was given to the appellant’s counsel. Thereafter, the appellant’s supplementary statement was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. 11. The prosecution case is primarily based on the testimony of Smt. Nida Amrin (P.W.1) and Mohd. Hakeem (P.W.2). Smt. Nida Amrin, the first informant stated in her evidence that the appellant taunted her husband that he was responsible for the elopement of his sister and saying so, he stabbed the unsuspecting victim. She was at her home when the incident took place and reached the spot on receiving the information. Her husband who was badly hurt as a result of the knife blow, told her that Shahrukh had stabbed him. Her husband expired because of that blow. Apparently, thus, from the statement of Smt. Nida Amrin, the fact regarding the appellant having stabbed the victim, is well established because she gave evidence regarding the victim having told her of the assault and such statement qualifies within the definition of an oral dying declaration. No significant cross-examination was made by the defence from the witness on this aspect of her examination-in-chief. 12. Mohd. Hakeem (P.W.2) stated in his evidence that a quarrel took place between Shahrukh and Mohd. Sharif on 09.06.2015 at 8.00 pm. No significant cross-examination was made by the defence from the witness on this aspect of her examination-in-chief. 12. Mohd. Hakeem (P.W.2) stated in his evidence that a quarrel took place between Shahrukh and Mohd. Sharif on 09.06.2015 at 8.00 pm. On that day, Mohd. Sharif was sitting at a little distance from the house of the witness and was consuming guthka. The witness took guthka from Mohd. Sharif. The accused appellant also asked Mohd. Sharif to give guthka on which, Mohd. Sharif slapped him. Both started hurling profanities at each other. Then, Mohd. Sharif offered guthka to Shahrukh who refused. After being slapped by Sharif, Shahrukh went away for a while. He came back a little later and started quarreling with Sharif saying as to why he had slapped him. The witness tried to intervene. While the fight was going on, he saw that Sharif had received a stab wound. He stated that he could not see as to who had inflicted the stab wound to Mohd. Sharif. The witness was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and was confronted with various parts of his previous statement under Section 164 CrPC (Ex.P/4). He admitted some parts of the said statement and denied the others. 13. On a conjoint reading of statements of Smt. Nida Amrin (P.W.1) and Mohd. Hakeem (P.W.2), we are of the firm view that it is duly established that the accused appellant and the deceased were sitting together and bantering over a dose of guthka. In this process, the deceased apparently slapped the accused, who got annoyed, took out a knife from his pocket and gave one blow thereof on the back of the victim. The knife which was recovered at the instance of the accused measured 9 inches in all with the blade being 5 inches in length. Apparently, thus, the knife was not very big in size. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that it was a kitchen knife which was used by the accused appellant for causing the single injury to the deceased in a sudden quarrel. 14. From the statement of Mohd. Hakeem (P.W.2), it becomes clear that some kind of altercation definitely occurred between the appellant and the deceased owing to the demand of guthka. It is during this sudden altercation that the appellant gave single blow of the knife on the back of the victim. 14. From the statement of Mohd. Hakeem (P.W.2), it becomes clear that some kind of altercation definitely occurred between the appellant and the deceased owing to the demand of guthka. It is during this sudden altercation that the appellant gave single blow of the knife on the back of the victim. Looking to the fact that the blow was not aimed on any vital body part, the appellant cannot be imputed the intention to kill the victim. However, as the knife being a sharp edged weapon was used to cause injury behind the chest of the victim, the accused can be definitely imputed knowledge that by causing such an injury, death could be a consequence. The incident took place at the spur of the moment without any premeditation in a sudden quarrel. A solitary knife blow was inflicted by the appellant on the back of the deceased without having taken undue advantage or acting in cruel and unusual manner and as such, his act is covered by exception fourthly of Section 300 IPC which reads as below:- “Exception 4.-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.-It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.” 15. On similar facts, Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Stalin Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 524 , converted the conviction of the accused therein from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and reduced the sentence to 8 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment, observing as below:- “7.2 From the above stated decisions, it emerges that there is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence. 8. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that the motive alleged is of the incident prior to four months of the present incident and that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case there are three eyewitnesses believed by both the Courts below and we also do not doubt the credibility of PWs 1, 2 and 3. As held by this Court in catena of decisions, motive is not an explicit requirement under the Penal Code, though "motive" may be helpful in proving the case of the prosecution in a case of circumstantial evidence. As observed hereinabove, there are three eye-witnesses to the incident and the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused by examining those three eyewitnesses and therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, assuming that the alleged motive is the incident which had taken place prior to four months or the prosecution has failed to prove the motive beyond doubt, the same shall not be fatal to the case of prosecution. 8.1 As observed and held by this Court in the case of Jafel Biswas vs. State of West Bengal (2019) 12 SCC 560 , the absence of motive does not disperse a prosecution case if the prosecution succeed in proving the same. The motive is always in the mind of person authoring the incident. 8.1 As observed and held by this Court in the case of Jafel Biswas vs. State of West Bengal (2019) 12 SCC 560 , the absence of motive does not disperse a prosecution case if the prosecution succeed in proving the same. The motive is always in the mind of person authoring the incident. Motive not being apparent or not being proved only requires deeper scrutiny of the evidence by the courts while coming to a conclusion. When there are definite evidence proving an incident and eye-witness account prove the role of accused, absence in proving of the motive by prosecution does not affect the prosecution case. 9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, more particularly the decisions on the single injury and the facts on hand, it is required to be considered whether the case would fall under Section 302 IPC or any other lesser offence. PW3 Nelson, who is an eyewitness to the incident right from the beginning, deposed that when the deceased -Kalidas served extra beer to two persons who came from outside, the accused became angry and told the deceased why he is giving more beer to out-town people and not giving to local people and thereafter the problem started and in that scuffle the accused took out the knife and stabbed from behind. From the medical evidence, the deceased sustained the following injuries: "External Injuries: A stab wound about 3 x 1.5 cm and 8 cm deep with clean edges present over the back on the right side corresponding to D11 vertebera present. Wound edges swollen, read with adherent blood." 10. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, we are of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. 11. Now, the next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC? Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is hereby modified from that of under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo 8 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and, in default, to further undergo one year R.I. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent” 16. As a consequence, applying the ratio of judgment in the case of Stalin (supra) which squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellant deserves to be toned down from the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. Conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 IPC are maintained. Conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 IPC are maintained. The impugned judgment dated 07.03.2019 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge Rajsamand, District Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.32/2015, (CIS No.59/2015) is modified accordingly. 17. For the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC, the accused appellant is awarded 8 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year’s Rigorous Imprisonment. 18. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms.