JUDGMENT : 1. The Government Appeal No. 213 of 1984 has been filed praying to set aside the acquittal of the accused/opposite party under Section 302 IPC. The Criminal Appeal No. 2419 of 1983 has been filed praying to set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC and to acquit the accused/appellant. Both the appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 10.10.1983 in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1982 (State Vs. Mahipal) passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi convicting the accused Mahipal under Section 304, Part II IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo five years R.I. 2. These two appeals are connected and pending in this Court from the last about 40 years. Since, the accused/appellant was not present, therefore, this Court in the Government Appeal No. 213 of 1984, vide order dated 01.07.2013 directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi to take recourse to all the process permissible under law including issuing bailable warrant against the accused Mahipal for procuring and ensuring his presence before this Court on 05.08.2013. It was further observed that in case the accused/respondent is reported to have died then, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall verify the fact of death of the accused-respondent. As per office report dated 06.09.2013, the respondent Mahipal Singh has left the place of his residence about 20 years ago. Thereafter, several orders were passed from time to time and office reports were submitted. Order dated 18.04.2015 passed by this Court reads as under: “Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. In the present case, non-bailable warrant has been issued against the accused-respondent, Mahipal because his whereabouts were not known. It is reported that he had left his village about twenty five years back by selling the same. The compliance report of the order dated 21.7.2014 has not been received from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. In such circumstance, we are directing that the compliance of the orders passed by this Court issuing non-bailable warrant against the accused person, Mahipal be made by Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi by way of ensuring the arrest of the accused-respondent, Mahipal. After arresting the accused-respondent, Mahipal, he shall be produced before this Court on 20th July, 2015. List on 20th July, 2015. After arresting the accused-respondent, Mahipal, he shall be produced before this Court on 20th July, 2015. List on 20th July, 2015. Let a copy of this order be communicated to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi forthwith for compliance.” 3. Thereafter, Sri Ray Sahab Yadav and Sri Surendra Kumar Yadav have put in appearance on behalf of the accused-respondent, who stated on 20.07.2015 that a criminal appeal has been preferred against the conviction. Vide order dated 05.08.2015, this Court directed the office to trace out the said appeal. The office traced out the appeal filed by the accused-respondent against conviction under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC. Vide order dated 27.08.2015 and 21.09.2015, the Criminal Appeal No. 2419 of 1983 filed by the accused Mahipal was directed to be connected with the present Government Appeal No. 213 of 1984. The accused/respondent Mahipal had filed the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 434823 of 2015 and was released on bail by order dated 29.01.2016. Thereafter, these two appeals were listed number of times but none appeared on behalf of the accused. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was issued by order dated 27.02.2019. An order dated 15.05.2019 was passed directing the Superintendent of Police, Jhansi to ensure the arrest of the accused Mahipal Singh. It appears that thereafter based on office reports, this Court passed an order dated 09.09.2022, as under: “No one is present on behalf of the accused respondent. We find that on the earlier occasions also no one was present for the accused respondent. As per office report dated 14.9.2021 accused respondent Mahipal Singh has left his house about 15 years back and residing somewhere else and for this reason non bailable warrants could not be executed. Office is directed to send details of sureties of the accused respondent Mahipal Singh to the court below within a week so that the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. may be initiated against the sureties. List after six weeks.” 4. From the record, it appears that the accused Mahipal Singh is economically weak person. 5. Considering the facts, this Court appointed Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla as Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the accused/opposite party in Government Appeal and the appellant in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 2419 of 1983. The order dated 03.07.2023 is reproduced below: “1. 5. Considering the facts, this Court appointed Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla as Amicus Curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the accused/opposite party in Government Appeal and the appellant in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 2419 of 1983. The order dated 03.07.2023 is reproduced below: “1. From the order sheet of this appeal, it appears that the accused-opposite party/appellant of the connected Criminal Appeal No.2419 of 1983 is economically a very weak person. As per report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi dated 01.12.2022, presently, the accused/opposite party is residing in Brahma Nagar Colony, Lahargird, Police Station-Sirpri Bazar, Jhansi and he runs a "Mungfali Ka Thela" near Chaman Ganj Chowki, Sipri Bazar Jhansi. Twice, non-bailable warrants were issued to the accused/opposite party. He engaged counsel, however, counsel engaged by him is not appearing. 2. Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to appoint an amicus curiae. 3. Let Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla (learned Panel Counsel of Allahabad High Court Legal Services Committee) be appointed as amicus curiae to argue this case on behalf of the accused-opposite party/appellant of the connected Criminal Appeal No.2419 of 1983. 4. Let a copy of paper book and other relevant papers be supplied to the aforesaid amicus curiae within a week to prepare and argue the case. 5. Amicus curiae shall be paid fees, as per norms. 6. List in the month of August, 2023 before appropriate Bench alongwith aforesaid connected criminal appeal.” 6. Pursuant to the aforenoted order dated 03.07.2023, Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, Advocate has argued the appeal on behalf of the accused-Mahipal Singh/opposite party in Government Appeal and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2419 of 1983. 7. Heard Sri K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the accused Mahipal Singh in Government Appeal No. 213 of 1984 and connected Criminal Appeal No. 2419 of 1983. Facts: 8. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that on 13.08.1981, a First Information Report No.138/1981 under Section 302 IPC, PS-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi was registered at about 6:30 P.M. with respect to an incident of the even date, which took place at about 5:30 P.M. As per F.I.R., the accused-Mahipal Singh and Gucchan stabbed the deceased-Indal by knife on 13.08.1981 causing injuries in his abdomen and thigh, which resulted in his death. The informant is the P.W.-1, Kailash, who is the real brother of the deceased-Indal. The informant is the P.W.-1, Kailash, who is the real brother of the deceased-Indal. The accused-Mahipal Singh was arrested on the same day and his blood stained clothes were recovered and sent for chemical examination. No knife could be recovered. The Investigating Officer visited the place of incident on the same day and prepared a recovery memo taking samples of blood found on the earth and ‘Chabutara’, which were also sent for chemical examination. Autopsy was conducted on the body of the deceased-Indal on 14.08.1981. As per post mortem report, the following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased: “ANTE MORTEM INJURIES: 1. Stabbed wound (punctured) 1" x ½" x 31/2" oblique on lateral side and back of left thigh ¾" above, lateral and backwards to left lateral condyle of femur, edge of wound one is sharp and other is blunt, wound is wedge shaped. Fascia, muscle artery, vein are cut and injuries of lateral and back of thigh. Popliteal artery and vein are cut from behind. Direction of wound is left to right and slightly downwards. 2. Superficial incised wound ¾" x linear on lateral side of left abdomen, upper part obliquely and below upwards". 9. As per post mortem report, the cause of death is shock haemorrhage as a result of injury sustained on the thigh. The Injury no.2 i.e. the injury on the abdomen was found to be superficial. The Injury no.1 i.e. the injury on the thigh resulted in cutting of muscle artery, vein and injury of lateral and back of thigh. Popliteal artery and veins were cut from behind and direction of wound was left to right and slightly downwards. 10. As per the chemical examination report, human blood was found on pyjama, shirt, underwear and kurta of the deceased. The blood group ‘O’ was found on blood stained clothes of the deceased-Indal i.e., pant, shirt, underwear and baniyan. 11. The prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, eye witness P.W.-1/informant (Kailash, real brother of the deceased), eye witness P.W.-2 (Puran), eye witness P.W.-3 (Ram Sarup), P.W.-4 (Hari Dayal, witness of recovery memo of blood stained clothes of accused-Mahipal Singh and also witness of arrest of accused-Mahipal Singh), P.W.-5 (Dr. D.B. Mangal, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-Indal) and P.W.-6 (Shambhu Dayal, S.I.-Investigating Officer). 12. D.B. Mangal, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-Indal) and P.W.-6 (Shambhu Dayal, S.I.-Investigating Officer). 12. From the defence side, the accused-Mahipal gave his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. To a question, he stated that he was caught by the police from his house at about 7:30 P.M. and was beaten, which resulted in blood stains on his clothes. To another question, he stated that the deceased-Indal was murdered by the other accused-Guchhan. The accused-Guchhan absconded and he could not be arrested. The defence also produced D.W.-1 (Dr. S.K. Khare, Private Pathologist of Shiv Pathological Laboratory, Panchkuiyan Chauraha, Jhansi), who stated in his evidence on 24.09.1983 that he took blood samples of the accused-Mahipal on 22.09.1983 to test his blood group and on testing, blood group was found to be ‘O’. 13. After considering the evidences, the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned judgment dated 10.10.1983 whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the accused-Mahipal under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years R.I. Aggrieved, the State has filed the above noted Government Appeal No.213 of 1984 and the accused-Mahipal has filed the Criminal Appeal No.2419 of 1983 challenging his conviction. Submissions : 14. Shri K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-Mahipal beyond reasonable doubt that he has murdered the deceased-Indal and, thus, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to convict the accused-Mahipal Singh under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC instead the accused-Mahipal Singh deserves to be convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC. Learned AGA has drawn our attention to the evidence of eye witnesses, recovery memo and chemical examiners report. 15. Shri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-opposite party in Government Appeal No.213 of 1984 and on behalf of the accused-appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2419 of 1983 submitted as under: (i) Presence of eye witnesses on the spot is doubtful. (ii) Witnesses are unreliable as they have continuously made improvements in their evidences and there are inconsistencies in their evidences. (iii) Clothes of the accused-Mahipal recovered by the Investigating Officer containing blood stains merely contains the blood stains of the accused-Mahipal Singh, on account of beating by the police at the time of arrest. (ii) Witnesses are unreliable as they have continuously made improvements in their evidences and there are inconsistencies in their evidences. (iii) Clothes of the accused-Mahipal recovered by the Investigating Officer containing blood stains merely contains the blood stains of the accused-Mahipal Singh, on account of beating by the police at the time of arrest. As per report of the pathologist, the blood group of the accused-Mahipal Singh is ‘O’ and the blood group found on the blood stained clothes of the accused-Mahipal Singh is also ‘O’, which proved that the blood stains appeared on the clothes of the accused-Mahipal Singh was in fact the blood of the accused-Mahipal Singh, on account of bleeding due to beating by the police. No evidence of blood group of the deceased-Indal could be filed by the prosecution to establish that the blood group of the deceased-Indal was the same as was found on the blood stained clothes of the accused-Mahipal Singh. The accused-Mahipal Singh has taken a clear stand in his defence statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the blood stains on the clothes were of his blood due to beating by Daroga, which could not be disproved by the prosecution. In his defence, the accused-Mahipal Singh has also stated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased-Indal was murdered only by the accused-Guchhan. The blood group on the clothes of the deceased were not categorised. Hence, the blood found on the clothes of the accused-Mahipal Singh is not corroborated with the blood group of the deceased-Indal. It has not been mentioned by the chemical examiner in his report as to whether the blood group of the deceased was ‘O+’ or ‘O-’ and it simply mentioned as blood group ‘O’ and, thus, the blood group of the deceased found on his clothes could not be connected with the blood group of the accused-Mahipal Singh. Thus, the prosecution has completely failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused-Mahipal Singh in the incident in question and the accused-Mahipal Singh is entitled for benefit of doubt. (iv) As per First Information Report and the evidence of P.W.-1, the deceased-Indal has threatened the accused-Mahipal Singh and in self-defence, the accused-Mahipal gave single blow on non-vital part of the body of the deceased-Indal. (iv) As per First Information Report and the evidence of P.W.-1, the deceased-Indal has threatened the accused-Mahipal Singh and in self-defence, the accused-Mahipal gave single blow on non-vital part of the body of the deceased-Indal. Thus, even if it is assumed, as per prosecution story, that the injury on the thigh of the deceased-Indal was inflicted by the accused-Mahipal Singh, still the accused-Mahipal Singh is entitled for benefit of self-defence, particularly, when the injury caused on the thigh, is on non-vital part of the body. In the case of Munshi Ram and Others vs. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1968 SC 702 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law that even if an accused does not take plea of self-defence, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the materials on record. Therefore, the accused-Mahipal Singh is entitled for the benefit of self-defence and he could not be convicted even under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. Discussion and Findings : We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 16. The recovery memo dated 13.08.1981 of blood stained clothes of the deceased-Indal has been proved by the P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer). The recovery memo dated 13.08.1981 of the recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused-Mahipal Singh and his arrest in the presence of P.W.-4 has been proved by the P.W.-4 in his evidence. He proved that there was no bleeding from the body of the accused-Mahipal Singh at the time of his arrest. The P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer) has also stated that while arresting the accused-Mahipal, some scuffle took place. The blood group found on the blood stained clothes of the accused-Mahipal Singh and the blood group found on the blood stained clothes of the deceased-Indal are one and the same i.e., Group ‘O’. Therefore, by evidence, the presence and involvement of the accused-Mahipal Singh at the date, time and place of occurrence of the incident is proved. That apart, his presence at the date, time and place of occurrence and his participation in the commission of offence has also been proved by the eye witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. Although, the eye witness P.W.-2 retracted to some extent in his evidence but still he maintained that the injury was caused to the deceased-Indal by the accused-Mahipal Singh and Guchhan. Although, the eye witness P.W.-2 retracted to some extent in his evidence but still he maintained that the injury was caused to the deceased-Indal by the accused-Mahipal Singh and Guchhan. Thus, the presence of the accused-Mahipal Singh in the commission of offence at the date, time and place of the incident in question is proved. 17. The P.W.-1 has stated in his evidence that when he was returning alongwith his deceased-brother at about 5 P.M., near the house of Bhoopat, the accused persons, Mahipal and Guchhan came and when the deceased-Indal asked them that why they are harassing the P.W.-1, then they spoke to the deceased that you are taking side of your brother and we will set your mind right and suddenly they attacked with knife upon the deceased-Indal. He also stated that the accused-Mahipal Singh, at the time of incident, was wearing pant and bushirt, which has stains of the deceased’s blood. Nothing adverse could be brought out by the defence in cross-examination of the P.W.-1, which may indicate that the accused-Mahipal Singh has not received the stains of blood of the deceased-Indal on his clothes in the incident in question. 18. In his evidence, the eye witness P.W.-2 has also proved that the accused-Mahipal and Guchhan have caused knife injuries to the deceased-Indal, who received injuries in his stomach and thigh. In his cross-examination, the P.W.-2 stated that he had not seen the accused-Mahipal Singh stabbing the deceased-Indal but he had seen the accused persons with knife and the deceased-Indal in injured condition and when he asked the deceased-Indal, then he told that the accused persons, Mahipal and Guchhan have attacked on him. 19. In his evidence, the eye witness P.W.-3 has stated that the accused-Mahipal had stabbed the deceased-Indal on thigh and the accused-Guchhan gave blow by knife on his abdomen. He also stated that he has seen the accused persons, Mahipal and Guchhan stabbing the deceased-Indal by knife. He also stated in his cross-examination that the deceased-Indal has also told that the accused persons have stabbed him with knife. 20. Thus, the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 when read together leaves no manner of doubt that the accused-Mahipal Singh has given one blow (stabbing) by knife on the left thigh of the deceased-Indal. He also stated in his cross-examination that the deceased-Indal has also told that the accused persons have stabbed him with knife. 20. Thus, the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 when read together leaves no manner of doubt that the accused-Mahipal Singh has given one blow (stabbing) by knife on the left thigh of the deceased-Indal. The injury on the left thigh being cause of his death is also proved by the post mortem report and the evidence of P.W.-5 (doctor, who conducted the autopsy). The P.W.-5 has also proved the report of the chemical examiner with respect to the clothes of the deceased-Indal and blood stains found thereon. He stated in his cross-examination on a suggestion that if deceased could have been treated immediately in a very good hospital, then it was possible to stop the bleeding and there could have been possibility to save the life of the deceased-Indal. 21. The D.W.-1 (a private pathologist) has given a blood group report of the accused-Mahipal Singh dated 22.09.1983 (Exhibit Ka.6) and on perusal of it from the original record, we find that it merely mentions the blood group of the accused-Mahipal Singh to be of Group ‘O’. Thus, this blood test report does not help the accused-Mahipal Singh in any manner inasmuch as blood group of the blood stains found on the clothes of the deceased-Indal and the blood group of the blood found on the clothes of the accused-Mahipal are one and the same i.e., Group ‘O’, as per chemical examiner’s report and the report of the private pathologist (D.W.-1). 22. So far as the conviction of the accused-Mahipal Singh under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC is concerned, we find that the thigh is a non-vital part of the body. The injury was caused by knife by the accused-Mahipal Singh. It appeared from the own evidence of P.W.-1 that it was at the heat of the passion that upon a sudden quarrel and without the accused-Mahipal Singh having taken undue advantage, gave knife blow to the deceased-Indal on a non-vital part of the body of the deceased-Indal. 23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Balmiki @ Munna Vs. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319 has opined that: "9. ...... there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. 23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Balmiki @ Munna Vs. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319 has opined that: "9. ...... there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction under Section 302 IPC, in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him." (Emphasis supplied by us) 24. In State of Rajasthan vs. Leela Ram @ Leela Dhar (2019) 13 SCC 131 Hon'ble Supreme Cour has discussed the issue where the single knife blow will fall within Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II of IPC and held as under : - “In Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322 , this Court while discussing the ingredients of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, held thus: "The fourth exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with a case of prosecution (sic provocation) not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1, but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1, but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact, Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon an equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor could in such cases the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must be further shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage". In Pulicherla Nagarajun vs. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444 , this Court while deciding whether a case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II IPC, held thus: "Therefore, the Court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel or children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner, (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention." (Emphasis supplied by us) 25. Under the circumstances, Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC defining culpable homicide not amounting to murder is attracted on the facts of the present case. Consequently, the conclusion of the learned Trial Court to invoke Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. cannot be said to be incorrect or unjustified. 26. Under the circumstances, Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC defining culpable homicide not amounting to murder is attracted on the facts of the present case. Consequently, the conclusion of the learned Trial Court to invoke Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. cannot be said to be incorrect or unjustified. 26. The submission of learned Amicus Curiae raising the plea of self-defence is totally misplaced inasmuch as the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 clearly established that there took place a sudden action in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel inasmuch it was the deceased-Indal, who first spoke to the accused-Mahipal that report of harassment of his brother shall be made and he shall set them right by breaking their bones and it is thereafter, the scuffle took place and a single blow of stabbing by knife was made by the accused-Mahipal on the left thigh of the deceased-Indal which is a non vital part of the body. In his cross-examination, the P.W.-5 (doctor, who conducted the autopsy) has also stated that if bleeding could have been stopped by immediate surgical operation, then the life of the deceased-Indal could have been saved. This shows that Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC was invokable and the learned Trial Court has rightly held the accused-Mahipal Singh liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC. 27. For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in the Government Appeal No.213 of 1984 and also in Criminal Appeal No.2419 of 1983. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. 28. We record our appreciation for Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned Amicus Curiae for rendering valuable assistance to the Court in deciding these old pending appeals. 29. The bail bonds of the accused-Mahipal Singh are hereby cancelled. The accused-Mahipal Singh shall surrender forthwith before the Court concerned. In the event, he does not surrender, the Court concerned shall take all appropriate steps for his arrest, if the accused-Mahipal Singh has not yet completed the sentence awarded to him under the impugned judgment and order. In the event, the accused-Mahipal Singh has already completed the sentence awarded to him under the impugned judgement and order, then he shall not be arrested unless wanted in any other case. 30. Let the record as well as copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court for information and compliance.