She, her son Ajay Choudhary along with Dinesh were watching television.Deepak was known to the deceased and her two sons as he was their neighbour, residing in the same street.It was alleged that Ajay, Dinesh and Beermati were laughing, upon which Deepak got enraged and called Ajay outside asking him the reason for their laughter.It was alleged that Deepak held Ajay by the neck, when he (Ajay) stated that the three were laughing over something that was being screened on TV.Deepak is alleged to have abused Ajay and told him that they were laughing and mocking him and that they were lying to him; it was alleged that he told Ajay "saale mujh par haste ho, mera mazak udate ho aur jhoot bolte ho".The Injury was antemortem, caused by sharp edged cutting stabing weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature Blouse showd a cut mark corresponding to external injury.The post mortem report No. 457/95 was prepared by me, i.e. in my own hand writing bears my signatures at point A. the same is exhibited PW.12/A.Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP.The appellant (hereafter called "Deepak") impugns the judgment and order dated 13.01.1998 in S.C. No. 414/1995 whereby he was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of ` 1000/- and in default further R.I. for one month.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge also convicted Deepak for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay ` 500/- as fine, in default of which he was to undergo R.I. for a period of 15 days.A CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 1 similar sentence was imposed, after conviction was recorded under Section 450 IPC.The prosecution case was that on 19.07.1995, Deepak, in a stabbing incident, had attacked one Beermati with a knife and also stabbed Dinesh.He slapped Ajay 3/4 times.At that time, Ajay's brother Dinesh came out and separated the two.Deepak allegedly left towards his house stating that he (Ajay) had been rescued but that he would not be left alive in future; the prosecution alleged that the actual words used were "ab to bach gaya hai, ise zinda nahi chodoonga".It was alleged that thereafter Ajay and Dinesh went inside their house.About 3/4 minutes later, Deepak came back with a knife in his hand.At that time Beermati was near the entrance of her house and on seeing Deepak armed with a knife, she asked him to stop, enquiring where was he going.Deepak allegedly told Beermati that she was shielding her sons and that he would first remove her from his way - allegedly stating "tu ladkon ke bahut himayat karti hai, pehle tujhe hi raste se hataa deta hoon".Thereafter Deepak stabbed her in the lower portion of the left breast resulting in her bleeding and Beermati's falling down.It was alleged that Dinesh tried to save his mother from Deepak but that the latter said that he too used to favour his brother and would not be left alive.The alleged words used by Deepak were "tu bhi bhai ka himayati banta hai, tujhe bhi zinda nahi choroonga".With these words he attacked Dinesh with the knife in the lower left side of his abdomen.On hearing the noise, many people, including Om Bir Singh reached the spot.On seeing them, Deepak ran away along with his knife.It was alleged that Ajay took Beermati and Dinesh to G.T.B. Hospital with a neighbour and others; Beermati was declared dead.According to the prosecution version, Deepak was arrested on 20.07.1995 and on the basis of his interrogation, the recovery of a knife was made.It was alleged that a disclosure statement, Ex. PW-6/B was recorded.On 02.05.1996, the court charged Deepak for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 450 IPC.He entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 25 witnesses in support of its case; Deepak examined two defence witnesses.On the basis of the materials, depositions of witnesses and rival contentions, the Trial Court found the accused Deepak guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for committing the concerned offences, in the manner indicated previously in the present judgment.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the evidence, particularly the depositions of PW-2, the deceased's younger son Ajay, as well as PW- 4, the elder son of the deceased, who sustained injuries, the attack by Deepak stood established and could not be denied.It was, however, submitted that Deepak got enraged due to remarks made by PW-2 Ajay Pal and other members of his family.Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that even as per allegations of the prosecution, there was no history of enmity or malice and that there was no motive for Deepak to have attacked Beermati and Dinesh.In this context, it was argued that according to the line of questioning adopted during the cross- examination, there was hardly any time-gap between the first incident when all members of the family were laughing and when the attack took place.Therefore, the versions of PW-2 and 4 about the reason for Deepak's anger are to be seen in the context of the deposition of other witnesses.Even though PW-2 and PW-4 deposed that there was trivial provocation for the attack, a reading of PW-5's testimony clarifies that the reason for the attack was something else.The said witness had deposed very clearly having witnessed the incident and heard Deepak stating CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 3 "tere bache rozana jaghre karte hain, tu inki himayat karti hai, mere raste se hat jaa" and an altercation between Birmati and the accused had taken place."It was submitted that even though PW-2 and PW-4 had stated that they were laughing due to a humorous or comic scene aired on the television, it was evident that there was some previous history of the appellant Deepak being teased or quarreled with.Learned counsel also pointed to the cross-examination of PW-4 to the following effect:"It is incorrect to suggest that I and my brother were standing on the door of our house when the accused Deepak had passed through the gali clad in a white trouser and shirt and that upon seeing him, we passed a taunting remark by saying "look the black crow in a white dress is coming".It is further incorrect to suggest that the accused felt bad when he heard the remark and an altercation took place between the accused and us.It is further wrong that the accused told us that we should not taunt in this way to which we replied that if we behave the same manner, what harm he could do to them.It is further wrong to suggest that thereafter an altercation took place between us which resulted in fight between the accused on one side and both of us on the other side.It is further incorrect to suggest that meanwhile, our mother also joined us and all of us dragged the accused inside our house and started beating him and the accused got released himself and tried to run away from there but we all three again caught hold of him.It is further incorrect to suggest that our mother picked up a thapi (wooden stick) for washing clothes and started beating the accused with that thapi and that Deepak also started beating us with fists and slapped blows and that he slapped fist blows to me also.It is further incorrect to suggest that I got angered at the beating received by me and in the fit of anger I went inside the house and brought a knife and that on seeing the knife, the accused became nervous and he tried to snatch the knife and in that process of snatching the knife, which was snatched by the accused from me, my mother received injuries and in the same process, I also received the injuries.It is further correct that after the incident the accused ran away from the spot and I cannot say he ran away towards his house."It was emphasized that the evidence of PW-2 made it clear that Deepak was the son of the deceased's neighbour and that they did not have any previous history of enmity.The entire facts revealed that an altercation took place on account of a trivial provocation which evidently had some previous history.Learned senior counsel highlighted that the post mortem report of the deceased suggested that she died on account of a single blow and the Court should take this aspect into consideration and hold that this was not a case of previous deliberation or premeditated action.In these circumstances, submitted learned senior counsel, the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 but instead it could have been under Section 304 IPC.To achieve this end, he went back home, returned armed with the knife, which was recovered subsequently during the investigation.The appellant, going back in the first instance and returning with such a dangerous weapon and proceeding to use it without hesitation betrayed his real intention which was to inflict deadly injuries upon those who he was angry with or against whom he bore a grudge.The MLC of Dinesh, PW-4, marked as Ex. PW-18/A, reveals that he too was examined at 5.30 PM on the date of the incident.The doctors declared him fit for statement.The observations in this document revealed that he had suffered a stab wound on the left side of the abdomen in mid-auxiliar line at the line of the last CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 5 rib to the extent of 1 inch into 1 into 6th of an inch.The postmortem report prepared by PW-12, Dr. A.K. Tyagi indicated the following injuries and cause of death:"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX External Injury:- 1) Incised stab wound of 3.0x0.8 cm xcavity deep was present obliquely over middle outer front of left side chest.The upper inner angle was more acute than lower outer angle & upper angle is 10.0 cms horizontly out words & to left from the nipple.The injury entered the left side chest cavity by cutting the 4th rip and then went through and through the lower part of upper lobe of left lung near its inner margin it further entered the Heart i.e. left ventricle from its left wall by making a cut of 1.7x0.2 cms and ended by making small nick over inter-ventriculor septum.The depth in the heart is 04.00 cms and total depth of the injury was 11.5 cms.The direction of injury was from left to right obliquely downwords, inwards and slightly backwards.Left side chest cavity contains blood about 600 cc.Injuries to left lung and heart as mentioned with external injuries.Opinion - Death in this case was due to shock as a result of haemorrage caused by injury to chest.XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"Since the appellant Deepak has not disputed having attacked the deceased and PW-4, it would be unnecessary to discuss the details with regard to depositions of various prosecution witnesses.These had claimed to be eye witnesses to the incident and were present when the attack took place.11. PW-2 and PW-4 are consistent by and large, in stating the details and origins of the attack.It was deposed that on the day of the incident, both of them, along with the deceased were watching television around 4.00 PM.Deepak was passing by.Simultaneously, he heard them laugh.Thinking that they were laughing or mocking at him, he called out Ajaypal, PW-2 and asked him the reason for the laughter.PW-2 informed him that the laughter was on account of some comic incident in the television programme or film.The two eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-4 CRL.A. 45/1998 Page 6 were extensively cross-examined whether the film ANDAAZ APNA APNA was screened at that time and who were the lead actors in that film.Deepak was unsatisfied with PW-3's explanation and tried to attack Ajaypal upon which PW-4 Dinesh interceded and separated the two of them from a scuffle.Thereupon, according to both the witnesses, Deepak left the scene, threatening to return and finish Ajaypal.Barely three-four minutes later, he came back and tried to enter the house of PW-2, 4 and the deceased.According to the two witnesses, Beermati tried to stop him but was fatally stabbed.When Dinesh, PW-4 intervened, he too received stab injuries in the abdomen.The contention deserves to be accepted.This was not a case of premeditation as the accused and the deceased met by chance and the appellant had given only one blow.The evidence regarding raising of a lalkara by the other accused has not been believed by the trial court.On the basis of the evidence led in this case it is not possible to say with certainty under which circumstances the appellant gave a kirpan blow to Amrik Singh.No attempt was made by him to give another blow.The injury caused on the head of Amrik Singh does not appear to have been caused intentionally.However, the fact remains that the deceased died because of this injury.The High Court however failed to note that the prosecution has to prove that the appellant intended to cause that particular injury.In Jagtar Singh the facts were that the accused had inflicted a single knife injury which proved fatal."The next question is what offence the appellant is shown to have committed? In a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife.The incident occurred around 1.45 noon.The quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a knife and landed a blow in the chest.In these circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death.In the present case too, the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased's sons, was due to a trivial reason.He tried to assault Ajaypal; the deceased tried to prevent him; he attacked her.PW-4 thereafter tried to intervene; he too was attacked.All these facts do not suggest pre-meditation, or a previous history of ill will between Deepak and the deceased's family.He launched an attack on the deceased, when he thought that she would prevent him from assaulting Ajaypal.Both she and PW-4 were given single blows, when they tried to prevent his attack.

Cited provisions: Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code