:•';•:?;;; J'- '..-,-', 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per case of the prosecution after sonie altercation appellant has caused repeated attacks to Brajlal Kamar, he was not having any intention for causing such injury therefore case does not travel beyond the scope of under Section 304 Parf -I of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the matter of Golla Yelugu Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 in which Supreme Court has held that on account of exchange of hot words and quarrel, husband caused repeated attacks to his wife on her neck and left ear casing sever bleeding injuries eventually leading to her death. Considering her words and quarrel, conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code does not found sustainable and was altered under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. 12. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposed the appeal and submits that evidence of PW8 Harchand who is son of both the accused/appellants and child witness who has rationally answered the question sufficient for conviction of the appellant. Appellant has not caused any injury after altercation but has caused fatal injury by stick thereafter caused repeated fatal injury by Trishul which shows his grave intention of causing murder of Brajlal Kamar. After appreciating the evidence learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 13. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. ' (2008) 16 SCC 769