A person can be held guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code if they intend to cause a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, even if they do not intend to kill the victim.

K.Sahai, J.

1. The Sessions Judge of Shahabad at Arrah has convicted the appellant under Sec.302 of the Penal Code, and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. In mahalla Abarpur of Arrah Town, there is a culvert called Abarpool across the road which comes from Arrah to Patna. Abid Raza (P.W. 2) has a cycle repair shop at a short distance to the east of the culvert and on the southern side of the road. Deceased Muhammad Ismail of mahalla Kazi Tola of the same town was a partner of Abid Raza in in the shop. There are other shops on both sides of the road near about that shop.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 29-5-1955, at about 2-30 P.M., Ismail was coming on the road from the east towards his shop, and he had a mirror in his hand. The suns ray was reflected from the mirror to the face of the appellant, a resident of the same town, who was proceeding on the road from the west to the east. The appellant protested, and a quarrel developed between mm and Ismail. They grappled with each other and began to scuffle. Some persons intervened and succeeded in separating them.

Ismail then began walking towards his shop. When he had gone only a few steps, the appellant suddenly whipped out a knife and struck Ismail on the left side of the chest, causing a penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/4" chest cavity which pierced the left pleura 1/2" x 1/4", the pericardium 1/2" x 1/4" and the heart 1/2" x 1/4". Both the left and right ventricles of the heart were penetrated. Ismail immediately pressed the wound with his hand and cried out that Sarjug had assaulted him. Mumtaz Ahmad (P.W. 1) was then driving a rickshaw from the west to the east.

As soon as he saw the appellant striking Ismail, be got down from his rickshaw and caught hold of the appellant, asking him to throw the knife away. Appellant Sarjug told him to let him go as he would not assault Ismail any more. When Mumtaz saw that Ismail was about to fall, he left the appellant and rushed to Ismail to support him. By that time, Ismail had sat down on the side of the road leaning against a patra of his shop. Mumtaz brought his rickshaw near Ismail and placed him on it. Finding an opportunity, the appellant fled away. Ganauri (P.W. 4) sat in the same rickshaw, and Mumtaz drove it to the hospital.

Ismails brother, Ghulam Rasul (P,W. 3), who had come and seen a part of the occurrence, followed the rickshaw and arrived at the hospital soon after it arrived there. A telephone message was sent from the hospital to the Arrah Town Police Station at 2-45 P.M., and station diary entry (exhibit 5) was made on its basis. On being reported by the officer in charge (P.W. 17), Assistant Sub-Inspector T. N. Singh (P.W. 1.3) went to the hospital, arriving there at 2-56 P.M. By that time, Ismail was already dead. P.W. 13 then recorded a fard-beyan on the statement of Ghulam Rasul (P.W. 31 at 3 P.M. This was later treated as the first information report in the case.

4. The appellants case is that he is innocent, and that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Jagannath Prasacl (P.W. 8).

5. The main submission which Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has made before us is that, in the circumstances of this case, the punishment inflicted upon the appellant is much too severe. He has, however, also made an at- tempt to challenge the truth of the prosecution case. I propose first to consider whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. A striking feature of this case is that, out of the nine witnesses alleged by the prosecution to have seen the whole or part of the occurrence, eight, including the partner (P.W. 2) and the brother (P.W. 3) of deceased Ismail, were declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution in the committing Magistrates Court. Abid Raza (P.W. 2) and Ganauri (P.W. 4) have not been declared hostile in the Court of Session; but a comparison of their evidence in that Court and their