The court clarified the distinction between culpable homicide and grievous hurt, underscoring the need for evidence of knowledge regarding the likelihood of death from one's actions.

1. Play game in the spirit of game. So said Nehru. But when the spirit is lost in the game, even life is lost. This is what happened in the present case, when the friendly game of cricket became deadly game. Uday who was umpire in the friendly cricket match between Jai Bajrang v. Jai Bharat, and lost his life.

2. The accused appellant Shailesh alias Shailendra was put up for trial in Sessions Case No. 165 of 1988 (State of Maharashtra v. Shailesh alias Shailendra) for an offence punishable under S.302 of the IPC for having committed the murder of Uday on 27-12-1987 during the cricket match played between the two teams, namely, Jai Bajrang and Jai Bharat. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide his judgment dated 30-1-1991 in the said Sessions Case though acquitted the accused - appellant for the offence under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code , but convicted him for the offence punishable under S.304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for 10 days and hence the appeal by the accused - appellant.

3. On 27-12-1987 a report was lodged by Vasant Pimple at Police Station Sakkardara, Sub-Division Ganeshpeth, Nagpur that his son Uday, aged 21 years was residing with him and lie used to play the cricket always. On 27-12-1987 there was a cricket match between the teams of Subhedar Layout (Jai Bharat Team) and Charadhar Nagar (Jai Bajrang Team) and his son Uday and one more were umpires of these teams. Both the teams started playing at 1.00 p.m. and the match was off 60 overs each. At that time the team from the Subhedar Layout was playing and the team from Chakradhar Nagar was bowling. At that time his son declared a ball as "no ball". Thereupon the accused appellant Shailendra resisted that it was not "no ball". Over this an altercation took place between them at 2.45 p.m. (after - noon). The accused - appellant struck the stump on the right side head of his on and as a result of which blood was oozing out through the same and a severe injury was caused there. He was, thereupon admitted to the Medical College. On this report made by Vasant Pimple (PW 1) the first information report (Ext.26) was registered. Unfortunately Uday Pimple died on 30-12-1987. The case was converted into under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused - appellant.

4. The postmortem report conducted on the body of the deceased Uday revealed the following injuries in column 17 :
"17. Surface wounds and injuries, their nature, position, dimensions(measured) and directions to be accurately stated, their probable age and causes to be noted. 1. Stitched lacerated wound on (Rt) parietotemporal region 11/2" in length(Lacerated wound 11/2" x 1" vide treatment record). 
If bruies be present, what is the condition of the subcutaneous tissues? 2. Surgical stitched burrhole curved wound(Rt) parietotemporal region 4" in length drain present with signs of depressed fracture parietotemporal region 2" x 1" fracture temporal bone right side on front (anteror) part 3" oblique. Suture fracture (Lt) parietotemporal region. 
(N.B. When injuries are numerous and cannot be mentioned within the space available, they should be mentioned on a separate paper which should be signed). 3. Surgical stitched (burrhole) curved wound (Lt) parieto temporal region burrhole 1/2" x 1/2" drain present. 
Haemototoma under the scalp bilateral 5" x 3". Operation notes vide treatment record Reg.No.50825. Operation performed by Dr. Matkari and Dr. Sapakal on 27-12-87 (Rt) temporal burrhole done depressed fracture