3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide order dated 01.04.2019, this Court has issued a notice in the present appeal limited to the extent as to whether the conviction ought to have been under Section 304 Part II or Section 302 IPC.    Therefore, this Court is required to consider whether the appellant herein – the original   accused   has   been   rightly   convicted   for   the   offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or is to be convicted for any other lesser offence, viz. Section 304 Part II IPC.

7.1.3 In Pulicherla Nagaraju v. 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: (SCC pp. 457¬58, para 29): 

“29.   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   of   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.   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.   Be   that   as   it may.”

7.2 From the above stated decisions, it emerges that there is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would   not   be   attracted.   It   depends   upon   the   facts   and 17 circumstances of each case.  The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not.  It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out.   The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly,  under  the  circumstances  narrated hereinabove,  the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without   intention   to   cause   death.     It   is   the   totality   of   the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence.

8. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that the motive alleged is of the incident prior to four months of the present incident and that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove is   concerned,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   in   the present case there are three eyewitnesses believed by both the Courts below and we also do not doubt the credibility of PWs 1, 2 and 3.  As held by this Court in catena of decisions, motive is not an explicit requirement under the Penal Code, though “motive” may be   helpful   in   proving   the   case   of   the   prosecution   in   a   case   of circumstantial evidence.  As observed hereinabove, there are three eye-witnesses   to   the   incident   and   the   prosecution   has   been successful in proving the case against the accused by examining those three eye-witnesses and therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, assuming that the alleged motive is the incident which had taken place prior to four months or the prosecution has failed to prove the motive beyond doubt, the same shall not be fatal to the case of prosecution.

9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, more particularly the decisions on the single injury and the facts on hand, it is required to be considered whether the case would fall under Section 302 IPC or any other lesser offence. PW3 – Nelson, who is an  eye­witness to  the incident right  from the beginning, deposed that when the deceased – Kalidas served extra beer to two persons who came from outside, the accused became angry and told the deceased why he is giving more beer to out­town people and not giving to local people and thereafter the problem started and in that scuffle the accused took out the knife and stabbed from behind.…….

10. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the facts and   circumstances   of   the   case   narrated   hereinabove   and   the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, we are of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted.