“30. Another very important aspect is that it is not a case of previous animosity. There is nothing on record to show that the relation between the families of the deceased and the Appellant was not cordial. On the contrary, there is evidence that the relations between them were cordial, as deposed by PW1. The dispute between the parties arose with a specific reference to the ladauri. It is clear that the Appellant had not committed the crime with any pre-meditation. There was no intention on his part to kill. The entire incident happened within a very short span of time. The deceased and the Appellant had had an altercation and the appellant was thrown on the ground by the deceased, his own relation. It was in that state of anger that the Appellant went to his house, took out the rifle and from a distance, i.e., from the roof of Muneshwar, he shot at the deceased. But before shooting, he expressed his intention to shoot by warning his brother to keep away. He actually fired in response to the challenge that was thrown at him by the deceased. It is true that there was knowledge on the part of the Appellant that if he used the rifle and shot at the deceased, the possibility of the deceased being killed could not be ruled out. He was a person from the armed forces and was fully aware of consequences of use of fire arms. But this is not necessarily conclusive of the fact that there was intention on the part of the Appellant to kill his brother, the deceased. The intention probably was to merely cause bodily injury. However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the Appellant had the knowledge that such injury could result in death of the deceased. He only fired one shot at the deceased and ran away. That shot was aimed at the lower part of the body, i.e. the stomach of the deceased. As per the statement of PW2, Dr. A.K. Rastogi, there was a stitched wound obliquely placed on the right iliac tossa which shows the part
