intention to cause death needs to be assessed from the surrounding circumstances. The most relevant fact in this assessment is that the first floor was roofed with a plastic sheet which was supported by an iron frame. The CCTV footage and the photographs of the place of incident on the trial court record show that the appellant had stood over besides the deceased for many moments and had the occasion to look over the parapet. It would be therefore safe to infer that the appellant had indeed seen and was aware that the first floor was covered with a plastic sheet and thus the tipping over was not meant to cause death but was likely to cause death. This Court is inclined to give benefit of doubt to the accused, as per accepted principles of criminal jurisprudence, for lack of any better evidence or corroborating circumstance or fact regarding the intention of the appellant. It would thus be appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II than Section 302 in these circumstances for act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death, or to cause a bodily injury that is likely to cause death. What is also important that the appellant was not brandishing or using a weapon which would then sway this assessment towards a Section 302 conviction i.e. an intent to cause death. Or at the very least the needle would have moved away from Section 299 to Section 300 (any of its sub-parts). The obvious presence of the plastic sheet roof of the first floor would mean that the toppling over was to cause a bodily injury likely to cause death and not one sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Further, Ex. PW-15/A, the post mortem report clearly opines that the cause of death was shock was a result of an ante mortem injury to the head produced by
