deceased Neeraj, thus demonstrating that the incident took place without premeditation, in a sudden fight, and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Ld. Counsel further submits that Pradeep’s younger brother, Sanjay had reached the spot only upon noticing the commotion involving his brother, and not prior to the incident. He further submits that even as per the Prosecution’s case, the deceased Neeraj had intervened in the scuffle between Complainant (PW-1) and Pradeep and, in that process suffered a stab injury, which further supports the case that the occurrence was sudden and unplanned. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Hem Raj v. State (Delhi Administration) , 1990 Supp (1) SCC 291 , wherein it was held that when the incident had occurred on the spur of the moment and in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and a single stab was inflicted upon the chest of the deceased, he could not be imputed with the intention to cause death of the deceased or with the intention to cause that particular fatal injury. He submits that Sanjay could not be imputed with the intention to cause death but only with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Reliance is further placed upon Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 342 and Ranjitham v. Basavaraj, (2012) 1 SCC 414, wherein in similar circumstances the Supreme Court converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. It is accordingly submitted that although Complainant (PW-1) alleged that Sanjay had caught hold of the deceased, the said allegation stands contradicted by Complainant’s (PW1) own admission that he did not witness the actual act of stabbing, as well as by the depositions of Shahrukh (PW-5) and Sumit (PW-8), both of whom have categorically exonerated Sanjay, thereby rendering the said allegation wholly unreliable. In the absence of any cogent evidence establishing
