There being contradictory statements of P.W.2 and P.W.4, it is unclear as to who introduced the knife in the scuffle.Finally, the appellant was a permanent resident of Nagpur whereas the place of the incident is Katol, a tehsil place situated about 50 kms. from Nagpur. There could hardly be any reason for the appellant to travel such distance and murder the victim, and that too with a knife in broad daylight an in the presence of a host of people.The second limb of the arguments of learned counsel is that even if it be assumed that death of the victim occasioned at the hands of the appellant, as per the prosecution case the victim was initially away from the place of incident and was the last to join the scuffle. There was, thus, no premeditation on the part of the appellant as such and the victim seems to have got injured unintentionally in the scuffle between the appellant on the one side an the victim, P.W.s 2, 3 and 4 o the other.Therefore, clearly, the victim was not the target. He contended that conviction of the appellant under section 30, IPC wa erroneous on facts and in the circumstances and that the evidence at best made out a case punishable under section 304, Part II. IPC. The appellant has been behind bars for nine years and it is only fair, just and proper that this Court upon consideration of the materials on record directs his release by converting the conviction from section 302, IPC to section 304, Part II, IPC and sentencing him to the period already spent in custody.Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Sessions Judge. He also submitted that the High Court took pains to reappraise the evidence and finally concurred with the Sessions Judge. No cas having been seyt up by the appellant for interference, he urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.We have heard the parties, considered the evidence led by them before the trial court and perused the judgment and order of the trial court and the High Court,