NORONHA, J. ( 1 ) THE accused (respondent) Ranoji Ramappa Malagi, stood charged in. the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum of the offence punishable under S. 302' IPC. for the murders of his younger sister Shiddewwa and one Shidappa, at about 6 P. M. on 7-11-1969 (Friday), in the land of kareppa Gundi bearing R. S. No. 46 of Benchinmardi village, by assaulting them with a sickle. He has been acquitted, and this appeal is filed by the state. ( 2 ) THE prosecution version, briefly, is The accused found Shiddappa and Shiddawwa, the two deceased, having illicit intercourse and he cut and killed them both with the sickle MO. 9. After committing the murders, he went to the house of the Police Patil PW. 3 Buddappa at about 9-30pm. on that day. There PW. 3 and one Ramappa Sanadi were sitting chatting. The accused had carried the sickle MO. 9 with him. He was wearing the khadi cap (MO. 10), the banian (MO. 11) and the dhoti (MO. 12 ). MOs. 9, 10, 11 and 12 were all blood-stained. He told the Police Patil, PW. 3, about the occurrence. He led PW. 3 and Ramappa Sanadi to the spot where the two corpses were. The three of them returned to the house of PW. 3. There PW. 3 reduced into writing the information given by the accused, as per Ex. P5. PW. 3 wrote his Khabari Report (Ex. P6) and the complaint (Ex. P7 ). Then he secured PW. 4 Balappa and one Basappa Rudrapur. Thereafter, PW. 3, PW. 4, Basappa Rudrapur and Ramappa Sanadi, along with the accused, went walking to the Police Station at Gokak, about six miles away, reaching there at about 1-30 AM. on 8-11-1969 (Saturday ). The Police Patil, PW. 3, gave Exs. P5, P6 and P7 to the Sub Inspector of police (PW. 9), who registered the crime under S. 302 IPC. and submitted the FIRs. , the one sent to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gokak being received by him at 5-15 AM. The Sub Inspector, PW. 9, attached the bloodstained sickle (MO. 9) which the accused was carrying and the bloodstained clothes (MOs. 10, 11 and 12) which were on his person, under the panchanama Ex. P 10. ( 3 ) THE Sub Inspector PW. The Sub Inspector, PW. 9, attached the bloodstained sickle (MO. 9) which the accused was carrying and the bloodstained clothes (MOs. 10, 11 and 12) which were on his person, under the panchanama Ex. P 10. ( 3 ) THE Sub Inspector PW. 9, the accused and the others proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached there at about 4-30 AM. A little later, inquests were held over the dead bodies of Shiddappa and Shiddawwa as per Exs. P8 nd P9, respectively. The Cirlcle Inspector of Police (PW. 10) took over the investigation from the Sub Inspector PW. 9 at about 11am. The confession statement (Ex. P4) of the accused was recorded by the taluk Executive Magistrate (PW. 2) on 14-11-1969. The Circle Inspector (PW. 10) laid the charge-sheet in the committal Court on 2-12-1969. ( 4 ) IT cannot be doubted that the deaths of Shiddawwa and Shiddappa were homicidal. The autopsy on the dead bodies was conducted by the doctor PW. 1 in the afternoon of 8-11-1969. Among the 22 external injuries on Shiddawwa, 16 were incised wounds and six were abrasions. Among the 24 external injuries on Shiddapppa, 18 were incised wounds, one was the chopping of the chin, and five were abrasions. The Doctor PW. 1 was of the opinion that the incised wounds on both the dead persons could be caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the sickle MO. 9; so also the choppiing of the chin of Shiddappa; and that the abrasions might have been caused by the respective parts of the bodies coming into contact with hard and rough substance. The Doctor (PW. l) has further opined that the deaths of both the persons were caused by shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries noted by him and that the deaths must have been instantaneous. He has also spoken to the extensive internal damage sustained by both the persons. He deposed with reference to his post-mortem notes Exs. P1 and P2, pertaining respectively to Shiddawwa and Shiddappa. ( 5 ) THE case rests on circumstantial evidence, formulated before us under four heads by the learned Public Prosecutor, viz. , (1) the information (Ex. P5), lodged by the accused to the Police patil (PW. 3) (2) the conduct of the accused, relevant under Sec. 8 of the Indian evidence Act; (3) the seizure of the sickle MO. ( 5 ) THE case rests on circumstantial evidence, formulated before us under four heads by the learned Public Prosecutor, viz. , (1) the information (Ex. P5), lodged by the accused to the Police patil (PW. 3) (2) the conduct of the accused, relevant under Sec. 8 of the Indian evidence Act; (3) the seizure of the sickle MO. 9 from the accused, and the seizure of the clothes MOs. 10, 11 and 12 from his person, all stained with human blood; and (4) the confession statement (Ex. P4) of the accused, recorded by the magistrate (PW. 2) under Section 164, CPC. ( 6 ) A Division Bench decision in Devappa v. State (1), has held that a village Police Patil, especially after the coming into force of the Mysore police Act, 1963, is a Police Officer and, as suchf a confession made to him is hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act. The information Ex. P5 (containing a confession) of the respondent (accused) to the Police Patil PW. 3, there-force, suffers from this disability. At the end of paragraph 9 of his judgment the learned Sessions Judge has set out a faithful English translation of Ex. P5 which is in Kannada, reading as below:" (1) At about sunset time on this day, I proceeded from my house to my 'karl hola' in order to see my groundnut crop. (2) After seeing my groundnut crop, I was proceeding through my land when I saw my younger sister Siddawwa and Siddappa Tapasi of our village lying together in the land of Kareppa Ningappa Gundi. (3) Then on seeing them, I cut 3 or 4 times on the neck of Siddappa tapsi with the sickle that was in my hand and he turned and fell there only. My sister got up and began to run. I caught her there only and cut 4 or 5 times with the sickle on her neck and she fell down on the ground. (4) Then I came by the path towards the village and sat for about 2 hours in a jowar field. Thereafter I have come to you. (5) The sickle that is in my hand is the same with which I have cut them. (6) Both of them are dead. " ( 7 ) THE dividing of Ex. (4) Then I came by the path towards the village and sat for about 2 hours in a jowar field. Thereafter I have come to you. (5) The sickle that is in my hand is the same with which I have cut them. (6) Both of them are dead. " ( 7 ) THE dividing of Ex. P5 into six parts follows the pattern adopted in Aghnoo Nacesia v. State of Bihar, AIR. 1966 SC. 119. The trial Court has held only parts I and 4 to be admissible, and with this inference neither side has any grievance. ( 8 ) AS represented for the appellant-State, the learned Sessions Judge has not bestowed sufficient thought on the second circumstance. The Police patil (PW. 3) has deposed that at about 9-30 PM. on Friday (7-11-1969) he and Ramappa Sanadi were sitting in their house. The accused appeared there. He had the blood-stained sickle MO. 9 in his hand. He kept it before them. He was wearing the khadi cap (MO. 10), the banian (MO. 11) and the dhoti (MO. 12), all of which were blood-stained. The accused then told PW. 3 that he had been to the land of Kareppa Gundi where white jowar crop was standing, and he narrated about the occurrence. Then the three of them went to the spot and the accused showed them there the dead bodies of Shiddawwa and Shiddappa, with numerous injuries. This finds corroboration in Parts No. 1 and 4 of the information (Ex. PS) viz. , "at about sunset time on this day, I proceeded from my house to my 'karl hola' in order to see my groundnut crop. . . . . Then I came by the path towards the village and sat for about 2 hours in a jowar field. Thereafter i have come to you". Corroboration is also found in column No. 8 of the khabari Report. (Ex. P6) of PW. 3, wherein it is recited that the accused had a sickle in his hand and is wearing a khadi cap, banian and dhoti, and that all of them are blood-stained. The accused, in his statement recorded under S. 342 Cr. P. C. . admits having gone to the house of the police Patil (PW. 3), but says, in an evasive manner, that he told PW. The accused, in his statement recorded under S. 342 Cr. P. C. . admits having gone to the house of the police Patil (PW. 3), but says, in an evasive manner, that he told PW. 3 that it was rumoured in the village that Shiddappa and Shiddawwa had been murdered. He does not impute any animus against him in PW. 3. We agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence, as spoken to by PW. 3, is a relevant fact under S. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. ( 9 ) THE third circumstance for consideration is, the seizure of the blood-stained sickle MO. 9 from the accused and the seizure of the bloodstained clothes MOs. 10, 11 and 12 from his person. The Police Patil PW. 8 has deposed that after returning from the spot and compiling the information of the accused as per Ex. P5, the Khabari report Ex. P6 and the complaint Ex. P7, himself, Sanadi Ramappa, Basappa and PW. 4 Balappa along with the accused, went walking to the Gokak Police Station, about six miles away. The accused, wearing the blood-stained clothes, carried with him the blood-stained sickle. On this aspect PW. 3 and PW. 9 fully corroborate each other. Corroboration is further found in the seizure panchanama Ex. P10. It is also found in the recitals in column No. 8 of the Khabari report Ex. P6 of the Police Patil PW. 3, wherein it is stated that he is producing the accused in the same condition as he was when he first appeared before him earlier that night. As pointed out for the state, the learned Sessions Judge has not addressed himself fully to this aspect. ( 10 ) PW. 4 Balappa spoke firmly regarding the two inquest Panchanama ex. P8 and P9. but when it came to the seizure panchanama Ex. P10, there was a 'volte face', and at that stage he was treated as hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. According to him, he and Basappa attested the panchanama Ex. P10 not at the Police Station at Gokak on the night between 7-11-1969 and 8-11-1969, but at the spot of occurrence on 8-11-1969 morning. In chief-examination he deposed at one place that he and Balappa attested Ex. P10 after it was read over to them and finding it to be correctly recorded. PW. P10 not at the Police Station at Gokak on the night between 7-11-1969 and 8-11-1969, but at the spot of occurrence on 8-11-1969 morning. In chief-examination he deposed at one place that he and Balappa attested Ex. P10 after it was read over to them and finding it to be correctly recorded. PW. 4 Balappa is literate and he is a member of the Village Panchayat, and thus a responsible citizen. The panchanama Ex. Plo clearly recites that it was compiled in the Gokak police Station in his presence and that of Basappa between 2 AM. and 2-30 AM. on 8-11-1969 and that they attested it there. As argued for the state, it appears obvious that PW. 4 Balappa had been gained over and that the trial Judge was not instified in placing dependence on his word, as against the testimony of PW. 3 and PW9, that the panchanama Ex. P10 was not compiled at the time and place mentioned therein. ( 11 ) A Division Bench decision, dated 16-7-1971, of this High Court in cr. A. No. 220/69 (3) has observed"the position of law on the effect to be given to the evidence of a hostile witness is that the Court can rely on such portion of his evidence which supports the prosecution case and which the court believes to be true and reject the rest which it considers as false. And such a course as laid down by the Supreme Court is open to the trial and appellate Courts. "to our mind, sifting the grain from the chaff, the statement of PW. 4 balappa that he and Basappa attested the panchanama Ex. P10 after finding it correctly recorded, can safely be accepted, the more so when corroboration is found in the testimony of PW. 3 Buddappa (Police Patil) and the P. S. I. (PW. 9) both competent and independent witnesses. ( 12 ) THE Serologist found M. Os. 9, 10, 11 and 12 stained with human blood as per his Certificate Ex. P-15. Srimathi Anasuya, respondent's learned Counsel, represented that no importance can be attached to the finding of human blood on the sickle MO. 9 since it has come out in the evidence of the Police Patil PW. ( 12 ) THE Serologist found M. Os. 9, 10, 11 and 12 stained with human blood as per his Certificate Ex. P-15. Srimathi Anasuya, respondent's learned Counsel, represented that no importance can be attached to the finding of human blood on the sickle MO. 9 since it has come out in the evidence of the Police Patil PW. 3 that when they went to the scene of offence on the night of 7-11-1969, the respondent had kept M. O. 9 in his house and he picked it up later when they proceeded to the Police Station and, as the trial Judge has stated, no one knows what happened to M. O. 9 when it was lying in the house of PW. 3 and whether anyone meddled with it during that point of time. We agree with the learned Public prosecutor that this view cannot be countenanced. As observed, by the supreme Court in Avadhi v. State of Bihar , AIR. 1971 SC. 69. in assessing the evidence, imaginary possibilities have no place and what is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. Moreover, human blood was found not only on the sickle M. O. 9 but also on the clothes M. Os. 10, 11 and 12 which were on the person of the respondent, and this is a circumstance which lends assurance to the evidence of the Police Patil P. W. 3 that when the respondent first came to his house he had the sickle M. O. 9 with him which was blood-stained. The respondent in his statement recorded under S. 342 cr. P. C. admits having gone to the house of P. W. 3, and later on with him that very night to the Police Station of Gokak, but he says that M. Os. 9 to 12 were not with him. Not even a suggestion to P. W. 3 (Police Patil) has been put forth in this regard. Considering the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 9, the portion of the evidence of P. W. 4 Balappa which we have relied upon corroborated by the recitals in the seizure panchanama Ex. P-10, we cannot escape the reasonable conclusion, as urged for the State, that the third incriminating circumstance is satisfactorily established against the accused-respondent. ( 13 ) THAT brings us to the fourth and last incriminating circumstance against the respondent (accused), as formulated for the appellant state. P-10, we cannot escape the reasonable conclusion, as urged for the State, that the third incriminating circumstance is satisfactorily established against the accused-respondent. ( 13 ) THAT brings us to the fourth and last incriminating circumstance against the respondent (accused), as formulated for the appellant state. The Executive Magistrate (P. W. 2) has deposed in chief-examination as below:". '. . . I received a letter from the C. P. I. , Gokak. I was requested to record confessional statement of accused Ramoji Ramappa Malagi of Benachimardi concerned in Gokak P. S. Crime No. 121169. I produce the letter. Marked Ex. P-3. I then wrote a letter to the J. M. F. C. requesting him to direct the Jail authorities to produce the said accused before me at 3 P. M. the same day. This accused was produced before me accordingly on that day. The guard who had brought the accused was sent away and the accused was kept in the custody of my revenue peon. I then told the accused that he need not tell the truth and in case he told the truth it would be used against him. Accused said that he would confess. I gave him time of 24 hours to think over and sent him to the Sub Jail. I have noted on Ex. P-3 that accused was produced before me at 1-20 P. M. and that I requested the j. M. F. C. , Gokak, to produce him at 4 P. M. on 13-11-1969. This endorsement is marked Ex. P-3 (a ). I have not noted the caution administered by me to the accused. On 13-11-1969, I went on tour. At 10-30 A. M. on 14-11-1969, accused was produced before me. I sent the Jail guard outside my office premises and put the accused in the custody of my revenue peon. I then put questions to the accused in Kannada and myself recorded the questions and answers in the form prescribed, in bombay area, for recording confessions. All the questions I put and the answers given by the accused are recorded by me. I see the statement now shown to me. This contains all the questions put by me and the answers given by the accused. I have affixed my certificate below it as required in law. Confessional statement marked Ex. P-4. Before recording Ex. All the questions I put and the answers given by the accused are recorded by me. I see the statement now shown to me. This contains all the questions put by me and the answers given by the accused. I have affixed my certificate below it as required in law. Confessional statement marked Ex. P-4. Before recording Ex. P-4 I examined the person of the accused and satisfied myself that he had no injuries on his person. After satisfying myself that the accused was voluntarily making his confessional statement, I recorded the substance of the confessional statement. After recording Ex. P-4, I read it over to the accused and he admitted that it was correctly recorded and affixed his signature below it in my presence. . . . . . . . . . I cannot say why I did not reduce to writing the warning given by me to the accused when he was produced before me for the first time on 12-11-1969. "in cross-examination this witness has deposed:". . . . Only myself and the accused were present in the Court hall when I recorded Ex. P-4. My revenue peon was waiting outside. I did not personally go out and verify whether there were or not any policemen outside my court. I just saw that no policeman was visible outside my court. Apart from the questions mentioned in Ex. P 4 I did put a few preliminary questions to the accused, but I did not record those questions and answers to those, as they were not necessary to be recorded. I again say that only preliminary question was put by me. By that I asked the accused whether he had thought and reflected within the last 24 hours given by me to him, about making a confessional statement. He said that he had reflected and was going to make a confessional statement. Thereafter I commenced recording Ex. P-4. It is not true to say that the C. P. I, and a constable were all along present in my office near the accused when I recorded Ex. P4. " ( 14 ) THE confession statement Ex. P-4, which is in Kannada, would read in English as below:"on 7-11-69 Friday at about 6 P. M. I went to my Karl land with sickle to bring fodder to my cattle. P4. " ( 14 ) THE confession statement Ex. P-4, which is in Kannada, would read in English as below:"on 7-11-69 Friday at about 6 P. M. I went to my Karl land with sickle to bring fodder to my cattle. After going round in groundnut land I came to the corner of the land to cut fodder. I saw a pataka going up and down in the white jowar land of Kariyappa-Gundi which is very near my land. I went from behind to see what it was. I saw shiddappa Awwanna Tapasi having sexual inter-course with my ycunger sister Shiddawwa. When I saw it, I could not control my anger. I hit with the sickle in my hand on the back of the neck. Due to this blow Shiddappa fell down from my sister. After he fell down i hit Shiddappa with sickle. He died there only. Seeing this my sister who was sleeping got up and began to run. I immediately held her and cut her on her neck and shoulder with the sickle. She died immediately at that place. When I assaulted there was nobody. As I could not understand as to what to do next, I sat there for some time. Then I went with the sickle to the house of the Police Patil of our village and told all that had happened. He immediately brought me to the Police Station at Gokak and he produced me there. Prioy to this I did not know about the illicit connection between my sisiter Shiddawwa and deceased Shiddappa. " ( 15 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the confession statement contained in Ex. P-4 in paragraph 8 of his judgment. He has discarded it on six grounds, which we are listing as under, in his own words:" 1) At this stage, it is clearly seen that it is not the claim of p. W. 2 that he disclosed his identity to the accused. He does not say that he told the accused that he was before a Magistrate and that he was in a free atmosphere and he should not have any fear of the police. That is the primary requisite to be complied with while administering caution to the accused in order to find out that the accused was going to make a confessional statement voluntarily. That is the primary requisite to be complied with while administering caution to the accused in order to find out that the accused was going to make a confessional statement voluntarily. P. W. 2 has failed to comply with this primary requisite. 2) PW. 2 has not stated that he made any attempt to ascertain whether the accused had been ill-treated by the police. 3) He -has not stated that he examined the person of the accused and satisfied himself that there were no injuries on the person of the accused 4) He has also not stated that the accused was not required to make a confessional statement and that, if he made one, that would be used against him. All that he has claimed to have stated to the accused is that the accused need not tell the truth and in case he told the truth it would be used against him. 5) Though P. W. 2 has sworn that he sent a letter of request to the Judicial Magistrate, FC. , Gokak, to cause the production of the accused before him at 3 P. M. on 12-11-1969, the endorsement made by p. W. 2 on Ex. P-3 reads to show that he issued directions to the Jail authorities to produce the accused before him at 3 P. M. This endorsement would go to show that P. W. 2 communicated directly with the jail authorities and got the accused produced before him. In the result, it is doubtful whether P. W. 2 got the accused produced before him through the Judicial Magistrate, FC. , Gokak, in whose custody the accused was. 6) It is the say of the accused in regard to the confessional statement that he was produced before P. W. 2 only on one occasion and not twice. " ( 16 ) AS represented for the State, items Nos. 3 and 5 are factually incorrect. The Magistrate P. W. 2 has deposed that before recording the confession Ex. P-4, he examined the person of the accused and satisfied himself that he had no injuries on his person. On 12-11-1969 he issued directions not to the Jail authorities direct, but through the Judicial magistrate, to have the accused produced before him, as is evident from his endorsement on Ex. P-3. ( 17 ) IN the context of the confession, some timings and dates are material. On 12-11-1969 he issued directions not to the Jail authorities direct, but through the Judicial magistrate, to have the accused produced before him, as is evident from his endorsement on Ex. P-3. ( 17 ) IN the context of the confession, some timings and dates are material. The accused-respondent was arrested at about 2 A. M. on 8-11-1969. On the same day, at about 6 P. M. he was handed over to judicial custody (Sub Jail), which would mean that within about sixteen hours, he was free from police pressure or influence. He was sent to the magistrate (P. W. 2) at about 1-20 P. M. on 12-11-1969. P. W. 2 says that he then told the accused that he need not tell the truth and, in case he told the truth, it will be used against him. We agree with the learned public Prosecutor that the language is unhappy, but the essence of the caution administered is there. From thence onwards the respondent had time for reflection until he was produced before the Executive Magistrate (P. W. 2) at about 10 A. M. on 14-11-1969. On that day to the question"do you give your statement with your free will and without pressure of anybody?" he answered "yes, I will state with my free will and without pressure of anybody. " To a subsequent question he answered "i will give my statement of my own free will. " The final question "the statement given by you now will be used as evidence against you in Court. Therefore, you may think over again and then give your statement. " elicited the answer "i will give my statement after having thought completely and i will state with my own free will. " ( 18 ) THE respondent was in Police custody only for about sixteen hours on 8-11-1969, as we have already mentioned. Subsequently, till he was produced before the Magistrate (P. W. 2) at about 10-30 A. M. on 14-11-1969, viz. , six days later, he was in judicial custody. " ( 18 ) THE respondent was in Police custody only for about sixteen hours on 8-11-1969, as we have already mentioned. Subsequently, till he was produced before the Magistrate (P. W. 2) at about 10-30 A. M. on 14-11-1969, viz. , six days later, he was in judicial custody. In this context, as pointed out for the State, the observation of the trial Court that p. W. 2 has not stated that he made any attempt to ascertain whether the accused had been ill-treated by the police is far-fetched, and the fact that the Magistrate (P. W. 2) examined the person of the accused on 14-11-1969 and satisfied himself that he had no injuries on his person, also provides an answer. ( 19 ) THE trial Judge remarks that the say of the accused in regard to the confession statement is that he was produced before PW. 2 only on one occasion viz. , 14-11-1969 and not earlier on 12-11-1969; and he appears to have accepted this statement. For the State it was urged before us, and we feel, justifiably, that this is belied by the answer of the respondent (accused) to Question No. 15 in his statement recorded under Section 342 cr. P. C. , the answer being that on 12-11-1969 he was simply brought back. How could he be brought back unless he was taken there? PW. 2 is a responsible officer and nothing is even suggested to discredit his testimony We have already mentioned earlier that the warnings and cautions administered by him to the respondent are revealed by his testimony and in Ex. P-4. At the end of Ex. P-4 he has appended the certificate written and signed by him, as prescribed by S. 164 Cr. P. C. , viz. , "i have explained to Ramoji Ramappa Malagi that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession, he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. " This certificate cannot be lightly assailed. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. " This certificate cannot be lightly assailed. As represented for the appellant State the respondent does not say that when he was in the presence of P. W. 2 on 12-11-1969 and 14-11-1969 there was any Policeman present and that he was not aware that P. W. 2 was a Magistrate, nor that he was not in the free atmosphere of a Court. ( 20 ) FROM the above analysis we are persuaded to accept the contention of the State that the confession Ex. P4 of the accused-respondent is voluntary, and that it is also demonstrated to be true by the other ample material on record. ( 21 ) IT is now well-settled that the High Court has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as it has against an order of conviction, and it is absolutely open to it to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, and that interference is called for when the trial Court has wrongly assessed and mis- appreciated the evidence. ( 22 ) ALL the four circumstances formulated before us have been satisfactorily established, and the proved circumstances bring home the guilt tp the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and they are consistent only with the hypothesis of his guilt. ( 23 ) SRIMATHI Anasuya finally maintained before us that, even if the accused-respondent is held to have caused the deaths of Shiddawwa and shiddappa, what is disclosed by the prosecution evidence itself would attract exception (1) to S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, since on seeing his sister Shiddawwa and Shiddappa having illicit intercourse, he was deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation and caused their deaths. The learned Public Prosecutor did not seriously dispute this proposition. We agree with Smt. Anasuya that Exception (1) to S. 300 is attracted and the offence is punishable not under S. 302 but under S. 304 I. P. C. ( 24 ) IN the result, we partly allow the appeal. The learned Public Prosecutor did not seriously dispute this proposition. We agree with Smt. Anasuya that Exception (1) to S. 300 is attracted and the offence is punishable not under S. 302 but under S. 304 I. P. C. ( 24 ) IN the result, we partly allow the appeal. We set aside the order of acquittal of the respondent (accused) by the court below, convict, him for an offence punishable under Part 1 of S. 304 Indian Penal Code, and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days more. --- *** --- .