JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer dated 15-12-1972, whereby the accused-appellant Lala has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and under Section 309, IPC to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. This was an appeal from jail and as the accused-appellant was unrepresented, Shri A. K. Gupta was appointed under the Legal Aid Programme to represent the accused-appellant. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Amara PW/3 purchased a blanket costing Rs. 37/- from PW/6 Devilal on credit. Amara is the son of the accused-appellant Lala. Amara gave Rs. 40/- to Lala for making payment to PW/6 Devilal. Amara then went away for work towards Kota. When be returned PW/6 Devilal again demanded the price of the blanket from him. Amara replied that he had already made payment, to Lala, and when Lala was requested to make payment, he declined as he had no readily available money. There was an exchange of hot words between Amara and Lala at the place where they were working on the famine relief projects. Then Lala accompanied with his wife Mst. Dhapu went to his house. Amara accompanied by his wife Patasi also reached there after some time. PW/6 Devilal also came on the site accompanied with two other businessmen namely Nathu and Narain. Mst. Dhapu was preparing tea in a Dhabari. Amara objected on the ground that she is lowering the position of the family in the eye of the businessmen and other persons who were present, by preparing tea in a Dhabari. PW/6 Devilal again demanded the money on which the accused appellant got enraged. He asked Patasi wife of Amara to bring the blanket from the house. When she brought the blanket Lala in a fit of anger threw the blanket in the fire. He then hurriedly went inside the house, brought the money, paid the money to Devi Lal PW/6, and the rest of the notes which were with him him he threw those notes into the fire. In this spate of anger Lala threatened Dhapu and Amara. Lala, it is said, went inside the house, brought a gupti and thrust it in the chest of Dhapu. Then he also attempted to commit suicide, but was prevented by the persons present there. 4. In this spate of anger Lala threatened Dhapu and Amara. Lala, it is said, went inside the house, brought a gupti and thrust it in the chest of Dhapu. Then he also attempted to commit suicide, but was prevented by the persons present there. 4. The prosecution story is supported by the statement of PW/3 Amara. Amara is the son of the accused-appellant Lala, and there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. Why should Amara tried to implicate his own father. The statement of Amara finds support from the statement of PW/4 Patasi. 5. The accused appellant Lala has himself made extra-judicial confession before Peeru PW/11. Dhapu has also stated that her husband Lala had thrust gupti on the left side of her chest. This statement was also made by PW/11 Peeru. PW/6 Devilal who had sold the blanket to Amara and who was present at the site when the occurrence took place, supports the prosecution version. PW/7 Nathu and PW/6 Narain, are independent persons and have nothing to do with the transaction of sale of blanket. 6. The ocular evidence also finds support from the medical evidence. 7. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that the entire act was done in a spate of high anger, and in view of the strained family relations between Amara and Dhapu. Amara is the son from the first wife of Lala, while Dhapu was his step-mother. There is ample evidence on record to show that Mst. Dhapu felt very much concerned against Lala when he gave possession of the fields to Amara. Because of her quarrel some attitude, Amara and Patasi thought it best to go away from the house. It appears from the financial stringency. When Amara enraged and money from Lala for payment to the businessman Devilal PW/6, he got demanded in the extreme fit of anger thrust the gupti across the chest of Mst. Dhapu. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has, therefore, contended that this is not a case covered by Section 302, IPC, but is one which clearly falls within the ambit of Section 304-IPC. 8. Mr. Garg, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, also concedes that the offence falls within the ambit of Section 304-I IPC. 9. Dhapu. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has, therefore, contended that this is not a case covered by Section 302, IPC, but is one which clearly falls within the ambit of Section 304-IPC. 8. Mr. Garg, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, also concedes that the offence falls within the ambit of Section 304-I IPC. 9. We have given our most anxious consideration to the evidence on record, and we find ample force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. Lala while acting in a Jit of extreme anger, thrust gupti across the chest of Dhapu. He actually never intended to commit the murder of Dhapu, who is his own wife. There we strained relations between the members of the family. Under these circumstances to have no hesitation in holding that the offence committed by Lala squarely falls within the ambit of Section 304-I, IPC, and not under Section 302, IPC. 10. We accordingly partly allow the appeal and alter the conviction of Lala from Section 302, IPC, to Section 304-I, IPC. The conviction under Section 302, PC is, however, maintained. 11. Lala at the time of the incident was 69 years of age, and has already maimed in custody for about six years. He is now 75 years of age. Looking to he facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the ends of justice would be let by reducing the sentence to the sentence already undergone by the accused appellant. The accused appellant shall be released forthwith from custody if he is not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******