Judgment M. SHRIMAL, J. ( 1 ) THE accused-appellant was tried under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for inflicting injuries on the person of Mst. Jamnabai on 31st May, 1978, as a result of which, she expired. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, placing reliance on the statements of the eyewitnesses P. W. 1 Kanwarlal and P. W. 2 Bhagchand, corroborated by the medical evidence and other circumstances, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, by his judgment dated 22nd August, 1979. ( 2 ) THE aggrieved accused has come in appeal. We are not required to deal with in detail the prosecution evidence and other circumstances brought forth on the record, as the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, keeping in view, the preponderance of the evidence on record, has rightly conceded that the occurrence did take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution, and that accused Devial inflicted injuries on the person of Mst. Jamnabai (Sister) as a result of which, she expired. ( 3 ) HOWEVER, we have looked into the record and are satisfied that the prosecution by cogent, reliable and consistent evidence have brought home the guilt to the accused. ( 4 ) THE only point pressed before us is that there was no pre-existing enmity between the parties The cause of the incident is said to be a trivial one, and the accused did not intend to inflict the injuries on that part of the body of the deceased on which it fell. Besides that, the doctor concerned, who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Jamnabai failed to state that the injuries sustained by Mst. Jamnabai (since deceased) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and as such, the accused could be convicted only under section 304, Part I, Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions advanced before us. There is evidence on the record that the words Maan-jaa Maan-jaa were heard prior to the occurrence, which indicate that there were some verbal altercations between the parties. The cause of the quarrel was a trivial one, and the weapon used is an implement which is generally used for agricultural purposes. The doctor failed to state that the injuries sustained were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of the quarrel was a trivial one, and the weapon used is an implement which is generally used for agricultural purposes. The doctor failed to state that the injuries sustained were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is a serious lapse on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor, who conducted the case in the lower court, and this court cannot read the words in between the lines. As already stated prior to the incident, some verbal altercations did take place between the parties. The accused inflicted injuries on the deceased which though on head, but as the weapon used by the accused cannot be said to be a weapon for offence, rather it is an agricultural implement, it cannot be inferred that he intended to cause death. The deceased was the Sister of the accused and there was no immediate cause for causing her death. It cannot be said with certainty that the accused did intend to cause death by inflicting the injuries. Moreover, the doctor has failed to state that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 6 ) IN these circumstances, it would not be proper to maintain the conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. It is a case in which, the scales of justice must tilt in favour of the accused. ( 7 ) WE, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code and instead, convict him under section 304, Part I and sentence him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. ( 8 ) IT is, however, made clear that the accused-appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of section 428, Criminal Procedure Code. The period of imprisonment suffered by him during the investigation and trial shall he set off against the term of imprisonment awarded by this Court. ( 9 ) LET a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as he Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. Order accordingl