Judgement TATED, J. :- The accused Baburao Ravji Bansode preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dt. 30th June, 1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1981 convicting him of the offence under S. 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. About four months before the date of the incident, that is, 25th September 1979, deceased Laxmibai and the accused got into marriage alliance by pat marriage. About two months after the marriage the relations of the accused and his wife got strained, as the wife insisted that they should leave the village Arawade and go to some city, to which the accused did not agree. Deceased Laxmibai on three or four occasions had left the house of the accused and went away. The accused made a search for her and brought her back. On 24th September, 1979 also deceased Laxmibai had left the house and had gone by Tasgaon Road. The accused went in search of her and brought her back. In the evening there was a quarrel between the husband and the wife, and the incident took place at the dawn on 25th September, 1979. The neighbour Mrs. Vaijanta Maruti Athavale (P. W. 4) heard some sound followed by the cry of the deceased from the hut of the accused, and, therefore, she went to the hut of the accused, and she found Laxmibai lying on a piece of gunny cloth and two stones stained with blood were lying near her and the accused was also sitting there. Vaijanta and Kashinath Bhimu Chandanshive (P. W. 5), who is also a neighbour of the accused, took out the accused from the hut. They, found Laxmibai unconscious. Other neighbours, Yeshwant Rama Bansode (P. W. 6) and Lakappa Lingappa Athavale (P. W. 8), also arrived there. Laxmibai was carried in the bullock cart of Vishwas Sopan Patil (P. W. 9) to the Primary Health Centre at Chinchani. On the way Keru Hari Tingage(P. W. 7), who had brought about the marriage of the accused and Laxmibai, met them. He also joined the party and went along with them to the Primary Health Centre at Chinchani. 3. At Chinchani Dr. Shivaji Lakhu Patil (P. W. 15), Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, examined Laxmibai at about 10.30 a.m. and found her unconscious. He also joined the party and went along with them to the Primary Health Centre at Chinchani. 3. At Chinchani Dr. Shivaji Lakhu Patil (P. W. 15), Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, examined Laxmibai at about 10.30 a.m. and found her unconscious. He found one contused lacerated wound over left upper eyelid and a contusion over the left cheek and left temporal region, four inches in diameter. Dr. Patil instructed the parties to take Laxmibai to the Civil Hospital at Sangli. Accordingly she was taken in a taxi to the Civil Hospital, Sangli. The accused and others, who were accompaying Laxmibai to the Civil Hospital, gave out that Laxmibai fell down from the bullock cart while she was being taken to the Primary Health Centre at Chinchani and got injured. The information was conveyed to the police-station. Laxmibai succumbed to the injuries on 27th September 1979 at about 6.10 a. m. Dr. Gopal Narayan Jog (P. W. 16) carried out autopsy over the dead body on 28th September 1979 between 12-30 and 1.30 p.m. He found two external injuries namely contused lacerated wound over right parietal posterior lip, 2 Cms. X 1Cm., bone deep, and a small abrasion with swelling and discolouration on left cheek. In his opinion, the injuries were ante mortem and were caused by a hard and blunt substance. On opening the dead body, he found haematoma on right and left temporal region in the area of five inches diameter, curved verticle fracture of right temporal bone and curved vertical fracture of left temporal extending to mastoid downwards. On opening the skull, extensive haematoma in the subdural on left temporal parietal region was seen. Those internal injuries corresponded to external injuries Nos. 1 and 2. In the opinion of Dr. Jog, the blows must have been given with force and the patient must have become unconscious immediately after receiving the blows. In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by Laxmibai. 4. After the post-mortem examination, Police Constable Hambirrao Mahadeo Sande ( P. W. 17) asked the accused to take the dead body in his custody. The accused told him that he did not have a piece of cloth to cover the dead body and he required some vehicle. 4. After the post-mortem examination, Police Constable Hambirrao Mahadeo Sande ( P. W. 17) asked the accused to take the dead body in his custody. The accused told him that he did not have a piece of cloth to cover the dead body and he required some vehicle. He left the place saying that he would bring a piece of cloth and a vehicle for carrying the dead body, but he did not turn up. He was absconding since then and was arrested on 16th April 1981. After necessary investigation he was prosecuted for the offence of murder of his wife Laxmibai punishable under S. 302, I. P. C. 5. There is no specific defence disclosed by the accused in his exalnination under S. 313. Cr. P. C. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found that the prosecution satisfactorily proved the charge under S. 302. I. P. C. levelled against the accused, and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced him under S. 302, I. P. C. as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant-accused, Mrs. Pingulkar, took us through the whole evidence on record and also through the examination of the accused under S. 313. Cr. P. C. The evidence of the neighbours, Vaijanta (P. W. 4), Kashinath (P. W. 5), Yeshwant (P. W. 6) and Keru (P. W. 7), shows that at the dawn of 25th September 1979 Vaijanta heard some sound of beating and also the cry from the hut of the accused, and, therefore, she went there. On entering into the hut she found Laxmibai lying unconscious on a piece of gunny cloth and the accused sitting near her. She also noticed one stone lying near the head of Laxmibai, and it was stained with blood. Kashinath, on hearing the cries of Vaijanta that the accused was beating his wife, also rushed to the hut of the accused. He noticed that Laxmibai was lying on a piece of gunny cloth and Vaijanta was holding the accused and pulling him out of the hut. He helped Vaijanta in taking the accused out of the hut. By that time Yeshwant had also arrived there. On enquiry by Kashinath and Yeshwant, the accused gave out that in a heat of anger he assaulted his wife with stone. He helped Vaijanta in taking the accused out of the hut. By that time Yeshwant had also arrived there. On enquiry by Kashinath and Yeshwant, the accused gave out that in a heat of anger he assaulted his wife with stone. Keru met the accused when he and others were carrying the injured Laxmibai to the primary Health Centre at Chinchani. 8. In his examination-in-Chief Keru (P. W. 7) stated that he did not have any talk with the accused, but in his cross-examination, when his attention was drawn to his Police statement dt. 5th October 1979, he admitted that he stated before the police that the accused told him that he beat his wife with a stone. He stated in the cross-examinatipn by P. P. that the said statement made by him before the police was true. Lakappa (P. W. 8), who resides in the neighbourhood near about the hut of the accused, on hearing the commotion went to the hut of the accused. He states that the accused and other, that is, Vaijanta (P. W. 4), Kashinath (P. W. 5) and Yeshwant (P. W. 6), were present there, and when asked what the matter was, the accused gave out that out of frustration he assaulted his wife with stone. When the above evidence was put to the accused at the time of his examination under S. 313 Cr. P. C. he admitted that when Vaijanta entered into his hut, Laxmibai was lying on a piece of gunny cloth and two stones stained with blood were there. He also admitted that he was present there, and when enquired by the persons who gathered there, he told them that in a heat of anger he assaulted Laxmibai with stone. 9. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the witnesses mentioned above to discredit their testimony. Most of the evidence given by those witnesses has been accepted as true by the accused in his examination under S. 313, Cr. P. C. It is in the evidence of Dr. Jog (PW. 16), who conducted autopsy over the dead body, that deceased Luxmibai succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. In his opinion, considering the internal damage, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. P. C. It is in the evidence of Dr. Jog (PW. 16), who conducted autopsy over the dead body, that deceased Luxmibai succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. In his opinion, considering the internal damage, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Consequently, we find that the learned trial Judge was right in finding that the prosecution satisfactorily proved that the accused caused the injuries found on the person of his wife and she succumbed to those injuries. 10. It takes us to consider, on the facts proved by the prosecution, what offence is made out. The learned Counsel for the appellant-accused contends that most of the prosecution witnesses have admitted that there used to be quarrels between the husband and the wife and the deceased Laxmibai had run away from her marital home three or four times and every time the accused brought her back. Even on the earlier day of the incident, that is, on 24th September 1979, in the evening she had left the marital home and went away. The accused had to search for her, and ultimately he found her and brought her home. She submits that on 25th September 1979 early in the morning when they got up there must have been a quarrel between the husband and the wife and in a sudden heat of anger the accused might have hit his wife with a stone which must be lying in the hut. She pointed out that the accused did not run away. On the contrary, on finding that his wife became unconscious on account of the blow with a stone, he sat near her and thereafter he along with the neighbours made arrangements and took her to the Primary Health Centre at Chinchani. The learned Counsel submits that as besides the accused and the deceased no one was present to witness the incident in the hut of the accused, it is not possible to know what must have transpired there, but one thing is certain that there must be a quarrel and in that quarrel the passions of the accused must have risen high and as a result thereof the accused appeared to have slapped on the cheeks of the deceased, thereby causing external injury No. 2 noticed by Dr. Patil (P. W. 15), and also might have assaulted her with the stone (Art. 2), and thereby the injury found on the parietal region might have been caused. 11. On considering the circumstances under which the accused assaulted his wife and the subsequent conduct of the accused mentioned above, it is doubtful that the accused intended to cause the death, or the injuries were sufficient to cause the death, of his wife. In a heat of anger, as given out by him immediately after the incident to the persons who arrived there, he gave one stroke of the stone (Art. 2) to his wife. The bigger stone (Art. 1) must not have been used. It is a very heavy stone, and had it been used by the accused on the head of his wife, the head would have been smashed to pieces. Therefore, we find that the small stone (Art. 2). which we have now seen and which appears to be less than one kilo in weight, must have been used by the accused in giving one stroke on the head of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the offence made out would be under Part I of S.304. I. P. C. and not the offence of murder punishable under S. 302. I. P. C. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant-accused will have to be altered from S. 302 to one under S. 304 (I) 1. P. C. 12. Regarding the sentence to be awarded to the appellant-accused under S. 304(I) I. P. C.. the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the sentence already undergone by the appellant-accused will meet the ends of justice. We are unable to agree with her. The accused has committed a serious crime, and as such in our opinion sentence of R. I. for seven years will meet the ends of justice. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant-accused under S. 302. I. P. C. and the sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside and instead he is convicted under S. 304(I) I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for seven years. Appeal partly allowed.