JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is direct.A against the judgment dated July 12, 1984 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh by which the appellant Mangiya @ Mangilal was tried for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergone one months R.I. 2. The case related to an occurrence which took place on April 19, 1982 at village-Samarda. Appellant is said to have committed the murder of his father Bhairoon at about 9.00-9.30 P.M. by causing injuries with a 'danda'. 3. At the commencement of the arguments Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he would not press the appeal on merits, rather wants to submit that even if prosecution story, is taken to be true, the case does not fall within the definition of murder. The learned counsel referred to the statements of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that there was a sudden quarrel regarding the character of Mst. Narayani (PW 2), sister of the appellant and daughter of the deceased and in that quarrel the appellant substained injury at the hands of Bhairoon and he in his turn caused injuries to the latter. According to the learned counsel even if the prosecution case is taken to be true that the injuries were caused by the appellant to his father deceased Bhairoon with a lathi, the intention to commit murder cannot be inferred. The reason according to the Id. counsel for the appellant is that the weapon of offence is said to be a one and half feet long `danda' called 'Nijwan-ki-lakdi' used in the side of bullock cart. It has also been stressed that from the medical evidence it is evident that the cause of death was peripheral circulatory failure due to massive hemorrhage and shock resulting from traumatic spleen rupture and therefore it is not a case where the assailant might have intended to cause a particular injury. 4. Mr. R.C. Maheshwary, learned Public Prosecutor controverted these contentions and submitted that without there being any fault of the old man, i.e. deceased Bhairoon, the appellant picked up quarrel and in that quarrel inflicted lathi blows on the back of the deceased causing fracture of three ribs and rapture of spleen resulting into his death and therefore, conviction under section 302 IPC stands justified. 5. 5. We have carefully perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses. From the statements of Mst. Prabhudi (PW 1), wife of the deceased Mst. Narayani (PW 2) Mst Kali Sukhlal (PW 6) Bhagsingh (PW 7) (PW 3), daughters of deceased Bhawanti Ram (PW 5) Ghasi (PW 8) and Kaluram (PW 9). It is proved that quarrel had taken place between the father and the son on Narayani (PW 2) residing with the former. The prosecution case regarding the quarrel having taken place on the question of clearing the mud from the well has not been believed by the learned trial Judge and in our opinion rightly so. From the statements of the witnesses, it has come on record that Mangiya @ Mangilal objected to Narayani (PW 2) living with his father on the ground that she was not leading a chaste life and was bringing bad name to the family. In the cross-examination, it has been suggested to the three ladies i.e. Mst. Prabhudi (PW 1), Mst. Narayani (PW 2) and Mst. Kali (PW 3) that Mangiya @ Mangilal alleged that Bhairoon was indulging into prostitution of Mst. Narayani (PW 2) whereupon Bhairoon retorted that it is his concern and whether he does it or not, his wife (wife of the appellant) would do so. This is said to be the initial version of the prosecution but at the trial the witnesses bid good by to it and had confined their statements to the appellant alleging against the father regarding the prostitution of Mst. Narayani (PW2) Mst. Prabhudi (PW1) has admitted that Mst. Narayani (PW 2) had left her husband Pratap many years ago. Then she eloped with Gangadas who is now dead. The suggestion about Mst. Narayani (PW 2) at the relevant time having illicit relations with Hiralal Patidar has been denied by Mst. Pradhudi (PW I) and Mst. Narayani (PW 2) but the prosecution witnesses Baghsingh (PW 7), Ghasi (PW 8) and Rampratap (PW 12) have stated that the relations between Mst. Narayani and Hiralal Patidar were objectionable and Hiralal used to visit the house of Bhairoon where Mst. Narayani (PW 2) was residing. It has also been stated by those witnesses that three or four times Mst. Narayani (PW 2) and Hiralal Patidar were caught red handed. Mst. Narayani has denied the fact of her eloping with Gangadas even. As such her statement does not inspire confidence. Narayani (PW 2) was residing. It has also been stated by those witnesses that three or four times Mst. Narayani (PW 2) and Hiralal Patidar were caught red handed. Mst. Narayani has denied the fact of her eloping with Gangadas even. As such her statement does not inspire confidence. 6. The incident as evident from the record has taken place on the point of Mangiya @ Mangilal asking his father to give Mst. Narayani in `nata' so that the bad name to the family may be avoided. From the statements of the eye witnesses, supported by the medical evidence it is established that Bhairoon had also sustained injuries. There is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution case that those injuries were caused by the appellant with a 'danda'. We find ourselves unable to agree with the defence version that the injuries were substained by Bhairoon by a fall. The injuries sustained by Bhairoon are as under :Wounds & Bruises : 1. A lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" size on the left parietal area of scalp. It is 11/2" away from the midline of scalp and is present longitudinally. Broken hairs present in the wound. 2. (a) Two are placed parallel to each other but 11/2" apart each measuring 7" x 1" extending from the mid thoracic spines to downwards towards left axillary line. (b) A single rounded bruise, 3" in diameter present on the right side of back 2" below the inferior angle of shoulder blade. Spleen Present in the left hypochondrium in the splenic fossa 6" x 4" x 3" size and weighing 200 gms. The organ is pale & friable. The outer convex surface has a ragged tear 3" x 1/2" x 1". The whole organ is immersed in blood. The capsule of the organ is also torn at the site of tear in the spleen itself. 7. The cause of death according to Dr. P.C. Gangwal (PW 13) was peripheral circulatory failure due to massive haemorrage and shock resulting from traumatic splean rupture. 8. From all these circumstances, all that can be inferred is that hot altercation ensued between the father and the son. The son also sustained one injury as given in Ex. D 7 and the father sustained three injuries with blunt object. The fourth injury rupture on spleen was internal. 9. 8. From all these circumstances, all that can be inferred is that hot altercation ensued between the father and the son. The son also sustained one injury as given in Ex. D 7 and the father sustained three injuries with blunt object. The fourth injury rupture on spleen was internal. 9. Looking to the cause of quarrel, the weapon used and the nature of the injuries, it cannot be said that the appellant has any intention to commit the murder of his father. In such circumstances, the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC. 10. The next question to be determined is whether the appellant had any intention to cause any injury to his father which was likely to cause death. 11. From the above discussion, we are of the opinion that intention of the type envisaged by Section 304 Part-I cannot be attributed to the appellant. The appellant having used a 'danda' for inflicting injuries to his old father can be attributed with knowledge that by his act, his father may sustain injuries likely to cause death. In this view of the matter, the appellant is held guilty for the offence u/s. ?04 Part-II IPC. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case discussed above. We are of the opinion that RI for three years would meet the ends of justice. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment of life awarded on that count are set aside. He is instead of convicted under section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to three years RI. The appellant was arrested on April 20, 1982 and is in Jail since then. He has undergone the sentence awarded to him by this judgment. He shall be set to liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******