JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant Kalyansingh has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Partapgarh Camp Chittorgarh dated April 28, 1978 whereby the learned lower court has held the accused-appellant Kalyansingh guilty of the offence under s. 304 Part U, IPC and sentenced him to six years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo 6 month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that on July 15, 1977 Mst. Keli alongwith her grand son Balu went to graze her bullocks in Suriya Jangle of village Phalodi. It is alleged that at about 12 or 1 P.M., when they were grazing their cattle, accused Kalyansingh came there. Mst. Keli told him as to why he had cultivated this pasture land and this will result in depriving the village cattle of their legitimate right to grave in that pasture land. This enraged accused Kalyansingh. He had a wooden Jeva in his hand by which he inflicted as many as 17 injuries to Mst. Keli, by which, she fell down. She also sustained a fracture of tibia bone of the left leg on account of the injuries sustained by her. Balu, who was witnessing this occurrence, immediately ran informed his father Heera and his brother Bheru who were working on their well situated in their field. They immediately ran to the place of occurrence and saw the accused Kalyansingh running away from the place of the occurrence alongwith Jeva. Mst. Keli was in acute agony. On enquiry, it was told to them by her that she remonstrated Kalyansingh for cultivating the pasture land and, therefore, he has given her this beating. A cot was brought from the village and she was shifted to her residence. Heera and Bheru called the villagers to show them the injuries of Mst. Keli. They enquired from Mst. Keli as to who has beaten her, whereupon, she told them that Kalyansingh had beaten her with Jeva because she remonstrated him for cultivating the village pasture land. Mst. Keli died at about 5.00 P.M. on that day. 3. PW 4 Madanlal who is the grand son of Mst. Keli was called from village Rupaliya and he was sent to report the matter to the police. Mst. Keli died at about 5.00 P.M. on that day. 3. PW 4 Madanlal who is the grand son of Mst. Keli was called from village Rupaliya and he was sent to report the matter to the police. He first went to Police Chowki, Sadas from where, a constable accompanied him to the village and than he took him to Police Station, Gangrav, where, he lodged the report of the incident, which has been marked Ex. P 3. The police came into action. The spot inspection was conducted and site inspection memo and site plan were prepared which have been marked Ex'Ps. 2 and 6 respectively. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P.7. Fie gave information Ex. P. 8 about the recovery of the blood stained Jeva. On his information and at his instance, the Jeva was recovered from his house vide seizure memo Ex. P. 5. The blood stained clothes of Mst. Keli i.e. her Ghaghra, Chunari, Kanchali were also seized. The blood smeared soil and the piece of the Jeva were also recovered and all these articles were sent for chemical and serological examination. The seizure memo of the blood stained clothes has been marked Ex. P 10. The chemical and serological examination reports have been marked Ex. Ps. 9 and 12 respectively. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Mst. Keli was performed by Dr. B.N. Chopra. The postmortem report has been marked Ex. P 11. 4. After the usual investigation, the case against the accused was challaned in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, from where, it was committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Partapgarh camp Chittorgarh. The accused was charged with the offence under s. 302 IPC. He did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial, whereupon, the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses in support of its case. He has stated that he gave no beating to Mst. Keli. He has admitted that he got one Jeva recovered from his house which was blood stained but the blood found on Jeva was of his own. He was injured while mending his thorn fencing. He has also admitted that the Jeva was broken at the time when he was spreading the thorn. He led no defence. Keli. He has admitted that he got one Jeva recovered from his house which was blood stained but the blood found on Jeva was of his own. He was injured while mending his thorn fencing. He has also admitted that the Jeva was broken at the time when he was spreading the thorn. He led no defence. After hearing the parties, the learned lower court held that merely on account of some discrepancies creeping into the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding participation of one Foju, the brother or accused Kalyansingh, the"case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away in its entirety. It further held that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the participation of accused Kalyansingh in the incident is very much believable and acting on this testimony, it has convicted accused Kalyansingh as aforesaid It has held that from the very beginning, the prosecution has come with the case that it was Kalyansingh who gave beating to Mst. Keli with a Jeva and a piece of Jeva recovered from the place of occurrence and the Jeva which has been recovered at his instance and and on his information stained with blood and, therefore, relying on the ocular testimony supported by the aforesaid recoveries of Jeva and a piece of Jeva stained with human blood as also the medical testimony, it has held that accused-appellant Kalyansingh alone was responsible for causing injuries o to Mst. Keli. It has further held that in this case, the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment and no previous to kill cannot be attributed to the accused but it can safely be held that he possessed knowledge that by giving this amount of beating to Mst. Keli who is an old lady, she may die and, therefore, it has held, the accused-appellant Kalyansingh guilty of the offence under s. 304 Part II, IPC. 5. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Kalyansingh and Mr. B.C. Bhansali, learned Public Presecutor for the State. I have also carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Now, I have to decide whether the findings of the learned lower court can be sustained on the basis of the record or not? In this case, PW 1 Balu and grand son of Mst. Keli is the only eye-witness of the actual beating. Mr. I have also carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Now, I have to decide whether the findings of the learned lower court can be sustained on the basis of the record or not? In this case, PW 1 Balu and grand son of Mst. Keli is the only eye-witness of the actual beating. Mr. M.C. Bhandari,learned counsel for the accused-appellant Kalansingh has assailed his testimony on the ground that this witness was aged only about seven years at the time of the occurrence and so, he was not possessed of sufficient discretion so to base a conviction on his sole testimony. Even if he has witnessed the occurrence, he cannot be held to be a competent witness because of his age and moreover he has shown that he is amenable to the suggestions made to him and has tried to implicate Foju in this case by adopting the suggestion made to him after the evidence of his father and brother has been recorded and its contents brought to his notice. Thus, on the basis of his testimony, the accused should not be held guilty of the offence under s. 304 Part II, IPC. 7. I am afraid, I cannot agree to this submission made by Mr. Bhandari. It is true that PW 1 Balu is the child witness aged about 7 years. He has been put certain preliminary questions and the court found that he is a competent witness. Even a perusal of his statement will reveal that he is competent witness and has given a very forthright account of the events as they have happened. When he was examined by the Court, he has stated that his grand-mother was beaten by accused Kalyan Bapu with a Jeva at Mardiya Nadi. He accompanied his grand-mother to graze the bullocks in the Jungle. This incident took place at about mid-day. The accused has broken the left leg of his grand-mother and has also inflicted injuries on his back also. Thereafter he went to call his father and mother who were working on the well. He told them the complete details a to how the incident has happened. His father and brother then wet to the place of occurrence and brought his grand-mother to their house by carrying her on a cot. His grand-mother remained alive for quite some-time. After inflicting injuries, the accused ran away from the spot. He told them the complete details a to how the incident has happened. His father and brother then wet to the place of occurrence and brought his grand-mother to their house by carrying her on a cot. His grand-mother remained alive for quite some-time. After inflicting injuries, the accused ran away from the spot. He has admitted in his cross-examination that after one blow was inflicted to his grand-mother, he ran away from the spot to inform mother and father, and the accused did not run away till he left the place of occurrence. He has also stated that his field and well were not visible from the place of the occurrence as they were situated at some distance from the place of the occurrence. He has admitted that thorn-fencing was existing at the place of the occurrence. He was asked whether he ran away out of fear? He has admitted that actually he ran away out of fear. He has further stated that he saw the occurrence from a distance of about 10-12 feet. His grand-mother was beaten inside the thorn fencing whereas he was standing on the way outside the thorn fencing. He was asked whether his father and mother enquired from his grand-mother as to who has beaten her? He has stated that his grand mother told his father and mother that this accused Bapu has given beating to her He was further asked as to who was present on the well when he went to inform about the incident, to which, he replied that his father, and two sisters were there. He has admitted that his two sisters also visited the place if occurrence. He was further asked whether there existed any previous enmity between his family and the accused, to which he replied that no such previous enmity was existing between them. A critical scanning of this evidence clearly brings out the fact that he is a competent witness. He has clearly understood the questions and has given a forthright reply to them. From this statement, it is clear that only accused Kalyansingh has inflicted injuries to his grand-mother with a Jeva and the incident has taken place in the Jungle where they were grazing bullocks near Mardiya Nadi. 8. After this witness was examined by the Court and was let off PW 2 Heera who is the father of this witness. From this statement, it is clear that only accused Kalyansingh has inflicted injuries to his grand-mother with a Jeva and the incident has taken place in the Jungle where they were grazing bullocks near Mardiya Nadi. 8. After this witness was examined by the Court and was let off PW 2 Heera who is the father of this witness. PW 3 Bheru who is the brother of this witness, PW 4 Madan, PW 5 Bhela, P.W. 6 Deva, PW 7 Bhoority and PW 8 Ishwarlal were examined. After examination of these witnesses, learned counsel for the accused made a strange request to the Court that the child witness may be recalled for further cross-examination in the light of the testimony given by PW 2 Heera, PW 3 Bheru and PW 4 Madan etc., in which , they have implicated accused Foju also in addition to accused Kalyansingh. Foju happens to be the brother of accused Kalyansingh. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Court accepted that request and the witness was present in the court premises was recalled. It was asked to him as to who has give beating to his grand-mother, whereupon, he told that accused Foju and Kaiyansingh both gave beating to his grand-mother. According to him accused Foju was armed with an axe and a lathi and accused Kalyansingh was armed with a Jeva. Accused Foju inflicted an injury to his grand mother with an axe and accused Kalyansingh inflected injuries to her with that Jeva. It is quite probable that after Heera, Bheru and Madan etc. were examined in the Court, they might have talked over the matter in the presence of this witness and, therefore, he might have taken a clue from their discussion that accused Foju was also there. Taking of such a clue from the discussion of their kith and kin cannot be categorised as un-natural being a child of 7 years only, he might have thought that if his father and brother were taking the name of Foju, he may also implicate him but this is only an after-thought on his part. When he was examined by the Court during his earlier statement, he made no such attempt to implicate Foju. When he was examined by the Court during his earlier statement, he made no such attempt to implicate Foju. If the parents or elders of his witness wanted to tutor him, they could have done so even before his evidence was recorded by the Court in the earlier part of the day but no such tutoring was done with him and he gave a very correct and forthright version of the incident, which was observed by him. After the other witnesses were examined, his later testimony based on the suggestion which he had accepted on the basis of the discussion of the evidence of his father and brother, is an after-thought. A child of such a tender age can adopt the suggestion that Foju too may be implicated because his father and brother have implicated him but only on account of this lapse on his part, his earlier testimony, which is totally reliable and could not be shattered instead of a long and gruelling cress-examination, cannot be brushed aside. It may be that the other witnesses in order to implicate the brother of the accused have cast their net wide and this witness being a child of tender age has adopted their suggestion. This court has consistently accepted this view while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses that the principle of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus cannot be applied in India. I, therefore, agree with the learned lower court that earlier part of the testimony of PW 1 Balu is totally reliable and it has given a correct and faithful account of the events as they have happened. 9. PW 2 Heera and PW 3 Bheru were informed by PW 1 Balu about the incident and they immediately ran towards the place of the occurrence. They have stated that Balu informed them that accused Kalyansingh and Foju both have given beating to Mst. Keli and when they reached near the place of occurrence, they found accused Kalyansingh and Foju running away from the place of the occurrence. According to them, Kalyansing was armed with a Jeva whereas Foju was armed with an axe and Mst. Keli was lying there severely injured. Keli and when they reached near the place of occurrence, they found accused Kalyansingh and Foju running away from the place of the occurrence. According to them, Kalyansing was armed with a Jeva whereas Foju was armed with an axe and Mst. Keli was lying there severely injured. Even PW 4 Madan who has been sent to lodge the report in the police has stated that he told the police that Foju also took part in the occurrence but he cannot say why Foju's name has not been mentioned in the FIR (Ex. P. 3). This witness has stated that he lodged the FIR after getting the entire information from his uncle Heera and his uncle Heera told him that Mst. Keli has given this statement in his examination-in-chief but when he was cross-examined, he has stated that Pleeia told him that Foju also took part in the occurrence. It, therefore, appears that these witnesses have tried at the trial to implicate Foju also otherwise neither Heera nor Bheru have stated in their earlier police statements Ex. Ds. 1, 2, 3 and 4 that Foju has taken part in beating Mst. Keli. Similarly PW 4 Madan has not got it recorded in Ex. P. 3 that Foju also took part in the occurrence. Even when he examined in the Court, he stated in his examination-in-chief that Heera informed him that only Kalyansingh has killed Mst. Keli. He did not name Foju in his examination-in-chief. Likewise PW 3 Bheru too has stated in the earlier part of his examination-in-chief that when Balu came to inform them, he told them that Kalyansing was beating Mst. Keli. He further told that Kalyansingh started beating his grandmother as soon as he i. e. Kalyansingh reached near his grand-mother. He also told them that accused Kalyansingh gave beating to her with a Jeva and when they i. e. Heera and Bheru reached near the place of occurrence, he was accused Kalyansingh running away at a distance of one dori from his grand-mother meaning thereby a few pawandas, armed with a Jeva. It was only at a later stage of his examination-in-chief and in the cross-examination, that he asserted that Foju was also with Kalyansingh. It clearly shows that these witnesses have tried to implicate Foju, only when they were examined in the Court. It was only at a later stage of his examination-in-chief and in the cross-examination, that he asserted that Foju was also with Kalyansingh. It clearly shows that these witnesses have tried to implicate Foju, only when they were examined in the Court. It was not their case earlier at the investigation stage that Foju also took part in the occurrence and as such, this is an after thought attempt to implicate Foju, which should be disbelieved, depricated and condemned. 10. Simply becase these have tried to implicate Foju, it does not mean that their testimony regarding involvement of Kalyansingh is false. It will be worth-while to note here that all the injuries found on the person of Mst. Keli were blunt-weapon injuries. She had received no sharp injury whereas it is alleged that Foju was armed with an axe and thus, even on account of this fact the attempt of the witnesses to implicate Foju should be disbelieved. It may be useful here to mention that simply because the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is disbelieved sofaras to the participation of accused Foju in the incident, it does not mean that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding participation of accused Kalyansingh also should be disbelieved. In a similar case, their lordships of the Supreme Court in Molu & Others v. State of Haryana (1976 Cr. L. R. (S.C.)-387 ) at page-392 have observed as follows : "Even most of the injuries caused on the deceased are corroborated by the medical evidence inasmuch as they were inflicted by blunt weapon like a lathi. It is only in respect of the two accused Chandu and Manchand that some doubt regarding their participation arises in view of the absence of any sharp-cutting injuries on the deceased persons. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not at all justified in rejecting the entire prosecution case merely because a part of it was inconsistent with medical evidence......................It is well settled that the mere fact that out of many accused some are acquitted is not sufficient to entitle the rejection of the entire prosecution case. On the other hand, this Court has pointed out on times without number and particularly in the cases Abdul Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; (1)(AIR 1954 SC-31) ; Kanbi Manji Virji and Ors. On the other hand, this Court has pointed out on times without number and particularly in the cases Abdul Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh ; (1)(AIR 1954 SC-31) ; Kanbi Manji Virji and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2) (1970 S.C.C. 103) : and Dharam Das and others v. State of U.P. (3) (1973(2) S..C.C.-216) that the Court should make every effort to disengage the truth from the falsehood and tosify the grain from the chaff rather than take the easy course of rejecting entire prosecution case merely because there are some embellishments." These observations apply on all fours with the facts of the present case, and consequently, I hold that simply because the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is not reliable regarding participation of accused Foju, it does not mean that their testimony cannot be relied on sofaras the participation of accused Kalyansingh is concerned hence and it cannot be brushed aside in its entirety. 11. PW 2 Heera and PW 3 Bheru have stated that when they reached near injured Mst. Keli, they enquired from her as to who has beaten her and she disclosed to them that Kalyansingh and Foju have beaten her. Here too, the name of Foju has been added otherwise in their earlier police statements Ex. Ds. 1 and 3 respectively, they have not named Foju as the assailant of Mst. Keli. When their attention was drawn to this omission, they have only stated that they stated before the police that Mst, Keli told them that Foju also assisted Kalyansingh in inflicting injuries to but they do not know why this fact has not been recorded in their police statements. This is no explanation whatsoever. PW 4 Madan has gone to report the police after meeting Heera and Bheru and after ascertaining from them, the facts about the events and even after that, he got recorded in the Ex. P. 3 that only Kalyansingh has given beating to Mst. Keli. This clearly shows that the name of Foju was never disclosed to Madan before he left the village to report the matter to the police. The prosecution has also examined PW 5 Bhola and PW 6 Deva, who were called by Heera to show them the injuries of Mst. Keli and to ascertain from her the names of her assailants. Both of them have stated that Ishwarsingh and Onkar-singh have also accompanied them. The prosecution has also examined PW 5 Bhola and PW 6 Deva, who were called by Heera to show them the injuries of Mst. Keli and to ascertain from her the names of her assailants. Both of them have stated that Ishwarsingh and Onkar-singh have also accompanied them. When they enquired from Mst. Keli as to who has given beating to her, she disclosed to them that Kalyansingh has given beating to her. PW 5 Deva has further stated that the cause of beating was disclosed by her as the dispute about Charnot meaning thereby grazing ground. Of course, both witnesses have stated that it was not disclosed to them that Kalyansingh gave beating with a Jeva but this has come in the evidence of PW 1 Balu, PW 2 Heera and PW 3 Bheru that Kalyansingh was armed with a Jeva and he has given beating with that Jeva. PW 5 Bhola and PW 6 Deva are totally independent witnesses and they had an occasion to talk with Mst. Keli before she died. Both of them have stated that Mst. Keli named only Kalyansingh as her assailant and not Foju. Under these circumstances, the only irresistible conclusion that can be arrived at in this case is that only Kalyansingh alone gave beating to Mst. Keli with a Jeva. 12. The recovery of blood stained Jeva and its piece on the information and at the instance of accused Kalyan Singh further lends support to this conclusion. PW 9 Bahadur Singh has stated that he arrested accused Kalyan Singh on July 17, 1977 vide arrest memo Ex. P 7. The accused then gave him information about the recovery of one Jeva which he has concealed in his house. This information memo has been marked Ex. P 8. On the basis of this information, the accused Kalyansingh got one Jeva and its piece recovered from his house. Its recovery memo has been marked Ex. P.5. PW 8 Ishwarlal and PW11 Umaid Singh have also supported this recovery and proved the recovery memo Ex. P 5. The Jeva has been identified as Ex.4 and its piece has been identified as Ex. 5. These articles were seized and sealed at the spot as per the testimony of these witnesses and were sent for chemical and serological examination. The chemical report shows that they were blood stained whereas serological report Ex. P 5. The Jeva has been identified as Ex.4 and its piece has been identified as Ex. 5. These articles were seized and sealed at the spot as per the testimony of these witnesses and were sent for chemical and serological examination. The chemical report shows that they were blood stained whereas serological report Ex. P9 shows that they were stained with human blood. Their blood group could not be ascertained as the blood found on these articles was not sufficient for the test but still it has categorically come in evidence that Article 4 Jeva and its piece Article 5 were found stained with human blood. All the prosecution witnesses have stated that Mst, Keli was beaten by accused Kalyansingh with the help of Jeva and therefore, the recovery of this Jeva and its piece which has been found stained with human blood further leads support to the testimony of PW 1 Balu that accused Kalyansingh has availed Mst. Keli with the Jeva and has caused injuries to her with it. Of course, the accused has taken the plea that it was stained with his own blood while he was mending his thorn fencing but he has produced no evidence to prove this fact and, therefore, his bald statement is not enough to hold that Jeva was stained with his own blood. It appears Kalyansingh was passing by the side of Mst. Keli. She remonstrated him as to why he has cultivated the pasture land and, thereby, reduced the facility available to the cattle of the village to graze there. This probably enraged accused Kalyansingh who was armed with a Jeva and at the spur of the moment, he started beating her. It is true that he has inflicted 17 injuries to Mst. Keli, two of which were grievous i.e. fractures of left tibia and metacorpal bone of left finger. Mr. M.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Kalyansingh addressed the court regarding the nature of offence which can be held as made out in this case against accused Kalyansingh. According to him, most of the injuries found on the person of Mst, Keli were on her non-vital parts and were simple in nature. PW 10 Dr. B.N. Chopra has stated that all the 17 injuries found on the dead body of Mst. According to him, most of the injuries found on the person of Mst, Keli were on her non-vital parts and were simple in nature. PW 10 Dr. B.N. Chopra has stated that all the 17 injuries found on the dead body of Mst. Keli were received by her prior to her death and no injury was found on her head. Mst. Keli died because of the shock received as a result of the infliction of numerous injuries on her person by which her leg and finger were fractured. He has proved the postmortem report Ex. P 11. According to him, these injuries were cumulatively sufficient to cause her death and they could be caused by the blunt weapon like lathi. He has admitted in his cross-examination that no injury was found on the vital organ of the body of Mst. Keli and none of the injuries individually was sufficient to cause her death. Mr. Bhandari has, therefore, submitted that at best, the accused Kalyansingh should be held guilty under sections 325 and 323 IPC as the accused had no intention to kill her. The occurrence took place all of a sudden. Even the accused can not be attributed with knowledge to cause such injuries as are likely to cause death because no vital organ was availed and the beating was also not pre-meditated. No previous enmity was also existing between them. Mr. Bhandari has, however, submitted that Mst. Keli was an old and aged lady of 75 years. She has been inflicted 17 injuries out of which two were grievous. May be that her vital organs have not been availed but when the accused has caused such number of injuries to her, it can safely be assumed that the accused-appellant Kalyansingh possessed the knowledge that by inflicting such a large number of injuries to Mst. Keli, she is likely to die. In this respect, he drew my attention to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Molu & Others v. State of Haryana (supra). In that case, two persons were killed. One of the deceased i.e. Ramnath received 14 injuries whereas the other deceased Banwari received 16 injuries. Both these injured persons died because of the shock and haemorrhage. In that case, two persons were killed. One of the deceased i.e. Ramnath received 14 injuries whereas the other deceased Banwari received 16 injuries. Both these injured persons died because of the shock and haemorrhage. No vita organs of the deceased were availed by the accused and the injuries inflicted to the deceased on her vital organs were very trivial in nature which could not have caused death. One of the injuries found on the person of deceased Ramnath was grievous in nature and in the case of deceased Banwari, there was a fracture on outer lower ⅓rd of left upper-arm. Injuries No. 14 of deceased Ramnath and 15 and 16 of deceased Banwari were inflicted on head but they were extremely superficial and could not have caused the death of the deceased. After discussing the evidence on record, their lordships of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that of course, the offence under s. 302 IPC was not made out but the offence under s. 304 Part II, IPC was fully made out. The injuries received by deceased Banwari in Molu's case (supra) are almost similar to the injuries received by deceased Mst. Keli in this case. The additional fact in this case which may be noticed is that at the time of infliction of injuries, deceased Mst. Keli was aged about 75 years and, therefore, when accused Kalyansingh used the Jeva to inflict a large number of injuries on her person, it could certainly have caused shock to her and actually Mst. Keli has met her and on account of shock and heamorrhage. Therefore, I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the offence under s. 304 Part II, IPC is fully made out against the accused Kalyansingh. 13. Now, so far as sentence is concerned, the accused-appellant Kalyansingh has been sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/-. The occurrence dates back to July 15, 1977 i.e. almost eight and half years have elapsed. The incident was not pre-meditated and took place at the spur of the moment. No previous enmity was existing between the accused and the deceased. The motive for the crime was also trivial in nature. 500/-. The occurrence dates back to July 15, 1977 i.e. almost eight and half years have elapsed. The incident was not pre-meditated and took place at the spur of the moment. No previous enmity was existing between the accused and the deceased. The motive for the crime was also trivial in nature. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to take a lenient view regarding the sentence and fully persuaded to hold that the ends of justice will be served if the accused is sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 14. In the result, this appeal partially succeeds and the conviction of the accused-appellant Kalyansingh under s. 304 Part II, IPC is maintained. However, the sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- is modified and reduced to three years rigours imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The accused-appellant Kalyansingh is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender himself before the learned Sessions Judge, Partapgarh to serve out the sentence imposed against him. The learned Sessions Judge, Partapgarh is also directed to effect the arrest of the accused to serve out the remaining sentence imposed against him.Appeal partly allowed. *******