M. D. BHATT, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the accused Bhaddu preferred from jail, who on his conviction under section 304 Part- II of the I. P. C. , has been sentenced to four years RI. ( 2 ) INCIDENT is of the intervening night of 23rd June and 24th June, 1984. Sumarlal is a person deceased. He was the appellant accuseds uncle, who being a widower used to live and eat at the house of the appellant accused himself. On the night of 23rd June, 1984, when the appellant-accused and his brother-in-law P. W. 1 Bhuwansha were taking their dinner, the appellant-accuseds uncle Sumarlal came. He was denied meals by the appellant-accused who told him that he did not do any work, on which the deceased replied that henceforth he would do some work. On this, the appellant accused, being annoyed, was stated to have given lathi-blows to Sumarlal, now deceased, and to have given him some first blows in his abdominal region. Consequently, Sumarlal died. The appellant accused himself made extra-judicial confession to certain village folk on the next day morning. Report of the incident was lodged at the police station. Autopsy on the dead body was done. Autopsy Surgeon P. W. 6 Dr. Thakur found a crack fracture on the left parietal bone, which in his opinion, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant-accused was then put up for trial under section 302 of the I. P. C. The appellant accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be ignorant of the circumstances, as to how, his uncle Bhaddu Vs. The State of M. P. had died. The trial Court relying on the eyewitness account of P. W. 1 Bhuwansha and the extra-judicial confession, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, the present appeal. ( 3 ) ADVOCATE Mrs. Mann, appearing as an Amicus-Curiae, for the appellant-accused, has urged that the solitary evidence of P. W. 1 Bhuwansha was not reliable and considering the nature of the incident and the injuries, the case at worst that could be made out was one only under section 323 of the I. P. C. In support of her arguments, judgment dated 7. 9. 1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 933/78 Vichitra Singh and Another v. State of M. P. was relied on. 9. 1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 933/78 Vichitra Singh and Another v. State of M. P. was relied on. ( 4 ) IT may at first be stated that the decision of this Court relied on by Mrs. Mann has no application in the present case in as much as the facts and circumstances of that case are altogether different. In the case cited, it was held that the head injury which bad resulted in the death of Jahir Hussain had been caused by one Lakhi Singh and the appellant accused Vichitra Singh of that case had simply retaliated the assaulted made by the deceased which had resulted in simple injuries. ( 5 ) NOW in the instant case, there is more than sufficient inculpating evidence against the appellant accused. There is no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of the eye-witness P. W. 1 Bhuwansha, who is actually the close relation of the appellant-accused himself and who has no reason to falsely implicate him. Narrating the background of the incident, he has deposed that the appellant-accused had given lathi-blows to his uncle Sumarlal and had also given fist blows in his abdomen. His version is found to be fully corroborated by medical evidence of P. W. 6 Dr. Thakur. This witness has also talked of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-accused before certain village-folk and also before him. He is found to be corroborated in this regard by P. W. 2 Jogilal, who has clearly stated that the appellant-accused had admitted before him and before others that he had assaulted Sumarlal now deceased, since he did not do any work. He has also stated that P. W. 1 Bhuwansha had also apprised him regarding his being the eye-witness to the incident. ( 6 ) P. W. 8 Forest Guard Jhinulal has also corroborated P. W. 1 Bhuwansha that the later had told him regarding the circumstances as to how Sumarlal had died at the hands of the appellant-accused. The other two witnesses relating to extra-judicial confession viz. P. W. 4 Janesha and P. W. 5 Sukkan are, however, found to have turned hostile. But as it is, there is more than sufficient evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession and on the tope of it, the oral testimony of the eye-witness P. W. 1 Bhuwansha is found to be one which deserves implicit reliance. P. W. 4 Janesha and P. W. 5 Sukkan are, however, found to have turned hostile. But as it is, there is more than sufficient evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession and on the tope of it, the oral testimony of the eye-witness P. W. 1 Bhuwansha is found to be one which deserves implicit reliance. Conviction of the appellant accused under section 304 Part-II of the I. P. C. is found to be well merited. However, sentence, as awarded, deserves some leniency considering the circumstance that the appellant-accused is a Gond i. e. a person belonging to aboriginal tribe and is an extremely poor man. lam of the view that three years rigorous imprisonment would quite meet the ends of justice. ( 7 ) IN the result thus, the appeal of the accused is partly allowed only in the matter of sentence. , Maintaining the order of conviction under section 304-II of the I. P. C. and modifying the order of sentence, it is ordered that the appellant-accused be and is now sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under section 304 Part-II of the I. P. C. The appellant accused is already in jail. .