Judgment M. P. Varma, Krishna Ballabh Sinha, JJ. 1. This is a very short appeal. Sri Prakash Narain Pandey, learned Advocate, with his usual brevity in his argument, has addressed us only on the question of sentence, passed against the appellant. He did not attack the finding of the judgment impugned on merit. 2. The accused was put on trial on a charge under Sec.302 of the indian Penal Code (for brevity the Code) for committing the murder of one gajru Bin of village Gonna (better known as village Gautam Asthan) under police station Rivilganj in the district of Saran. The learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence brought on record, held the accused guilty of the offence under Sec.304 Part I of the Code, against which the accused has presented this appeal. The case against him is as follows. 3. The deceased Garju Bin, along with P. W.4 Panchdeo Bin and P. W.5 siri Ram Bin were getting back to their village Sitab Diara and when they reached near Gautam-Asthan-Temple, they stopped for taking water. P. Ws.4 and 5 had felt thirsty and both of them went inside the temple for drinking water; whereas the deceased Garju stayed on outside. Some time after, when both the witnesses p. Ws.4 and 5 came out, they noticed Garju moving in the company of this accused Chalu Bin. They in fact, saw them scuffling over the sandy stretch of land near the bed of river Sarju. It is stated that in course of the struggle, the accused sat over the chest of Garju Bin and hit him with a dagger on the neck and as well as on the abdomen resulting in his instantaneous death. By that time other two witnesses P. Ws.1 and 3 had also arrived and they too have testified to the facts as eye-witnesses to the occurence. The Police Officer of Rivilganj recorded the statement of P. W.4, drew up an F. I. R. , registered a case, held inquest over the dead-body and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against this accused. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination to hospital at Chapra and the doctor P. W.7 conducted autopsy over the dead-body. The Police Officer of Rivilganj recorded the statement of P. W.4, drew up an F. I. R. , registered a case, held inquest over the dead-body and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against this accused. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination to hospital at Chapra and the doctor P. W.7 conducted autopsy over the dead-body. The doctor found the following two ante-mortem injuries over the deceased : (i) Sharp penetrating wound 3/4"x " abdominal cavity deep on the front of the abdomen on left side resulting in perforating injury of the stomach 1"x 3/4" X stomach cavity deep with collection of about one pint of dark red blood in the abdominal cavity. (ii) Incised wound 4" x 1" X trachea deep on the front of the neck resulting in cutting the trachel rings and hyod bone and neck, blood vessels with dark red blood coming out of the wound. 4. The learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 14 of the judgment impugned has given a long discussion in giving his finding that the case of the accused squarely falls under Sec.304. Part 1 of the Code and finally, on hearing the counsel for the accused and also the prosecution, observed that in his opinion, ends of justice would be served in the case if the accused is punished with impri-sonment for life and accordingly, the learned Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under the said altered charge under section 304, Part I of the Code. 5. Sri Pandey, as we have said earlier, did not raise any grievance on the finding arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the accusation made against Chalu Bin for causing the murder of Garju Bin. However, it has been contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not assigned any reason whatsoever in imposing the extreme penalty of rigorous imprisonment for life and has disposed of the arguments of the respective parties with a single stroke of pen stating therein that the ends of justice would be served if the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. In other words, the learned Advocate contended that some modulating procedure should have been adopted by the learned Judge in imposing sentence. In other words, the learned Advocate contended that some modulating procedure should have been adopted by the learned Judge in imposing sentence. It has been urged that it would be always advantageous for the Court to look to the past conduct, social status, nature of the crime, the gravity of the offence including the cause for which the crime is committed in passing sentence against an accused. It has also been submitted that if the crime committed is such, which may shock the consence of the people in general and of the masses than extreme penalty of law may be imposed, otherwise in the present philosophy of imposing sentence, lot of amendments have been brought out in the Code of Criminal Procedure in imposing the sentence on accused. It has been submitted that keeping this in view, provision has been made that Court should hear the parties before passing an order of sentence. It has also been pointed out that Sec.428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been introduced for granting set-off of period of imprisonment, which the accused has to undergo or has suffered in jail. 6. Keeping the aforesaid facts in view, the learned Advocate has then drawn our attention to the evidence of some other witnesses with this limited purpose only. It has been argued that the informant is silent in the F. I. R. (Ext. I) that the accused sat over the chest of Garju Bin and gave dagger blow either on the neck or on the abdomen. Only P. W.5 is named as an eye-witness in the F. I. R. and this witness too has seriously contradicted himself in his earlier statement before the police with regard to the manner of hitting the deceased with the dagger. In court P. W.5 gave out that accused threw down the deceased Garju bin and thereupon assaulted him with a dagger. But in his earlier statement before the police he did not say so. Similar is the fact with regard to P. W.3. He is not named in the F. I. R. , but none the less, he did not speak in his earlier statement before the police that he saw the accused giving dagger blow on the chest. But in his earlier statement before the police he did not say so. Similar is the fact with regard to P. W.3. He is not named in the F. I. R. , but none the less, he did not speak in his earlier statement before the police that he saw the accused giving dagger blow on the chest. While referring to the aforesaid fact brought in evidence, the learned Advocate has argued that there is no evidence of any pre-meditation on the part of the accused to commit such offence. The evidence has been led to show that both were grappling with each other on the sandy portion of the land when Garju Bin had moved in the company of the accused near about the Gautam Astan Temple. It is not known what happened in between them which made them to struggle on the sandy land. It is no doubt that some dispute must have arisen which made them to fight, but since the witnesses were at a longer distance (though the occurence was quite visible), but the two were not audible to them and therefore, it remained quite obscure what passed in between the accused and the deceased and to what extent they fought which finally caused the accused to draw out his dagger and pierce on the neck and abdomen of Garju Bin. In other words, it has been argued that it cannot be said and that it cannot be construed that it was a ghastly Act and on some alteraction between the two, as it appears quite likely that on the spur of the moment, without any premeditation or thinking about it the accused took out his dagger and made an attack which accidently proved fatal, resulting in the death of Garju Bin. It is in this context that the learned Advocate has submitted that the circumstances do indicate for a lenient punishment even if it is held to be a case under Sec.304, Part I of the Code. 7. Mrs. Nilima Thakur, appearing for the State has, however, submitted that it must be held that the accused caused the murder of the deceased with all intent to kill him and it was on this account that he probably took him away from the temple premises to the open space in the sandy field near the bed of the river. Mrs. Nilima Thakur, appearing for the State has, however, submitted that it must be held that the accused caused the murder of the deceased with all intent to kill him and it was on this account that he probably took him away from the temple premises to the open space in the sandy field near the bed of the river. But however, she has further added that in the case of imposition of sentence, it is always the discretion of the Court. Needless to mention here that for an offence of murder punishable under Sec.302 of the Code only one of two alternative punishment can be awarded, it is either death or imprisonment for life. But in a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Court certainly has a discretion in passing the order of sentence and that is to be done considering the circumstances of each case. We may state here that we have not seen any uniformity in any case or in any of the judgment of the court blow in imparting sentence either of imprisonment or of fine, and it appears that every judge does so in his own wisdom looking to the circumstances in every case before him. Ordinarily, punishment to be imposed should be sufficiently servere to deter the accused to repeat commission of such offence and Act as examplary to others. But so far the present case is concerned, as observed earlier, the Court could not know what was the quarrel between the two and what led the accused to embark upon such an Act of giving dagger blow on Garju Bin. Since it is not coming to light, it cannot be ruled out that circumstances might be such, which prompted him to commit the offence on the spur of the moment without any premeditation and might not have intended to cause the death, as observed by the learned Sessions judge in the judgment impugned, while convicting him under Sec.302 of the Code. 8. Taking into consideration this fact and also the age of the accused and in the circumstances clear picture not coming before us, which led to committing offence alleged, we feel that sentence of eight years of imprisonment will meet the ends of justice and therefore, while upholding the conviction, the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years. 9. 9. In conclusion, the sentence of imprisonment to life is reduced to a period of eight years. With this modification in the order of sentence, this appeal stands dismissed. Decided accordingly.