K. N. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT has been convicted under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarguja. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to prosecution there was old enmity between appellant Chhotelal and deceased Vrihaspati. On 22. 12. 1981 at about 1 p. m. there was an altercation and a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant gave fist blows to Vrihaspati and when Vrihaspati fell down, he gave him blows with kicks and stamped over his person. Vrihaspati received various injuries and died soon after. Babulal (P. W. 20), a neighbour, was informed about the incident and he rushed to the spot. There he saw that Vrihaspati was lying unconscious and appellant Chhotelal was standing there and abusing everybody in a state of great fury. Babulal lodged the F. I. R. at Police Station Manendragarh, the same day. After inquest - the body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. A. K. Mishra (P. W. 2) noted bruises and-abrasions on the body of the deceased particularly on the chest and epigastria region. On internal examination he found that 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on the left side and 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs at midclavicular line had been fractured. The fracture of the ribs had pierced the lung tissue on the right side. The liver was also lacerated. Death was due to internal hammerrhage and shock caused by the aforesaid injuries. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION among others examined two eye-witnesses Nanhu (P. W. 11) and Munni (P. W. 14 ). Nanhu stated that on the date and at the time of the incident he was close to the spot when he saw Chhotelal hitting the deceased. At that time Chhotelal was wearing SARKARI JUTAT, probably referring to the heavy shoes. The only point which was submitted against the probative value of the deposition of this witness was that he was a child witness aged about 11 years and was open to influence. It was not suggested however, during his cross-examination whether the witness was in any way under the influence of the deceased or his relations. The only point which was submitted against the probative value of the deposition of this witness was that he was a child witness aged about 11 years and was open to influence. It was not suggested however, during his cross-examination whether the witness was in any way under the influence of the deceased or his relations. The mere fact that he was a child witness could not be pressed into service for rejecting his testimony particularly when his cross- examination indicated that the witness was capable of understanding the questions and was giving relational answers. ( 4 ) MUNNI (P. W. 14) a girl aged about 15-16 years also stated the same fact. There are other witnesses who corroborated the statement of these witnesses in the sense that they immediately reached the spot and saw appellant Chhotelal standing there. Smt. Muniya (P. W. 15) corroborated Munni (P. W. 4) and stated that Munni had informed her that appellant Chhotelal and deceased Vrihaspati were fighting. Lalla (P. W. 16) and Ramkaran (P. W. 17) corroborated the statements of the eye-witnesses and thus the prosecution story was fully confirmed. ( 5 ) THE nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased bore ample testimony to the force employed by the appellant while he was stamping on him when he was lying on the ground. Appellants conviction under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code was, therefore, well merited. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in similar cases a lenient view has been taken by the High Courts and Supreme Court in respect of sentence. In the instant case since the appellant appears to have acted in a drunken state, the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment seems rather severe. The sentence is reduced to four years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant will get set off for the period of detention during or before trial. With this modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed. ( 6 ) THE appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender to his bail before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur forthwith and serve the remainder of his sentence. Session Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur be intimated accordingly for necessary action. Appeal dismissed. .