B. L. LOOMBA, J. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The occurrence relates to 12th April, 1977 at about 5 p. m. outside the house of the appellant and deceased Babu Singh. The prosecution case was that the water of the house of the accused-appellant was flowing out through the Sehan of complainant Ramesh Singh, Babu Singh, father of complainant Ramesh Singh had earlier complained to the appellant to desist from flowing dirty water of his house towards the Sehan of the complainant and eventually on the fateful day at about 5 p. m. dispute arose on the same controversy; accused-appellant Munwa came armed with a lathi having iron top and during the course of altercation appellant Munwa gave lathi blow to deceased Babu Singh and also caused lathi injuries to Remesb Singh, complainant, son of Babu Singh. Rajendra Singh son of Chandrika Singh who was also living in the neighbour hood received two abrasions. 3. Ramesh Singh received six lacerated wounds, one abrasion and a confusion. Babu Singh deceased received the injury as mentioned below: "lacerated wound 4. 5 cm. x. 5 cm. scalp deep, 7 cm. above the upper root of the right ear. " 4. Medical examination of deceased Babu Singh as also that of the other two injured persons was held on the same day (12-4-77) between 8. 20 p. m. and 9 p. m. As far as the injury of Babu singh is concerned the doctor advised X-ray and the injury was kept under observation. Babu Singh remaind admit ted in the hospital and eventually expired on 14-4-77 at 10. 45 a. m. 5. The first information report was lodged by the complainant on the same day at 5. 30 p. m. distance between the village and the police station was about three miles. Investigation proceeded in the usual manner having been carried out by Ram Kumar Singh (P. W. 7 ). Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. H. M. Saxena, Medical Officer on 15-4-77 at 3. 30 p. m. The deceased was aged about 45 years. Underlying the injury fracture in the area 3" x" was discovered. Lacerated wound fracture in the area of 2" x" X 112" was found in the membrane and brain, blood blots were also found. 6. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. H. M. Saxena, Medical Officer on 15-4-77 at 3. 30 p. m. The deceased was aged about 45 years. Underlying the injury fracture in the area 3" x" was discovered. Lacerated wound fracture in the area of 2" x" X 112" was found in the membrane and brain, blood blots were also found. 6. The case was initially registered under Section 308 I. P. C. However, on receipt of the inquest report it was converted from Sections 308 to 304 I. P. C. and charge-sheet submitted was under Section 304, 308 and 323 I. P. C. , on 22-5-88. Appellant Munwa surrendered on 18-4-77. 7. The defence of the accused-appellant was that the occurrence had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution and on the other hand a quarrel had taken place because the cattle of the accused were obstructed by Rajendra Singh, one of the injured, that Rajendra Singh had caught hold of the accused and it is deceased Babu Singh and his son injured Ramesh Singh who had beaten the accused with lathi and it was in his self-defence that he has wielded his lathi and that is how injuries were caused to the deceased and Ramesh Singh. The accused had pleaded that he had also received some injuries but no injury report was filed in defence. One witness, the Compounder in the Jail Hospital was, however, summoned with the record and according to that witness no injuries were found to have been caused to the accused at the time of his admission in the jail. No evidence was given by the accused to say that he got his alleged injuries examined on any day between the day of occurrence and his surrender before the Court. No other evidence in defence was given by the accused to prove his plea of serf-defence. This plea was accordingly rejected and in our view legally so by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. The evidence led by the prosecution in so far as the facts of the case consisted of the testimony of complainant Ramesh Singh-injured (P. W. I) and Rajeudra Singh, the other injured person (P. W. 1 ). All other witnesses were formal. 9. Learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the evidence recorded his conclusion that the prosecution case was established beyond reasonable doubt. All other witnesses were formal. 9. Learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the evidence recorded his conclusion that the prosecution case was established beyond reasonable doubt. He convicted the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. for having caused death of Babu Singh and also under Sections 308 and 323 I. P. C. for having caused injuries to Ramesh Singh and Rajendra Singh. Punishment for life imprisonment was imposed for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. while three "years rigorous imprisonment was awarded for the offence punish able under Section 308 I. P. C. and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 I. P. C. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal in so far as the acceptance of the prosecution case by the learned trial Court. His argument is confined only to the plea that this was a case covered by Section 304 Part I, I. P. C. It is submitted with some vehemence that it was not case of premeditated commission of offence and the quarrel had errupted suddenly and in the process the accused-appellant wielded his lathi and that this was done without any intention to kill. Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand submits that keeping in view the nature of the injury and the vital part on which it was caused intention will be attributed to the appellant and the case can at best be covered by Part 1 of Section 304 I. P. C. After taking into account the nature of the injury and the vital part of the body on which the injury was inflicted intention will be attributed to the appellant for the consequence of what was done by him and the case would in our opinion be covered by Sec tion 304, Part I, I. P. C. and not Part II as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal, as such, merits to be allowed to the extent that the conviction of the appellant would be converted to be under Section 304, Part I, I. P. C. and not under Section 302 I. P. C. The conviction under Section 308 as also under Section 323 I. P. C. , however, merits to be maintained. 11. Learned counsel for appellant next submitted about the quantum of punishment. 11. Learned counsel for appellant next submitted about the quantum of punishment. It is submitted that the appellant is in jail since 18-4-77 and as such, has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for more than 12 years. The fact that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of over 12 years is uncontroverted. We are of the view that the imprisonment of over 12 years which the appellant has already undergone is adequate to meet the ends of justice for the offence under Section 304, Part I, I. P. C. and the appellant deserves to be released. 12. The appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. is set aside and is converted under Section 304, Part I, I. P. C. He has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for over 12 years and the punishment under Section 3j4, Part I, I. P. C. is awarded for the period he has already undergone. His conviction is maintained under Sections 308 and 323, I. P. C. The appellant has already undergone sentence of over 12 years and that is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. Appeal partly allowed. .