The appellant was found guilty under section 3C4 Part I IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat and he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. It is stated at the bar that fine of Rs. 5000/- has already been paid. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 31.3.77 at about 9-30 A. M. there was an altercation between the family members of the accused and the complainants party. They are all related and father of the accused is the brother of the father of the deceased and they were living in the adjacent houses. On the date of occurrence it was raining heavily and as the accused, his father Indra Chand and brothers Lakshmjnarayan and Bhawrilal broke the rain pipe as a result of which the house of the deceased family got flooded. There was altercations and it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused Sankar and his brother Lakshminarayan and their father Indrachand came to the courtyard of their house. Father of the accused has a lathi in his hand, his brother Bhawrilal an iron rod and accused has a wooden lathi i. e. wooden rod used for locking the door. There was hot exchange of words and the father of the deceased was abused. Then the deceased with bare hand went near the accused party and asked them to assault him. Accused Sankar assaulted deceased on the head with the wooden lathi and thereafter he went inside the house. Deceased fell down. His father went to the police station, lodged the FIR. Thereafter deceased was taken by the police to dispensary and the doctor bandaged the injury on the head and he was brought back home. After sometime his condition became serious and removed to Jorhat Civil Hospital. In the night he succumbed to the injury. Prosecution examined as 9 witnesses including the doctor who conducted post-mortem. The accused pleaded not guilty. 3. Material exhibited is he weapon alleged to have been used in the occurrence. From the post-mortem report I find that there was only one external injury which was a lacerated wound under the vertex (head) size 1/4" X 1/4" (deep). 4. Drawing my attention to the evidence on record Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the appellant urged that with the wooden lathi, material Ex. 1, the injury could not have been indicted. From the post-mortem report I find that there was only one external injury which was a lacerated wound under the vertex (head) size 1/4" X 1/4" (deep). 4. Drawing my attention to the evidence on record Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the appellant urged that with the wooden lathi, material Ex. 1, the injury could not have been indicted. According to Mr. Phukan considering the internal injuries this injury must have been caused by a heavy weapon i.e. an iron rod which was in the hand of the brother of the accused. Learned counsel has urged that it was a case of mistaken identity and accused was not perpetrator of the crime. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel, inasmuch as, the occurrence took place in broad day light, parties were known to each other and P.W.2 father of the deceased and P.W.4 wife of the deceased have clearly stated that it was the accused who gave one blow. That only one blow was given is corroborated by the medical evidence. It is true that these witnesses were related to deceased, but on that count their evidence cannot be thrown out, inasmuch as under the circumstances they were the natural witness. So, I am not at fell impressed by the submission of the learned counsel. 4A. The second contention of Mr. Phukan is that this it not a case for conviction under section 304 either Part I or Part IIIPC. To bring home the charge under Part I of section 304 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the act was done by the accused with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In the present case, form the evidence of P.W.4 itself I find that accused gave only one blow and that too with a lathi and he immediately left the place. According to prosecution story, his brother was armed with an iron crow-bar and his father was also armed. The blow was given as a result of hot altercation and alongwith the accused his brother and father were with him. If the intention was to cause death definitely the accused persons would not have given only one blow causing injury which apparently was not of fatal nature. 5. The blow was given as a result of hot altercation and alongwith the accused his brother and father were with him. If the intention was to cause death definitely the accused persons would not have given only one blow causing injury which apparently was not of fatal nature. 5. In order to convict a person under Part II of section 304 IPC prosecution must prove that accused has knowledge that the act is likely to cause death or with the intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Consi­dering the nature of the weapon used, injury sustained I am unable to find that there was such intention on the part of the accused. 6. Mr. Phukan has rightly pointed out that even the doctors were not sure that injuries were of fatal nature, otherwise after giving initial treatment in the dispensary the deceased would not have been sent home. I have to take this fact also into consideration. 7. Prosecution has definitely proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused gave the blow on the deceased. It is, therefore a fit case to convert conviction from section 304 Part I IPC to section .:23 IPC. 8. The accused person has already undergone imprisonment for about 2 and half months and in my opinion this will meet the ends of justice. In coming to the above conclusion I have taken note of the fact that at the time of the occurrence the accused was only 21 years old and the occurrence took place in March, 1977. By this time the accused has established himself in life. In support of this Mr, Phukan has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Gulshan ts. State of Punjab, AIR 1988 SC 2110 . 9. When the attention of Mr. Paul Mazumdar was drawn to the provision of sub-section (3) of section 357 Cr. P.C. and the recent decision of Apex Court in Hari Kishan vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2127 = 1988 (4) SCC 551 , the learned counsel urged that compensation may not adequate in this case and the impugned judgment may be maintained. I have already stated that the prosecution has failed to make out a case under section 304 IPC. 10. I have already stated that the prosecution has failed to make out a case under section 304 IPC. 10. Sub-section (3) of section 357 runs as follows: "(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced." 11. In Harikishan (supra) at para 10 & 11 their Lordships observed as follows : "10. Sub-section (1) of section 357 provides power to award com­pensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused, In this case, we are not concerned with sub-section (1). We are concerned with sub-section (3). It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Per­haps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is to some extent a constructing approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. 11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compens­ation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies consider­ably. The quantum of compens­ation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies consider­ably. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by installments may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default." 12. In that case, compensation of Rs. Rs.50,000/- was awarded. In the case in hand also considering the fact that the young person lost his life leaving behind his widow, I am of the opinion that the accused may be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000,- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to the wife of the deceased. From this amount Rs.5,000/- which was awarded as a fine, if paid shall be deducted and shall be paid to the wife of the deceased. While awarding this amount I enquired from the learned counsel for the appellant and I was informed that the appell­ant is, a businessman and I am therefore, satisfied that he will be able to pay the said amount. I may add that I have altered the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone and separate sentence of fine has not been imposed and so sub-section (3) of section 357 Cr. P.O. is applicable. In the result, appeal is allowed to the extent that the conviction under section 304 IPC is converted to section 323 IPC and the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. Fine of Rs.5,000/- if realised shall be paid to the wife of the deceased and In addition the accused-appellant shall pay Rs.45.000/- (Rupees forty five thousand) only as compensation under section 357 (3) Cr. P.C. within a period of 6 months In default of payment of the amount, the accused shall undergo 4 (four) months simple imprisonment.