K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14-3-1988 passed by the n A. S. J. Ratlam in S. T. No. , 8/87 whereby the appellant has been convicted u/s. 304 Part I of I. P. C. and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to Pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R. I. for one year. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution at about 8 p. m. on I 1-12-1986 the appellant abused Waliyas brother-in-law Matru (P. W. 4) in presence of Waliyas guests and pelted stone at him injuring him on his head He thereafter demanded back from Mana loan advanced by him to the latter. On his saying that he would return it after some days, the appellant, with a log of wood lying on the spot dealt him several blows. As a result the victim soon died. ( 3 ) THE occurrence was reported to the Police which after investigation prosecuted the appellant u/s. 302 of I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE case of the appellant was one of denial. According to him be is involved in land dispute with Waliya (P. W. 1) and Jalma (P. W. 2) and they have, therefore, falsely implicated him. ( 5 ) DURING investigation Dr. Maresh Mitana (P. W. 12) conducted Post-mortem on 14-12-88 on the dead body of Mana and found the following injuries. 1-Abrasion below the medial end of right clavic 1'x 1' 2-Abrasion left side chest wall below the nipple multiple small 3-Abrasion on middle of forehead 1/2 x 1/2. 4.-Swelling deformity right thigh, crapitus felt, fractures shaft femer right side. 5-Fracture ribs right side 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th, 8th ofrt, sd. ( 6 ) AT the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as already stated. ( 7 ) THE point for consideration is whether the appeal deserves to be allowed? ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the F. I. R. is delayed and the prosecution evidence is inconsistent and the appellants conviction is not sustainable. ( 7 ) THE point for consideration is whether the appeal deserves to be allowed? ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the F. I. R. is delayed and the prosecution evidence is inconsistent and the appellants conviction is not sustainable. ( 9 ) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and find that there is no reason to suspect the F. I. R. and to defer from the conclusions reached by the learned Trial Judge. ( 10 ) WALIYA (P. W. 10) has stated that the appellant who is his brother had dealt blows to Mana who had died as a result and he reported the occurrence to his other brother Jalma (P. W. 2) who has corroborated this version. The evidence of Hakru (P. W. 8) is that he had examined the witness on 14-12-1986 and had found two abrasions on his body. Hakru has stated that the appellant had demanded money from Mana but he stated that he did not know what happened thereafter. He was declared hostile. ( 11 ) THE version of Ramachandra (P. W. 3) is that the appellant had demanded money from Mana and on his saying that he would repay after some days, the appellant had dealt him blows with log wood. ( 12 ) THE evidence - of Dr. Naresh Mitua (P. W. 12) is clear that the death of Mana had occurred due to multiple injuries to his chest wall. ( 13 ) SUGANBAI (p. W. 7) who is the daughter of Waliya has also supported the prosecution story. ( 14 ) IT is clear from the evidence discussed above that Manas death was homicidal. ( 15 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the conclusion that the appellant had the mens rea for the offence u/s. 304 Pt. I of the I. P. C. is not sustainable and he can only be held guilty of offence u/s. 325 of the I. P. C. ( 16 ) THE appellant had dealt several blows to the deceased with sufficient force. He can, therefore, be ascribed the mens rea for the offence u/s. 304 Part I, of I. P. C. ( 17 ) THIS brings us to the question of sentence. He can, therefore, be ascribed the mens rea for the offence u/s. 304 Part I, of I. P. C. ( 17 ) THIS brings us to the question of sentence. ( 18 ) ON a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a sentence of 7 years for the offence u/s. 304 Part I of I. P. C. would amply meet the ends of justice. The sentence imposed by the Trial Judge is accordingly reduced and that of fine is setaside. ( 19 ) IN the result, with the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant shall serve out the sentence imposed on him. Appeal dismissed. .