S. K. SETH. J. ( 1 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Mahendragarh vide his judgment dated 15/2/1988 passed in Sessions Trial No. 126/87 convicted accused Sahdeo under section 302, I. P. C. alleged against him and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default, further RI. for two months from the same. It is being aggrieved by it that the said accused has filed the present appeal against his conviction and sentence. ( 2 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the Session Trial, we are of the opinion that in view of the evidence produced in the case the conviction of the accused appellant for offence u/s 302, I. P. C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is on the face of it perverse and cannot be sustained. ( 3 ) IT is significant to note that the case diary statement of P. W. 2 Lakhanram (Ex. D2) had been recorded by the police after about ten days of the incident. In the circumstances, his evidence in the Court carried little credence. Even otherwise, even if the evidence of the said witness was accepted in totality, so also other evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution on the particular point was taken into account, the only fact which was established from the said evidence was that being annoyed with his wife deceased Teharobai over a small and petty matter, the accused-appellant had beaten her with fists and blows. In the said connection, it is significant to note that it was after an hour or so of the said incident that deceased Teharobai complained of pain in her abdomen and died after some time. ( 4 ) IN the above context, it is not without significance that P. W. 12 Dr. Gajbhiya who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased did not find any external injury on the body of the deceased vide report Ext. P15 proved by him. In fact, it was apparent from a perusal of the report Ext. P15 that on internal Examination by him Dr. Gajbhiya had found that the spicen and liver of the deceased were enlarged and that in his opinion the said condition was due to pre-developed disease. P15 proved by him. In fact, it was apparent from a perusal of the report Ext. P15 that on internal Examination by him Dr. Gajbhiya had found that the spicen and liver of the deceased were enlarged and that in his opinion the said condition was due to pre-developed disease. Apart from the said abnormality, the doctor did not find any internal injury either on the spleen and liver or on any other part of the body of the deceased. The doctor was of the opinion that the death had been caused due to circulatory shock. ( 5 ) IN our opinion, the above said being the totality of the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution against the accused-appellant, it was perverse on the part of the Additional Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the hurt caused by the accused appellant to the deceased with his fists and blows was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and convict him of offence under section 302, I. P. C. on that basis. It is no doubt true that the fists and blows said to have been inflicted by the accused appellant on the decreased led to her unfortunate death. But, then, it is apparent that there being no evidence to indicate that the accused-appellant had the intention of causing such bodily injury as he know to be likely to cause the death of the victim, he could not be held guilty of murder. At the most, the accused-appellant could be held guilty of offence u/s 323 I. P. C. for which he could be awarded the maximum sentence of R. I. for one year. We find that the accused-appellant has already suffered RI. for a period of more than three years till now. Needless to say, the said fact more than takes care of the maximum sentence of R. I. for year that could be awarded to him for the offence u/s 323, I. P. C. proved against him. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accusedappellant under section 302, I. P. C. under the impugned judgment is set aside his said conviction IS altered to under section 323, I. P. C. and in connection with his altered conviction the accused-appellant is sentenced to R. I. for one year. The conviction and sentence of the accusedappellant under section 302, I. P. C. under the impugned judgment is set aside his said conviction IS altered to under section 323, I. P. C. and in connection with his altered conviction the accused-appellant is sentenced to R. I. for one year. It is directed that the accused-appellant having already undergone the sentence, he shall be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with any other matter. Appeal allowed. .