KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant Bachey against the judgment and order dated 18/12/1979, passed by Sri J. P. Sinha, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Farukhabad, in Session Trial No. 316 of 1979, whereby he has convicted the appellant under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and has awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment to him. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Patiram, informant of the case, and his brother Mewa Ram deceased, Babu Ram, Itwari (P. W. 3), Ram Naresh and Radhey Shyam were sitting on the Chabutra of Patiram in village Gadariyan Nagla, hamlet of village Bhojpur, within the police station Kamal Ganj, district Farrukhabad, at 7. 00 p. m. on 25/3/1978. The appellant Bachey is said to have arrived there and abused his neighbours that they do not know how Holi Milan is celebrated. Deceased Mewa Ram asked him not to abuse whereupon the appellant is said to have brought a stick from a bullock cart and struck a blow on the head of Mewa Ram. Mewa Ram fell down and died on the spot and accused appellant thereafter ran away. An F. I. R. of this incident was lodged at the police station Kamal Ganj, district Farrukhabad, by Patiram, brother of the deceased at 9. 00 p. m. the same day, i. e. on 25/2/1978, and the case was registered against the appellant. The postmortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Sabir Husain (P. W. 4) on 24/3/1978 and he found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. : Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x brain deep on the top of middle occipital and parietal underneath were fractured and were filled up by blood under the wound". Kailash Narain Singh, Sub Inspector, investigated the case. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan and also completed other formalities. After completion of the investigation he submitted the charge sheet against the accused-appellant. ( 3 ) IN the court below the appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined Patiram (P. W. 1) and Itwari (P. W. 3) as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. After completion of the investigation he submitted the charge sheet against the accused-appellant. ( 3 ) IN the court below the appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined Patiram (P. W. 1) and Itwari (P. W. 3) as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. Sabir Hussain was examined as P. W. 4, who conducted the postmortem on the dead-body and Kailash Narain Singh was examined as P. W. 5, who had investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant. Besides above, one Ganga Charan A wasthi, constable, was also examined as P. W. 2 in order to prove that he brought the dead body of Mewa Ram from the place of occurrence to the mortuary in a sealed condition. ( 5 ) THE accused-appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution version and stated that deceased Mewa Ram in a drunken state was abusing Parshadi and also gave a lathi blow to him. The appellant asked not to do so whereupon he struck a lathi blow to him as well. In self defence the appellant tried to save himself with a stick which hit the deceased. In order to prove defence version the accused examined one Raghuraj Singh as D. W. 1, who scribed the First Information Report lodged on behalf of the complainant. ( 6 ) THE witnesses Patiram and Itwari fully supported the prosecution version whereas defence witness Raghuraj Singh stated to the effect that when he reached at the scene of occurrence the dead body of Mewa Ram was lying there and he also saw a lathi lying there. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution ,version and after considering the entire evidence on record held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amar Saran, tried to establish that the appellant wielded stick in self defence which struck the deceased as a result of which he died on the spot. To ascertain the veracity of this argument of the learned counsel, I have carefully scrutinised the statements of the witnesses on record and other material available on the file but I find myself unable to hold that a case of self defence was made out by the appellant. To ascertain the veracity of this argument of the learned counsel, I have carefully scrutinised the statements of the witnesses on record and other material available on the file but I find myself unable to hold that a case of self defence was made out by the appellant. Rather the evidence led by the prosecution fully establishes the guilt of the appellant and I do not find any infirmity in the testimony of ocular witnesses examined by the prosecution, who are wholly reliable. ( 9 ) IN the last, the learned counsel for the appellant argued on the question of sentence and submitted that the accused appellant at the time of occurrence was a young man and was about 21 years old. He had no bad antecedents and was not a previous convict. He is also resident of the same village to which the deceased and the witnesses belong and it would not be proper to send him behind the bars after a period of 12 years and further the parties cannot live peacefully and without enmity if the sentence awarded to the appellant is maintained. He is not alleged to have repeated the blow. The learned counsel also relied upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Yogendra Murarji v. State of Gujarat in which conviction of the accused under section 304 Part II was upheld but his sentence was reduced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. 00 In the similar manner the learned counsel urged that in this case also the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone as the appellant has already remained in Jail for about a month, and some fine may also be imposed upon him. In my opinion the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is plausible to some extent. In case the conviction of the appellant under section 304 Part II is maintained and the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 10,000. 00 is imposed, it would be met the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under section 304 Part II, I. P. C. is maintained. 10,000. 00 is imposed, it would be met the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under section 304 Part II, I. P. C. is maintained. However, his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and to a fine of Rs. 10,000. 00, to be deposited within three months from today. In case the amount of fine is deposited by the appellant, out of it a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 would be paid to the widow of the deceased. If the widow is not alive, then this amount may be paid to his (deceased) surviving heirs. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged. ( 11 ) HOWEVER, if the amount of fine is not deposited by the appellant within the time allowed, then he would be taken into custody and shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years instead of seven years as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, under section 304 part II, I. P. C. Appeal allowed in part. .