ORDER : 1. It is an unfortunate case. The sole appellant is none other than the real brother of the deceased, Smt Paro. On 25-1-1977 the deceased went inside her cattle-shed to find out whether there was any leakage; wife of the accused also came there and there appears to be some quarrel. The deceased refused to accede to the request that the water that is being discharged should be stopped. The accused on hearing the quarrel came there with a kulhari and gave one blow on the head of the deceased. It is alleged that he gave another blow with the blunt side on the leg. The occurrence was witnessed by three PWs and the accused ran away. Thereafter, the injured deceased was removed to the Primary Health Centre and then she was examined and treated and she was sent back to her house. 2. The A.S.I. on coming to know of the occurrence went to the house of the deceased, recorded her statement and registered a crime under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. The deceased died on 31-1-1977. Thereafter, an altered FIR was registered under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the inquest was held. 3. The doctor who conducted postmortem found one stitched wound on the right parietal region of the head and swelling on the right leg. On inspection of injury 1 the doctor noticed that there was a fracture of right parietal bone. He opined that this injury caused the fatal injury. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid and the accused pleaded not guilty. The eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile. The courts below, however, relied on the dying declaration and convicted the appellant as stated above. 5. We have gone through the dying declaration and other circumstantial evidence which amply establish the guilt of the accused-appellant. But, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant the offence may not amount to one of murder. The High Court also has noted this aspect, but having regard to the medical evidence the conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was confirmed. The prosecution case is that the accused came there suddenly when his wife and the deceased were quarrelling; he inflicted injury on the head and then the deceased was taken to the Primary Health Centre. It appears that she was not given necessary treatment. The prosecution case is that the accused came there suddenly when his wife and the deceased were quarrelling; he inflicted injury on the head and then the deceased was taken to the Primary Health Centre. It appears that she was not given necessary treatment. On the other hand, she was taken back to her house and thereafter, she was not treated for the injury at all. The injury appears to have become septic and resulted in her death. However, the fact remains that the accused inflicted single injury on the head as a result of which the deceased died after seven days of the occurrence due to some intervening circumstances. The offence committed by him would be one of culpable homicide as alleged; it may be attributed to him that by such an act he was likely to cause the death. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. Instead, we convict him under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The accused, who is on bail, shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 6. The appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. Appeal partly allowed.