Judgment A.S. Tripathi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 12-3-1982 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Basti, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 302 and 304 (Part I) IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant, Chingud, PW 1, was resident of village Pipri Police Station Khesaraha district Basti. Deceased, Rangi Lal, was his nephew. The complainant had gone to plough his chak. His nephew (Rangi Lal) was cutting grass nearby. Accused, Dholey and his brother, Bahadur of same village were digging, out their field. The witnesses, Badloo, PW 2, Muttur, PW 3, and Mohan Shanker, PW 4 and several other persons were cutting grass nearby. On 18-6-1980, i.e. the same day, at 5.30 P.M. Dholey and Bahadur, the two real brothers, started quarrelling with each other. Rangi Lal went to intervene. Whereupon accused, Dholey, gave blows by digging instrument (Kudal) on the head of Rangi Lal. Rangi Lal fell on the spot and died instantaneously. The complainant with the help of witnesses caught hold of accused Dholey alongwith Kudal. He was taken to the police station. The complainant lodged first information report, Ex. Ka 1 at the police station Khesaraha on the basis of which chak report, Ex. Ka 3 was prepared and necessary entries were made in the general diary and a case under section 302 IPC was registered against the accused. The investigation of the case was taken up by PW 5, Shyam Kishore Misra, Sub-Inspector. He reached the spot same day and prepared inquest report in respect of the dead body of deceased, Rangi Lal, which is Ex. Ka 5. The dead body was sealed and after completing necessary formalities and preparing challan nass, Ex. Ka 7, photo nass, Ex. Ka 6 and two letters, Ex. Ka 8 and Ka 9, the same was sent for postmortem through constables. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Accused, Dholey, was taken into custody and his statement was also recorded. The Investigating Officer inspected tie spot and prepared a site-plan, Ex. Ka 10. Samples of blood stained and plain earth were taken and kept in separate sealed containers and a memo, Ex. Ka 11, was prepared. Scrapped grass etc. were also taken in possession and memo, Ex. Ka 12 was prepared. The Investigating Officer inspected tie spot and prepared a site-plan, Ex. Ka 10. Samples of blood stained and plain earth were taken and kept in separate sealed containers and a memo, Ex. Ka 11, was prepared. Scrapped grass etc. were also taken in possession and memo, Ex. Ka 12 was prepared. Blood stained Gamchha of Rangi Lal was taken in possession and memo, Ex. Ka 13 was prepared. Blood stained Kudal of the accused was also taken in possession and memo, Ex. Ka 2 was, prepared. 3. Then the investigation of the case was taken over by Sri Ashok Kumar, Station Officer, who after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet, Ex. Ka 14 on 4-7-1980. 4. The postmortem examination of the dead body of Rangi Lal was conducted by PW 6, Dr. H.C. Pandey, on 20-6-1980 at 9 A.M. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Rangi Lal, deceased : (i) Contusion 2.5 cm x 2 cm on the outer side of the left eye. (ii) Contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on the left temporal region 2 cm behind left eye. (iii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the top of hand and towards the back side of head. Brain matter was coming out of the wound. 5. On internal examination of the dead body occipital and parietal bones were found fractured under injury no. 3 Membrane of brain was also lacerated under this injury. Posterior part of the cerbellum was coming out. The deceased was about 15 years of age. 6. The postmortem report, Ex. Ka 15 was proved on record. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven witnesses. 7. PW 1 Chingud is the complainant. He narrated about the incident as disclosed in the first information report. 8. PW 2 Badloo, PW 3 Muttur and PW 4 Mohan Shanker were eye witnesses and they have supported, the prosecution case. PW 5 Shyam Kishore Misra is the Investigating Officer who conducted main part of the investigation. PW 6 Dr. H.C. Pandey had conducted the postmortem examination. PW 7 Dr. A.C. Srivastava had examined the accused, Dholay, who had claimed insanity. The doctor found that he was of sound mind and the plea of insanity taken by the accused was bogus. 9. Accused, Dholey was examined under section, 313 CrPC. He admitted his guilt. PW 6 Dr. H.C. Pandey had conducted the postmortem examination. PW 7 Dr. A.C. Srivastava had examined the accused, Dholay, who had claimed insanity. The doctor found that he was of sound mind and the plea of insanity taken by the accused was bogus. 9. Accused, Dholey was examined under section, 313 CrPC. He admitted his guilt. He clearly admitted that he was quarrelling with his brother, Bahadur. Deceased, Rangi Lal, had asked for water from the son of accused and accused had forbidden him. The accused had just snatched his hand in which there was a Kudal which hit Rangi Lal, who died on the spot. He also admitted that he was arrested on the spot and his Kudal was taken in possession. He ultimately admitted in the last question that he attacked. Rangi Lal only because he had asked water from his son. 10. He had given some evasive reply regarding his arrest etc. Earlier he had taken the plea of insanity but he was examined by the doctor and found to be of fully sound mind. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. This appeal was filed from jail. The appellant had not engaged any counsel in this appeal. Sri K.K. Rai, Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellant. 11. We have heard learned counsel, Sri K.K. Rai, the Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 12. PW 1 Chingud, uncle of the deceased, Rangi Lal, gave the details of the incident. According to him at the time of occurrence he was ploughing his field. Accused, Dholey and his brother, Bahadur were quarrelling. Deceased, Rangi Lal went to intervene, whereupon the appellant, Dholey, was outraged and gave blows by Kudal and Rangi Lal died instantaneously on the spot. The witnesses reached the spot and appellant, Dholey, was arrested along with the blood stained Kudal. In cross examination the witness admitted that the appellant had given a blow by Kudal on the head of Rangi Lal. Dholey was arrested on the spot. The witness admitted that no family member of appellant used to come for Pairvi. He denied the suggestion that Dholey was mentally deranged. 13. PW 2 Badloo, PW 3 Muttur and PW 4 Mohan Shanker fully supported the prosecution version and corroborated the statement of Chingud in material particulars. Dholey was arrested on the spot. The witness admitted that no family member of appellant used to come for Pairvi. He denied the suggestion that Dholey was mentally deranged. 13. PW 2 Badloo, PW 3 Muttur and PW 4 Mohan Shanker fully supported the prosecution version and corroborated the statement of Chingud in material particulars. There is absolutely nothing on record to discard them on any point. 14. The appellant was arrested on the spot alongwith the blood stained Kudal and was taken to police station. The postmortem examination also reveals that Kudal injuries were given on the head of Rangi Lal. The medical evidence further corroborates the eye witnesses' account. 15. It was an unfortunate case, no doubt, that in a simple altercation the appellant was outraged and had given Kudal blows to Rangi Lal when he went to intervene in between the appellant and his real brother, Bahadur. The eye witnesses are fully trustworthy. There is nothing on record to suggest that their testimony was tainted on any ground. No enmity or grudge has been suggested against the witnesses. 16. The trial court had rightly rejected the suggestion of the defence that Rangi Lal might have fallen down on the ground in hurry and had received injuries on his face by his own 'Khurpa' by which he was cutting grass and this suggestion is uncalled for and the nature of injuries caused on the person of Rangi Lal could not be caused by simple fall on Khurpa. The accused himself had admitted in the statement given under section 313 CrPC that he had himself snatched his hand and Kudal had hit Rangi Lal. This admission itself shows that the injuries on the person of deceased was caused by Kudal and not by flail on the ground. The prosecution witnesses are consistent on the point and medical evidence also supported their version. 17. The plea of insanity taken by (the appellant was not' substantiated by any evidence. Dr. A.C. Srivastava who had examined him had found that the appellant was of fully sound mind and this desperate plea was not tenable. Simply that during trial the appellant was showing abnormal behaviour it was not justified to give him the benefit of insanity in this case. Dr. A.C. Srivastava who had examined him had found that the appellant was of fully sound mind and this desperate plea was not tenable. Simply that during trial the appellant was showing abnormal behaviour it was not justified to give him the benefit of insanity in this case. The trial court had rightly discussed the point in detail and found that the plea of insanity taken by the appellant was wholly uncalled for and was totally against the medical evidence on record. 18. Thus, it was established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant, Dholey had committed the murder of Rangi Lal in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and the same is established by the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence on record. However, we find that the trial court had convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and observed that; in the alternative conviction was also recorded under section 304 Part I IPC. This finding recorded by the trial court is contradictory and uncalled for. Once the charge under section 302, IPC was established there was no meed of holding that in the alternative the charge under section 304 Part-I IPC was also proved and conviction in each court simultaneously for two charges was uncalled for. 19. We find in the circumstances that the charge under section 302 IPC was fully established beyond doubt against the appellant and conviction should have been recorded only under section 202 IPC. There was no question of recording conviction under section 304 Part-I IPC in the alternative. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction recorded under section 304 Part-I, IPC in the alternative and held that the charge under section 302 IPC was established against the appellant and he was rightly convicted under that section. 20. After examining the entire evidence and circumstances of the case we find that the appellant has been in Jail since the date of occurrence. No bail was granted to him. Even no parole was granted to him. The appellant has already served for more than 13 years imprisonment. In our opinion it will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice if we direct that the appellant be released after completing 14 years of imprisonment as provided under section 433 CrPC. With these findings we dismiss the appeal. Even no parole was granted to him. The appellant has already served for more than 13 years imprisonment. In our opinion it will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice if we direct that the appellant be released after completing 14 years of imprisonment as provided under section 433 CrPC. With these findings we dismiss the appeal. However, we direct that in view of the provisions of section 433 CrPC the State Government may release the appellant, Dholey, after his completing 14 years of imprisonment. Appeal dismissed.