JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Churu dated 19-2-86 rendered in Sessions Case No. 82/84 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held accused appellant Durga Rani guilty of murdering his wife and, consequently, he has been held guilty of the offence under section 302 1PC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 100/-. 2. Mr. Jobari, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant, does not challenge the fact that the appellant has murdered his wife in a state of anguish because she opposed the sending of their son for doing the work of a shepherd. She was of the opinion that the boy should be kept home for doing the work of agriculture, which resulted in hot exchange of words and then he gave beating to his wife causing in all the thirty injuries on her person as revealed by the postmortem report (Annex. P/11) From the postmortem report, it is clear that all those injuries were simple in nature. Out of them, five injuries have been inflicted on the head which are bone deep & two are on the face but none of them has resulted in any fracture. It is alleged that murder has been committed with a sharp edged weapon but the sharp side of the weapon has not been used. If the accused wanted to kill her wife, he could have safely used the sharp side of the weapon with which he was armed. The circumstantial evidence of extra judicial confession made, coupled with the fact of blood stained clothes recovered from his person. the blood group of which tallied with the blood group of the clothes of deceased, clinches the issue and unequivocally shows that it is the appellant who has murdered his wife. His wife was found lying dead in the Dhani which was situated in the agricultural field cultivated by them. However, the contention of Mr. Johan is that prosecution has failed to get it proved that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This was the duty of the prosecution but the prosecution has failed to discharge its duties and consequently, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, cannot be sustained. This was the duty of the prosecution but the prosecution has failed to discharge its duties and consequently, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, cannot be sustained. At best, keeping in view all the injuries that have been inflicted & the parts that have been chosen to inflict injuries, it can be treated to be a case where the appellant might have intended to cause such injuries which were likely to cause death and, therefore, the case does not travel beyond Sec 304 Part I IPC. Appellant is in custody since 1984. His wife has already been murdered and his children are left behind without parents. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of the things that the petitioner is set at liberty forthwith because he has already undergone a sentence of nine years. 3. This submission of Mr. Johari, counsel for the appellant, is not being opposed by Mr. D.R. Bohra, learned P.P. appearing for the State. 4. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to hold that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Churn that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, cannot be sustained, because it has not been proved on record that the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the conviction of the accused appellant Durga Ram recorded under Section 302 IPC is converted to one under section 304 Part I IPC. As the appellant has already undergone a sentence of nine years, we take a compassionate view and hold that this sentence is sufficient in the ends of justice. Therefore, appellant Durga Ram be set at liberty forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. 5. The jail appeal stands disposed of accordingly on merits.Appeal disposed of. *******