K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 5. 10. 1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1991 convicting him under section 302 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the accused-appellant, a resident of Kisirguda came to the house of Pangi Shyama on the date of occurrence, i. e. 24. 12. 1990, at about 9 A. M. and asked Pangi Domuni (P. W. 1), the wife of Pangi Shyama to provide him food. Pangi Domuni gave him raggi gruel and on his request permitted him to sleep in her house. Thereafter Pangi Domuni went to the field for harvesting Alasi crops. She returned home at about 5 P. M. and found the accused still sleeping in her house. After some time, Dirsaraila who was also known as Kissing Balla (the deceased) came to the house of Pangi Domuni to take her husband (accused) to the housy at village Misinguda. Thereafter Pangi Jaya (P. W. 2) and pangi Jaganath (P. W. 3) and their father Pangi Shyama returned home. Pangi Shyama went out to attend meeting in the village. At about 7 P. M. the accused-appellant, his wife (the accused), Pangi Domuni and her son pangi Jaya anq Pangi Jaganath sat together in the house to take their meals. It is alleged that the accused-appellant after taking his meal handed over the utensils to the deceased for cleaning the same. At that time, the deceased asked the accused-appellant whether he wanted to go outside to which the accused- appellant replied affirmatively. It is further alleged that the accused-appellant suddenly picked up a tangia which was lying in the house and dealt a blow with the said tangia on the head of the deceased and fled away with that tangia. The complainant Pangi Jaya (P. W. 2), his father and brother took the deceased who had sustained bleeding injury on her head to the house of the accused-appellant and left her there in his absence. The accused-appellant in the very night of occurrence at about 9. The complainant Pangi Jaya (P. W. 2), his father and brother took the deceased who had sustained bleeding injury on her head to the house of the accused-appellant and left her there in his absence. The accused-appellant in the very night of occurrence at about 9. 45 P. M. appeared at Somiliguda police station and orally reported to the Officer-in-charge of the said police station about the assault on his wife in the, house of Shyama Pangi at village Rajanaguda. Sri Asok Kumar Sahu (P. W. 13), the Officer-in-charge, Somiliguda police station entered the said fact vide Station Diary Entry No. 523 dated 24. 12. 1990 (Ext. 14) and directed Sri K. C. Patra (P. W. 12) the A. S. I. of Police to enquire into the matter. The said A. S. I. of Police seized one tangia from the possession of the accused-appellant while he was at the police station and proceeded to the house of Pangi Shyama and arrived there at 11 P. M. on 24. 12. 1990. Complainant Pangi Jaya gave oral report of the occurrence to which the A. S. L of Police reduced to writting, treated the same as F. I. R. and sent the same to the police station and took up investigation. He seized blood-stained earth from the house of the complainant, proceeded to the house of the accused-appellant and found his wife (the deceased) lying on the verandah of the house with bleeding injury on her head. He examined her and sent her to Snnaboda Hospital for medical examination and treatment. But she died on 30. 12. 1990 at 9. 30 A. M. while undergoing treatment in the said hospital. Thereafter the Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the same to Koraput Hospital for post-mortem examination, examined the witnesses and in due course after completion of investigation charge-sheeted the accusedappellant for having committed the murder of his wife. Hence the case. ( 3 ) THE accused-appellant denied his complicity with the offence in question and stated that on the ill-fated day at about 9 A. M. his wife went to the field for harvesting Alasi crops after taking her meals with him and that he went to Rajanaguda village to purchase hen. While in that village, he slept on the verandah of the house of Pangi Domuni. While in that village, he slept on the verandah of the house of Pangi Domuni. His wife came there at about 4 P. M. to call him for watching Alasi crops. He went to the field at about 5 P. M. when his wife was there is the house of Pangi Domuni. He disowned his knowledge as to the cause of his wifes death and pleaded innocence. ( 4 ) IN order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses but out of them P. Ws. 1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses. Believing their version supported by the medical evidence of the doctor P. W. 6, the trial court has convicted the appellant. ( 5 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no motive to cause death. There was also no intention to cause the samle. The alleged offence, if any, will be under section 304, Part II I. P. C. and not under section 302 I. P. C. ( 6 ) THE learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State supports the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the accused- appellant has relied on two rulings of the Apex Court reported in (Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab) and (Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu), but the facts of these cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case, at least the appellant knew that such an injury may cause death. The doctor (P. W. 6) has stated that the deceased had one incised wound of the size 3 x 1 x bone depth on the left side of fore-head extending: upwards. She regained her sense and was improving after admission till 29. 12. 1990. She died on 30th December, 1990 at 7. 30 a. m. while undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital. In his cross-examination, he has said that there was profuse bleeding from the injury by the time she (the deceased) was admitted, but he admits that he has not noted it in his report Ext. 2. 12. 1990. She died on 30th December, 1990 at 7. 30 a. m. while undergoing treatment at the Government Hospital. In his cross-examination, he has said that there was profuse bleeding from the injury by the time she (the deceased) was admitted, but he admits that he has not noted it in his report Ext. 2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of the weapons used and the injury caused by the accused-appellant, in our opinion, the offence is covered under section 304, Part I I. P. C. It is only an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not one under section 302 I. P. C. We, therefore, modify the conviction of the appellant from section 302 I. P. C. to that of section 304, Part I I. P. C. and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years. ( 8 ) WITH the aforesaid modification of sentence, the Jail Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed. .