JUDGMENT A.A. Desai, J. - The Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on the strength of testimony of P.W. 2 Kalu coupled with medical evidence tendered by P.W. 6 Dr. Deshmukh, recorded the finding of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused for having assaulted his wife Saraswatibai on 21.9.1986 at village Chutiya, Police Station Dharni, resulting in her death. While questioning the correctness of the finding of conviction, Mr. Daga mainly submitted that P.W. 2 Kalu could not be a reliable witness. He was not ordinary resident of village Chutiya. His presence at the relevant time in the village itself was accidental. The Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in accepting his testimony. 2. Having regard to the ground as raised, we have examined the testimony of P.W. 2 Kalu. He is a fisherman and used to frequently visit vi1lage of accused for selling fishes. Accused was his regular customer. On the day of incident, at about 10 a.m., he visited the house of accused when he saw accused was assaulting Saraswatibai with the aid of Article-l (stick). In cross-examination the only omission brought is as regards the injury mark on the various parts of the body. His testimony otherwise remained intact. 3. This witness could not, be treated as a chance witness as he was a regular visitor to the village of appellant/accused. Moreover, he has intervened at the time of incident and question7d the accused. This aspect of the testimony was not seriously questioned in cross-examination. As such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in accepting the testimony to record the finding of conviction. 4. The next ground urged by Mr. Daga is that having regard to the medical evidence and nature of injury, the offence could not be one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He urged, even if death of Saraswatibai was homicidal, it could not be amounting to murder. 5. This submission has been very seriously resisted by Mr. R.N. Desai. According to him, while inflicting injury, the accused had a definite intention to murder of his wife Saraswatibai. In support of his submission, he also invited our attention to the, testimony of P.W. Kalu. He stated, when he intervened at the time of incident of assault, accused said to him that he wanted to kill his wife. Mr. R.N. Desai. According to him, while inflicting injury, the accused had a definite intention to murder of his wife Saraswatibai. In support of his submission, he also invited our attention to the, testimony of P.W. Kalu. He stated, when he intervened at the time of incident of assault, accused said to him that he wanted to kill his wife. Mr. Desai further submitted that this statement of the said witness did not suffer from any omission and, therefore, it is explicit that the accused had a definite plan to kill his wife and for that, there was a necessary background. He pointed out that even previously there used to be quarrel and the matrimonial relation was not cordial. 6. We have carefully examined the testimony of P.W. 2 Kalu. The statement of accused to this witness that he wanted to kill his wife, does not appear to be natural and, therefore, we are not prepared to accept the same for the purposes to attribute any definite motive to the accused. 7. Undisputedly, there was a dispute and frequent quarrel between accused and deceased. On the date of incident, he was seen assaulting his wife with the aid of stick. The incident, as reported, was at about 10.00 a.m. Saraswatibai died in the evening while she was being carried to hospital. 8. P.W.6 Dr. Deshmukh referred to three contusion wounds which correspond to three internal injuries, viz. fracture of fifth, sixth and seventh ribs of left side in the mid-line. 9. Having regard to the nature of incident" nature of weapon used and also the nature of injuries, the appellant had a definite intention to cause bodily injury to deceased Saraswatibai. However, it is not possible to infer safely that he had a definite plan to finish the life of his wife. The appellant inflicted injury without there being any intention or motive, but he had definitely the knowledge that the injuries which he has inflicted, are likely to cause death in the ordinary course. As such, according to us, the appellant/ accused would be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. Daga could not seriously agitate about his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. Daga could not seriously agitate about his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the learned Prosecutor has not agitated before us to support the finding of death of late Saraswatibai by administering poison. We have also heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of sentence. In view of this, the following order: Order Appeal is party allowed. Conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. . Conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. Instead, we convict the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and direct him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Substantive sentences to run concurrently. Appeal allowed party.