Judgment RAJENDRA SAXENA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21. 4. 1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, who convicted appellant-Mahendra Kumar for the offence under section 304 Part-li IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo R. I. for three months and also convicted appellant-Smt. Pepi for the offence under Section 304 Part-Il read with Section 114 IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further undergo six months R. I. ( 2 ) STATED in succinct the relevant facts are that deceased-Umed Mal had original sons, P. W. 3 Prakash, P. W. 14 Mitha Lal and appellant Mahendra Kumar, Prakash was married long back. His younger son P. W. 14 Mitha Lal aged about 24 years was unmarried. Appellant-Mahendra Kumar was younger to him and there was a proposal for his marriage. Deceased-Umed Mal desired that Mitha Lal should be married first. But, appellant-Mahendra Kumar and his mother appellant-Smt. Pepi insisted that the betrothal ceremony of Mahendra Kumar be performed early. It is the case of the prosecution that Umed Mal and appellant-Smt. Pepi used to often quarrel over family matters. On 17. 6. 1992 at about 11. 30 A. M. , a quarrel started between deceased-Umed Mal and his wife Smt. Pepi. The latter sent her grand-son Dinesh to call appellant-Mahendra Kumar. It is alleged that Mahendra Kumar came to his house and in the p01 thereof he picked up quarrel with his father Umed Mal and at the instance of Smt. Pepi he started beating Umed Mal by a wooden rod (Soti), which is used for washing clothes. Smt. Pepi closed the doors of the house. On hearing hue and cry, P. W. 12 Bhopal Singh, P. W. 13 Khim Singh and other neighbourers assembled there. It is alleged that Bhopal Singh peeped from the crevices of the door and saw that appellant-Mahendra Kumar was inflicting soti blows to his father-Umed Mal, who was lying on the Cot, that blood was oozing out from the latters mouth, nose and ear and that Smt. Pepi was exhorting appellantmahendra Kumar to beat the deceased. It is alleged that Bhopal Singh peeped from the crevices of the door and saw that appellant-Mahendra Kumar was inflicting soti blows to his father-Umed Mal, who was lying on the Cot, that blood was oozing out from the latters mouth, nose and ear and that Smt. Pepi was exhorting appellantmahendra Kumar to beat the deceased. P. W. 13 Khim Singh then went into the house of the appellants by scaling over the boundary wall of neighbour Onkardas and opened the doors of the p01. Umed Mal, who had received injuries on his head, had become unconscious. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Bali in a tractor, thereafter, in a Jeep, where he was declared dead. ( 3 ) BHOPAL Singh lodged a written report Ex. P. 15 on the same day at about 3. 00 p. m. at Police Station, Bali, whereupon P. W. 20 Jog Singh, S. H. O. drew the formal FIR Ex. P. 21. Jog Singh reached the place of occurrence and prepared site plan and the memo thereof Ex. P. 1, memo of the dead body of Umed Mal Ex. P. 2, autopsy report Ex. P. 3 and seized the blood stained Chadar (Rali) on which the dead body of Umed Mal was lying on the Cot vide seizure memo Ex. P. 4. He also got the dead body of Umed Mal lying on the cot photographed vide photographs Exs. P. 10 to P. 12. ( 4 ) DR. G. P. Bohra conducted the Medico Legal Autopsy on 17. 6. 1992 between 4. 15 P. M. to 5. 30 P. M. and found the following injuries on the dead body of Umed Mal: 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the left temporal region. 2. Bruise 4 cm x 2 cm on the right dorsum of hand below thumb and index finger. 3. Bruise 6 cm x 2 cm on the left supra scapular region. 4. Bruise 3 cm x 2 cm medial to injury No. 3. ( 5 ) ABRASION 5 cm x 2 cm on upper 2/3 of left leg. ( 6 ) BRUISE 2 cm x 1 cm just below left lower eye lid. ( 7 ) BRUISE 2 cm x 1 cm on the upper eye lid. ( 8 ) BRUISE 2 cm x 1 cm just below right eye. ( 5 ) ABRASION 5 cm x 2 cm on upper 2/3 of left leg. ( 6 ) BRUISE 2 cm x 1 cm just below left lower eye lid. ( 7 ) BRUISE 2 cm x 1 cm on the upper eye lid. ( 8 ) BRUISE 2 cm x 1 cm just below right eye. On dissection, the doctor found the fracture of the left temporal bone. The membrane below the temporal region was congested and haematoma was present. The brain substance below the left temporal bone was injured and there was haematoma. The doctor vide post-mortem report Ex. P. 19 opined that the death had occurred as a result of cerebral compression due to the fracture of left temporal bone leading to the injury to brain substance. 5. The appellants were arrested in the evening of 17. 6. 1992. The appellant-Mahendra Kumar had three abrasions on the outer border of his right eye ball and on his right mandibular angle in the manner indicated in his M. L. R. Ex. P. 20. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant-Mahendra Kumar in pursuance of his information Ex. P. 22 got recovered a blood stained wooden soli (measuring it 8 x 2-1/3 having a handle measuring 4) from his house, which was seized and scaled vide recovery memo Ex. P. 9. The blood stained apparels of the deceased were also seized and scaled. The recovered articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. But, no report of the F. S. L. was received even during trial. 6. After completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the appellants in the Court of Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, who in turn, committed the case to the learned trial Judge. 7. The appellants were charged for the offence under Section 302 and 302 read with Section 114/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. The appellants, in their plea, denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and asserted that Umed Mal suffered from epilepsy fits and that he had fallen down and sustained injuries. However, they did not adduce any evidence in defence. After trial, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Bali, by his judgment dated 21. 4. The appellants, in their plea, denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and asserted that Umed Mal suffered from epilepsy fits and that he had fallen down and sustained injuries. However, they did not adduce any evidence in defence. After trial, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Bali, by his judgment dated 21. 4. 1993, acquitted appellants Mahendra Kumar and Smt. Pepi of the offence under section 302 and 302 read with Section 114/ 34 IPC respectively, but convicted them for the offence under section 304 Part-Il and 304 Part-li read with Section 114 IPC respectively and sentenced them in the manner detailed above. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have heard Shri G. L. Khatri, learned counsel for appellants and Shri D. S. Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the trial court. At the very out-set, Shri G. L. Khatri has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants. He has submitted that appellants-Mahendra Kumar and Smt. Pepi are son and widow of deceased-Umed Mal, that the alleged incident took place on the spur of moment and in heat of passion the appellant. Mahendra Kumar inflicted a single soti blow on the head of Umed Mal and that other injuries of Umed Mal are superficial bruises. According to him there are mitigating circumstances in this case. He has submitted that the appellants are continuously under detention since 17. 6. 1992 and have thus already suffered sentence for a period of 2 years to months and 11 days, that the quantum of sentence imposed on them is excessive and that the same be reduced to the period already under gone by them. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, Shri D. S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor has strenuously asserted that the quantum of punishment inflicted to the appellants is not excessive, but adequate keeping in view the nature and gravity of offence committed by them. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 11. The appellant-Mahendra Kumar on the day of incident was about 23-24 years of age. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 11. The appellant-Mahendra Kumar on the day of incident was about 23-24 years of age. From the statements of P. W. 14 Mitha Lal, P. W. 3 Prakash, P. W. 4 Shiv Lal, P. W. 7 Shand Lal and P. W. 11 Javer Chand, it is amply proved that Mitha Lal was unmarried, that the appellants insisted trial the betrothal ceremony of appellant Mahendra Kumar be performed, and that on the other hand deceased-Umed Mal insisted that the betrothal ceremony can be performed after the marriage of his cider brother Mitha Lal. It has also been borne-out from the evidence on record that Umed Mal used to go and consult with his brother P. W. 11 Javer Chand and used to quarrel with his wife appellant-Smt. Pepi on petty and trifling family matters. As per the testimony of P. W. 17 Dr. G. P. Bohra, deceased has sustained the fracture of his temporal bone resulting in the compression of the brain which caused his death. All other injuries sustained by deceased were simple in nature. Thus, there are mitigating circumstances in this case. 12. In Pooran Singh v. State of U. P. , the accused was a raw youth of 19 years at the time of occurrence. He was convicted for the offence under section 304 Part. II IPC. The Apex Court reduced his sentence to imprisonment already undergone by him which was about 18-1/2 months. In Mangia v. State of Rajasthan, the accused inflicted injuries by Dandat on his old father. It was held that no intention to commit murder of his father could be attributed to the accused though he had knowledge that by inflicting danda blows on the head, it was likely to cause his death. Thus, his conviction from the offence under section 3021pc was altered to the offence under section 304, Part II IPC and he was sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him, which was about three years. Similar are the facts of the case on hand. In Kishanlal v. State of Rajasthan, there was no enmity between the accused and the deceased. The accused inflicted knife blows for being slapped. There was no pre-meditation. He was convicted under section 304 Part-li IPC and was sentenced to R. I. for seven months, which he had already undergone. Similar are the facts of the case on hand. In Kishanlal v. State of Rajasthan, there was no enmity between the accused and the deceased. The accused inflicted knife blows for being slapped. There was no pre-meditation. He was convicted under section 304 Part-li IPC and was sentenced to R. I. for seven months, which he had already undergone. In Puriya v. State, the accused was about 20 years of age at the time of incident. There was no enmity with the deceased and his sentence for the offence under section 304 Part II IPC was reduced to the period already undergone by him. In Mohan v. State of Rajasthan, the appellant caused death of his pregnant wife by inflicting a kick blow on her abdomen. He was about 24 years of age at the time of occurrence. His conviction under section 304 Part-Il IPC was maintained, but his sentence of four years R. I was reduced to one year R. I. 13. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case and the manner in which the crime was committed, I am of the considered opinion that the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellants is bit excessive. The appellants have already suffered sentence for a period of 2 years 10 months and 11 Clays till this date. Therefore, to secure ends justice, their sentence of rigorous imprisonment deserves to be reduced to the period of sentence already under gone by them. 14. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The convictions of the appellants-Mahendra Kumar and Smt. Pepi for the offence under section 304 Part II and 304 Part II read with Section 114 IPC respectively are hereby maintained. However, their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the periods already undergone by them. The fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred only) in default to undergo three months R. I. imposed upon the appellant-Mahendra Kumar is maintained. However, the fine imposed on the appellant Smt. Pepi is reduced from Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand only) to Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, she will further undergo six months R. I. The Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur be informed accordingly. The appellants, if they deposit the fines imposed on them, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed partly.