JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.-,The appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2-6-1982 passed by the Extra Additional Sessions Judge. Satara in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1982 convicting and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment under section 302, I.P.C. has come up in appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under: The appellant and the deceased Arjun Deoba Jagdale were friends. On 21-3-1981 Arjun had come to the house of the appellant and the two of them had consumed liquor alongwith P.W.4 Jagannath Tupe. After consuming the liquor at about 8 p.m. the appellant and Arjun came to Mhaswad-Injabav Road. At that time Balu Gulab Bansode P.W.7, who had gone to answer the call of nature, saw that the appellant and Arjun had reached the electric pole situated near the road and were talking with one another. After answering the call of nature Balu came on the road. He heard the appellant telling Arjun that when he had tied a Toran in his house, why was he picking up a quarrel. Arjun replied that he was not picking up any quarrel and instead it was the appellant who was picking up a quarrel. On that he appellant is alleged to have said that ill now he was not picking up a quarrel and now he would pick up one. Saying this he is alleged to have pushed Arjun to the eastern side and hurled one stone towards him which did not strike him. Arjun also hurled a stone towards the appellants but the same also did not strike the latter. Thereafter Arjun came and hid himself behind the northern wall of Draupadabai. The appellant who was standing behind the bath-room of Draupadabai with both of his hands picked up a stone and hit Arjun on the head with the same. Arjun fell down as a result thereof. This incident is also alleged to have been seen by Chaturabai Pandurang Gaikwad P.W.5 and Digambar Maruti Bansode P.W.6. After assaulting Arjun, the appellant is said to have run away. Thereafter Balu went to his house and narrated the incident to his father Gulab. After narrating the incident to his father Balu went off to sleep. It is also alleged that Mahadeo Babu Patole P.W.9 saw the appellant running away from the spot and Arjun lying towards the western side of Patolewada. 3. Thereafter Balu went to his house and narrated the incident to his father Gulab. After narrating the incident to his father Balu went off to sleep. It is also alleged that Mahadeo Babu Patole P.W.9 saw the appellant running away from the spot and Arjun lying towards the western side of Patolewada. 3. The same day at about mid night Pandharinath Vithoba Kapse P.W.14. Police Patil of village Injabav received information that the corpse of Arjun Jagdale was lying to the northern side of the house of Draupa4abai. He went and found the corpse lying there. Thereafter he went to Mhaswad Police Station and reported the matter to the police at about 7 A.M. on 22-3-1981. His written statement which was recorded at the Police Station is at Exhibit 27. On the basis of the statement of Police Patil, P.S.I. Vithal Faquira Kale P.W.17 registered the case as one of accidental death. 4. P.S.I. Vithal Kale after registering the case at about 7 a.m on 22-3-1981 commenced the enquiry. He immediately proceeded to the place of the incident and prepared the Inquest Panchanama Exhibit 8. He also prepared the panchanama of scene of offence Exhibit 10. The same day he recorded the statement of P.W.7 Balu and of some other witnesses. After interrogating Balu and others he concluded that the deceased met a homicidal death and consequently lodged an F.I.R. u/s 302, I.P.C., vide Exhibit 31 on 22-3-1981. On 23-3-1981 P.S.I. Kale recorded the statements of some witnesses, including P.W.5 Chaturabai and P.W.6 Digambar. On 24-3-1981 he recorded statements of seven witnesses. The same day he seized the clothes of the appellant. It appears that the investigation of the case between 24-3-1981 and 6-4-1981was conducted by Head Constable Kulkarni. On 6-4-1981 P.S.I. Kale again took over the investigation. He forwarded the clothes of the deceased and blood stained articles to the chemical analyst. On 14-6-1981 he recorded supplementary statements of Chaturabai, Digambar and Balu P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 respectively and also of some others. Finally after completing the investigation he submitted the chargesheet. 5. Going backwards the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 22-3-1981 between 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. by Dr. Subhash Kulkarni P.W.18. On 14-6-1981 he recorded supplementary statements of Chaturabai, Digambar and Balu P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 respectively and also of some others. Finally after completing the investigation he submitted the chargesheet. 5. Going backwards the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 22-3-1981 between 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. by Dr. Subhash Kulkarni P.W.18. On the corpse Dr: Kulkarni found the following ante mortem injuries: 1 Contusion on left cheek, circular, 5 " diameter: from eye to mandible and from angle of mouth to ear. 2 Similar contusion, on right cheek, same measurements. 3 Bluish red discolouration, all over back and posterior to both arms. 4 Contusion on occipital area of scalp, circular,5" diameter." On internal examination Dr. Kulkarni found the following injuries: "1 2. Fracture at base of skull, oblique crack-2" size on each sphenoid bone. 3 Fracture on occipital area of the skull, oblique crack linear 5" in length. 4 Subdural haemotoma present." In the opinion of Dr. Kulkarni the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organs. He also opined that the injuries of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the-usual manner. In the trial court the appellant was charged under Section 302, I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. Out of them three viz., Chaturabai, Digambar and Balu, P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 respectively were examined as eyewitnesses. In defence and witness was examined. The learned trial Judge believed - the evidence adduced by the prosecution and passed the impugned judgment. 7. We have heard Ms. Shirley Mazarello for the appellant and Mrs. Jyoti S. Pawar for respondent at con siderable length. We have also perused material exhibits tendered by the prosecution, depositions of the witnesses examined during the trial the written statement of the appellant and the impugned judgment. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed inasmuch as in our view the conviction of the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. is unsustainable and instead he should be convicted under section 304, Part II, I.P.C. 8. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed inasmuch as in our view the conviction of the appellant under section 302, I.P.C. is unsustainable and instead he should be convicted under section 304, Part II, I.P.C. 8. The short question in this appeal is whether the evidence of three eye witnesses viz., Chaturabai Digambar and Balu P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 respectively inspires confidence or not? After giving our most thoughtful consideration we answer this question in the affirmative. In paragraph 2 we have set out the prosecution case on the basis of averments contained in examination-in-chief of Balu P.W.7. We do not wish reiterating the same. Broadly speaking the prosecution case is that Balu P.W. 7 saw the appellant and the deceased Arjun near the electric pole on the Mhasvad-Injabav Road. He also saw that they were quarreling with each other and each was attributing the other to be responsible for the quarrel. Thereafter he stated that the appellant threw a stone on Arjun but the same did not strike him. In return Arjun threw a stone on the appellant and the same did not strike the appellant. Then Arjun went and hid behind the bath-room of Draupadabai. Then the appellant picked up a stone, went near Arjun and hit him on his head with the same. The manner of assault as described by Balu is also corroborated by P.W.5 Chaturabai and P.W.6 Digambar. We find the statements of all the three eyewitnesses to be convincing. The manner of assault deposed to by them is corroborated by the nature of the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased. Each of the three witnesses have given a plausible reason regarding the circumstances in which they happened to see the incident. Chaturabai stated that at the time of incident she had gone to answer the call of nature and when she was about to answer the same she saw the incident, Digamber stated that while he was returning after answering call of nature, he saw the incident. Balu stated that he saw the incident while he was returning from answering the call of nature. We further find that none of these witnesses bore any enmity against the appellant on account of which it could be said that they falsely implicated the appellant. Balu stated that he saw the incident while he was returning from answering the call of nature. We further find that none of these witnesses bore any enmity against the appellant on account of which it could be said that they falsely implicated the appellant. After going through their statements we find that they bear a ring of truth and the account given by them is a perfectly natural and credible one. It is common experience that in villages people do not have attached toilets to their houses and after sunset go in the open to answer the call panature. We find nothing unnatural when each of these witnesses corelate their presence on the place of the incident with answering the call of nature. Assurance is lent to the claim of the eyewitnesses of having been the incident by the circumstance that they were promptly interrogated under section 161, Cr.P.C.; Balu on 22-3-1981 (the next day), Chaturabai and Digambar on 23-3-1981 Balu's claim that he saw the incident is also strengthened by the fact that the same night on which the incident took place he informed his father Gulab about it. Gulab P.W.11, who also had no enmity with the deceased corroborates Balu on this. 9. As a matter of fact in this case the solitary statement of Balu was itself sufficient to sustain the involvement of the appellant in the incident. 10. Corroboration is lent to the testimony of the eyewitnesses by the evidence of P.W.9 Mahadeo Babu Patole who after the incident saw the appellant running away from the place of the incident and the deceased Arjun lying on the spot. Again we find that there was no plausible reason for this witness to have falsely implicated the appellant. The place of incident is also fixed inasmuch as blood stained earth was recovered from the same by the Investigating Officer. 11. In our view the learned trial Judge acted correctly in believing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and in holding that the prosecution has proved the involvement of the appellant in the instant crime. 12. Ms. Shirley Mazarello made a number of submissions before us. She vehemently castigated the claim of the three eyewitnesses of having seen the incident, on a dual ground. 12. Ms. Shirley Mazarello made a number of submissions before us. She vehemently castigated the claim of the three eyewitnesses of having seen the incident, on a dual ground. She firstly urged that had they seen the incident they would have lodged the F.I.R. She secondly urged that the conduct of P.W.5 Chaturabai and P.W.6 Digambar in not disclosing the incident to anyone, although they met a large number of people after the incident, shows that they did not witness the incident. In our view the aforesaid grounds would not be sufficient to discard the testimony of these eyewitnesses. It is common experience that people shy from visiting the police station and in lodging F.I.R. because they have a feeling that doing so would mean incurring wrath of the accused and his family members. And when the deceased happens to be unconnected with them, as is the case here, understandably they do not want to buy the hostility of the accused. On the same hypothesis can be explained the conduct of P.W. 5 and that of P.W.6 in not disclosing the incident to the large number of people whom they met after the incident. It was on 23-4-1981 (the third day) when, the Investigating Officer-asked them about the incident they disclosed the same to him. So far as Balu P.W.7 is concerned, his evidence is that he disclosed the incident the same night to his father Gulab P.W.11. Hence this submission of Ms. Mazarello fails. Ms. Mazarello also contended that the evidence of Vithoba Fadatre P.W.8 indicates that the appellant did not commit the murder of the deceased. She pointed out that this witness stated that after sun-set he had visited the house of the appellant and requested him to sing Bhajans at his place. He further stated that at that time the deceased was also there. He stated that 1 or 1 and 1/2 hours later the appellant came to his house for singing Bhajans. In our view even if the evidence of this witness is believed, it does not rule out the probability of the appellant committing the murder. He further stated that at that time the deceased was also there. He stated that 1 or 1 and 1/2 hours later the appellant came to his house for singing Bhajans. In our view even if the evidence of this witness is believed, it does not rule out the probability of the appellant committing the murder. It is common knowledge that on 21st March sun sets about 7 p.m. If the appellant came to the house of Vithoba 1 and 1/2 hours thereafter, this means he came to his house at about 8.30 p.m. According to the prosecution the murder of the deceased took place at about 8 p.m. It may very well be that after committing the murder of the deceased, the appellant changed his clothes and came to Vithoba's house. Hence this submission of Ms. Mazarello also fails. Finally Ms. Mazarello contended that even if the prosecution case is accepted on its face value, no offence beyond that contemplated by Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. is made out. We find sufficient merit in this contention of hers, for the reasons stated hereinafter: 13. (a) To us it does not appear that there was any enmity between the appellant and the deceased. In fact it appears to us that, the relations between them were good (had this not been so the deceased would not have come to drink liquor at the house of the appellant on the fateful evening); (b) the evidence of Balu is that an altercation between the appellant and the deceased took place prior to the former assaulting the latter; (c) the evidence of Balu and other two eye witnesses is also to the effect that the appellant was unarmed at the time of the incident (if his design was to commit the murder of the deceased then he would have carried some weapon); and (d) the injuries on the deceased according to Balu P.W.7 were the result of a solitary stone blow given by the appellant; though on the head of the deceased. In the a foresaid factual matrix we find that it would be safer and proper to conclude that when the appellant once assaulted the deceased with a stone on his head he can only be fastened with the knowledge of death of the deceased as contemplated by Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. In the circumstances in which the incident took place, we do not think that the act of the appellant would fall in any of the four clauses of section 300, I.P.C. or under the 1st Part of Section 304. I.P.C. 14. The solitary question which remains is that pertaining to sentence. Ms. Mazarello urged that looking to the circumstances that the incident took place more than 15 years ago; that it hapened on the spur of the moment as a result of an altercation which had taken place immediately prior to it between the appellant and the deceased; and there is nothing to indicate that the appellant is a previous convict or has criminal antecedents, the ends of justice would be satisfied if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period alr~i1dy undergone by him and he is saddled with a substantial amount of fine which may be paid as compensation to the wife/legal heirs of the deceased. We regret that we are not able to accede to this contention of Ms. Mazarello. The loss of a human life can never be measured in terms of money. Reducing the sentence to already undergone and imposing a substantial fine would be making a mockery of our criminal justice delivery system. Justice does not mean only justice for the appellant. It also means justice to the family members of the victim. Bearing all this in mind we feel that the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if the appellant is awarded a sentence of2 and 1/2 years R.I. coupled with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and two years R.I. in default of payment of fine under Section 304 Part II 1. P. C. 15. In the result this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. We acquit the appellant and set aside his sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. Instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo 2 and 1/2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. P. C. 15. In the result this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. We acquit the appellant and set aside his sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. Instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo 2 and 1/2 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to further undergo 2 years R.I. This fine of Rs. 20,000/ shall be deposited, by the appellant within a period of one year from today in the trial court. In case it is depo0sited the whole of it shall be paid as compensation to the wife of the deceased. In case she is not alive or the deceased was not married, then it would go to the legal heirs of the deceased entitled to receive it. The trial court shall inform the wife of the deceased and in case she is not alive or the deceased was not married then to such legal heirs who are entitled to receive the compensation. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve-out his sentence. Before parting with this judgment we would be failing in our fairness if we do not put on record the extremely efficient manner in which this case was argued by the learned counsel for the parties. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. Appeal allowed partly.