JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 1, 1993, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case are extensively set out in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court and they indicate that deceased Narottam had come to the appellant's betel shop at about 9.00 p.m. on 14.1.1993 and on a petty dispute about payment of the price of betel the appellant Is alleged to have Inflicted a blow with a scissors. On getting an anonymous telephonic message at the Police Station, Sangod, Sub-Inspector Bhoma Ram went to the hospital Sangod and recorded 'Parcha Bayan' of Narottam at about 9.15 p.m. In the 'parcha bayan' he stated the above facts and also stated the presence of Chandra Prakash and Ram Chandra at the scene of occurrence at the time of incident. On the basis of 'parcha bayan' Crime No. 21/93 was registered under Section 307 IPC. The injuries of Narottam were examined by Dr. R.K. Sharma at 9.45 p.m. on 15.1.1993. Injured Narottam succumbed to his injuries on 18.1.1993. As such, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added. The Police after usual investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of the concerning Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kota from where it was handed over to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota. 3. At the time of trial, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses for seeking conviction of the appellant. The plea of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was of denial. One witness, namely : Devki Nandan was examined in defence. The learned trial Court placing reliance on the testimony of PW 3 Chandra Prakash, PW 4 Girraj Prasad, PW 5 Ram Charan and dying declaration Ex. P 16 recorded by (PW 17) Shyam Lai Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant after making submissions on merits for a while conceded, and in our view rightly so, that the appellant was the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased. P 16 recorded by (PW 17) Shyam Lai Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 4. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant after making submissions on merits for a while conceded, and in our view rightly so, that the appellant was the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased. After perusal of the record we are satisfied that there is overwhelming evidence to support the prosecution case that the appellant inflicted the injuries sustained by the deceased. The only contention seriously made by Mr. Gupta relates about the nature of the offence and the sentence to be awarded to the appellant. From the material on record it transpires that the appellant and the deceased had no previous enmity. In other words, there was no motive for the incident and the incident took place all of a sudden on a petty dispute about payment of the price of betel. Further the deceased had died after four days of the incident. In between, the deceased was operated but the prosecution has deliberately withheld the evidence with regard to operation and the nature of treatment given to him during four days he was alive. Not only this, the doctor has not stated that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Under these circumstances, though the injuries had resulted in the death of the deceased, we cannot conclusively say that they were sufficient to cause death. In the facts of the case it cannot be said that the appellant had intended to commit murder of the deceased. 5. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out and the offence would be one falling under Section 304 Part-11 IPC. In the similar situation in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 973 Harish Kumar v. State' (Delhi Administration) the Supreme Court scaled down the offence under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part- II IPC. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. We set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence awarded for the same and instead of that we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC and impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. We set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence awarded for the same and instead of that we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC and impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous impriosnment for six months. In case the amount of fine is recovered the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.Appeal Allowed in Part. *******