JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - In this appeal from jail, Ram Laxman Munda (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') has questioned his conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short, 'IPC') recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh and consequential sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded. 2. Prosecution version which led to trial of the accused lies in a narrow compass. On 9.8.1991 in the evening while Saluka Munda (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was returning from the grazing field after tending cattle, accused assaulted him on his chest and back by means of a piece of wood. Singeri Munda (P.W. 1) and Sini Munda (P.W.2) witnessed the occurrence. They ran to the spot and tried to save the deceased who was their paternal uncle. Piece of wood which was used as weapon of assault was taken away from the accused. The deceased was carried home. After fighting for survival for some time he breathed his last. Information was lodged at the M. Belang P.S. and investigation was undertaken, on completion whereof chargesheet was submitted. 3. Seven witnesses were pressed into service by prosecution to further its version. The accused pleaded innocence. On consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. Mr. M. Manwar, learned counsel for appellant-accused submitted that evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 does not require confidence and learned trial Judge was not justified on acting upon their evidence. Additionally, it is submitted that even if prosecution version is accepted in its entirety, case under Section 302 IPC is not made out. Learned counsel for the State supported judgment. 5. PWs. 1 and 2 are neighbours of accused and the deceased, In spite of searching cross-examination, no infirmity in their evidence has been noticed by the learned trial Judge. Learned counsel for accused has not been able to point out as to how evidence of these witnesses suffers from any infirmity to warrant rejection thereof. Learned trial Judge was justified in holding that accused was the author of the crime. Residual question is whether offence under Section 304, Part-II, IPC is made out. 6. In the scheme of the IPC, 'culpable homicide' is genus, and 'murder' is the species, All 'murders' are 'culpable homicide' but not vice versa. Learned trial Judge was justified in holding that accused was the author of the crime. Residual question is whether offence under Section 304, Part-II, IPC is made out. 6. In the scheme of the IPC, 'culpable homicide' is genus, and 'murder' is the species, All 'murders' are 'culpable homicide' but not vice versa. Speaking generally 'culpable homicide' sans special characteristics of murder is 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, IPC practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined as 'murder' in Section 300. The second may be termed as culpable homicide of the second degree. This is punishable under first part of Section 304. Then there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishment provided for the thee grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under Second part of Section 304. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has vexed the Courts f long. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. Section - 299 Section -300 A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is done... Subject to certain exceptions homicide if the act by which culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is done... The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. Section - 299 Section -300 A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is done... Subject to certain exceptions homicide if the act by which culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is done... Intention (a) with the intention of causing death; or (1) with the intention of causing death; or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or (3) with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or Knowledge (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death (4) with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above. Underlining for emphasis 7. Keeping in view the above legal position in mind and on scrutinising evidence, conviction under Section 302 IPC does not appear to be appropriate. The injuries sustained and weapon of assault used throws sufficient light on this aspect. This appears to be a case covered by Section 304, Part II, IPC. Accordingly, we alter convictions from Section 302 IPC to Section 304, Part II, IPC. Custodial sentence of seven years would meet the ends of justice. 8. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. A. Deb, J. - I agree. Final Result : Allowed