Judgment V.G. Palshikar, J.-Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated September 22,1995 passed by the Judge, Special Court, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities, Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant accused under Section 302/498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life the appeal is filed by the accused on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. During the course of arguments all these grounds were reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant. The facts giving rise to the appeal as alleged by the prosecution arc that at about 10.00 p.m. on July 14, 1994 a report was lodged in the Police Station, Matili Rathan by one Balveer Singh that his son-in-law assaulted his daughter Pami at about 8 in the evening by a knife/sword (Kripan). The first information was recorded and investigation was carried on by the police thereafter, Eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and on appreciation of these witnesses the learned Judge came to the conclusion of guilt as proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record and he, therefore, sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life as aforesaid. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor we have re-appreciated the evidence on record and have rescrutinised the documents on record. 3. P.W. 1 Balveer Singh is the reason who lodged the first information report. He has stated that the accused is his son-in-law who was married to his daughter Amarpal Kaur alias Pammi. He states that three years after the marriage the accused started harassing his wife, daughter of the witness Pammi for dowry and money which he wanted her to bring from her father in spite of the fact that several items were given at the time of marriage and even thereafter but the torture continued which resulted in Pammi giving up her marital residence and staying with the witness. The witness then states that at about 8 p.m. on the date of the incident he heard from one Harjinder Singh that Pammi has been killed. He told the witness that the accused has assaulted Pammi with Kripan. On that the witness ran towards the site but on seeing the witness the accused ran away towards eastern side with a kripan in his hand. He told the witness that the accused has assaulted Pammi with Kripan. On that the witness ran towards the site but on seeing the witness the accused ran away towards eastern side with a kripan in his hand. The witness then deposes that along with him one Pal Singh, Jogendra Singh and Pali Singh also came on the site. When they saw Pammi, she was lying on the ground and her face and head was bleeding. She was unconscious. The witness then states that Pammi was taken to Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar where she was under treatment for 23 days and where she succumbed to the injuries caused. 4. P.W. 2 is Harjinder Singh who happens to be the eye witness of the incident. He has stated that when he was returning to his home and was crossing empty ground Pammi came running on the ground tollowed by accused Gurmail Singh with a Kripan in his hand. The witness then states that first the accused caught hold of Panmii and quarrelled with her asking her to go home with the accused. On refusal by Panmii to do so the accused fell heron the ground and stabbed Panmii on the face and head by the Kripan. The witness then averred that Kripan and Sword are same thing. The witness then ran towards a shop. He has also deposed that the accused Gurmail Singh after causing injuries to Pammi ran towards eastern side. When the witness shouted from the shop, Balveer Singh, Jogendra Singh and Pal Singh came there and the witness told them that Gurmail Singh had assaulted Pamnii. He deposed that he told these people that Pammi was cut by sword by Gurmail Singh. 5. P.W. 3 Nasib Kaur claims herself to be an eye witness. She states that when she came out of her house on hearing the shouts of Harjinder Singh she saw Harjinder Singh running towards a shop and accused Gurmail Singh giving sword blows to the deceased. The witness states that the accused gave four blows of Kripan of which one injured the head of the deceased and the rest injured her face. She also states that Balveer Singh, father of the deceased and Jogendra Singh, Pal Singh and Bali Singh also came on the scene of occurrence. She is mother of P.W. 2 Harjinder Singh. 6. The witness states that the accused gave four blows of Kripan of which one injured the head of the deceased and the rest injured her face. She also states that Balveer Singh, father of the deceased and Jogendra Singh, Pal Singh and Bali Singh also came on the scene of occurrence. She is mother of P.W. 2 Harjinder Singh. 6. P.W. 4 is yet another eye witness who claims to have heard shouting of Harijinder Singh and who went out of the house. When she came out of the house she saw Nasib Kaur P.W. 3 running towards the ground and she also started running after her. She also claims to have seen the accused Gurmail Singh stabbing his wife Panmii with Kripan and, therefore, she was afraid and did not go ahead. She then says that they i.e. she and Nasib Kaur as also Harjinder Singh started shouting, as a result of which the accused ran away towards eastern side and other persons including the father in law of the accused came on the scene of offence. 7. P.W. Sis Mahaveer Singh. He was incharge Malkhana of Police Station, Malili Rathan at the relevant time who kept four packets in sealed condition in the Malkhana and handed over the same to Om Prakash for transmission to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He deposed that the sealed packets were in his custody in the Malkhana and they were all in sealed condition till they were handed over to Om Prakash for being delivered at the Forensic Science Laboratory. P.W. 6 Om Prakash is a constable who carried the sealed packets from the Mallthana to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He deposes that the packets given to him were delivered to Forensic Science Laboratory in sealed condition. 8. P.W. 7 is Dr. Om Prakash who examined Pammi on her taken to Sri Ganganagar Medical Hospital. He has deposed that the deceased had four cut injuries. This witness also proves the post-mortem report conducted on August 6,1994 after the death of Pammi by Dr. Indrajeet as Dr. Indrajeet having died could not prove the postmortem report. P.W. 8 Billu Singh is a witness to the seizure of Salwar and Katnij of deceased by the police. P.W. 9 Bhola Singh is the another witness to the seizure of cloths of Panmii. Indrajeet as Dr. Indrajeet having died could not prove the postmortem report. P.W. 8 Billu Singh is a witness to the seizure of Salwar and Katnij of deceased by the police. P.W. 9 Bhola Singh is the another witness to the seizure of cloths of Panmii. P.W. 10 is the constable who prepared the map of the scene of occurrence. P.W. 11 is the Station House Officer of Police Station, Matili Rathan at the material time. who conducted the investigation and after completing the same filed the challan which resulted in the prosecution. 9. It was on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence that the learned Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and recorded a Judgment of conviction. Consistent with the finding of guilt he sentenced the accused for imprisonment for life which is appealed in this case by Shri M. L. Garg learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on several grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also orally argued before this Court. It was contended by the learned counsel that on the face of the evidence on record conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. is impermissible in law. According to the learned counsel even if the entire evidence of the prosecution is accepted completely, no case of intentional killing is made out and there cannot be a conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. According to the learned counsel the very fact that Pammi lived in the hospital for 23 days and was under treatment, it is a sufficient evidence of the fact that each of the injuries caused on her person was not of a nature which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, nor it was such as was likely to cause death and, therefore, conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. is unsustainable in law. 10. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased Pammi had deserted Gurmail Singh the accused and Gurmail Singh was deeply hurt by the desertion and allegations of torture for dowry as made by the wife Pammi. It is also proved on record, according to the learned counsel, that Gurmail Singh insisted the wife to come back to matrimonial home and on her refusal to do so he enraged her and assaulted her. It is also proved on record, according to the learned counsel, that Gurmail Singh insisted the wife to come back to matrimonial home and on her refusal to do so he enraged her and assaulted her. Such circumstances having been proved by the prosecution itself , no inference of intent to kill can be taken against the accused. The intention of the accused appellant was to bring her wife to her matrimonial home and not to kill her. The incident occurred on spur of moment on the sudden and grave provocation by the wife by refusing to return to the matrimonial home. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the conviction is unsustainable in law. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor on appreciation of the evidence contended that the manner of injury caused does not leave any manner of doubt that his intention was to do away with the life of the victim and, therefore, the order of conviction is proper. It is in light of these submissions and appreciation of evidence that we have to decide the contention raised by Shri Garg as mentioned above. 12. It is undisputed position on record that the injured wife succumbed to the injuries after 23 days of hospitalisation. The argument that the accused did not have the intention to cause such injuries as would be sufficient in the normal course to cause death or such bodily injury as the ordinary course enough to cause death and no intention certainly liable to be inferred in the present case, is substantially correct. A perusal of the evidence and its appreciation as done above will show that there was admittedly quarrel between the man and the wife and the wife deserted the husband and who, therefore, was disturbed. He therefore, chased his wife and requested her to return to the matrimonial home. Her refusal can legitimately result in leaving the accused enraged and prompted him in that condition to inflict the injury on the person of the deceased with the intention of teaching her a lesson for unnecessarily staying away. The deposition of P.W. 7 Dr. Om Prakash also requires careful consideration. In this deposition he has nowhere stated that any of the injuries were such as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The deposition of P.W. 7 Dr. Om Prakash also requires careful consideration. In this deposition he has nowhere stated that any of the injuries were such as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the absence of any such statement by the doctor coupled with the fact that though the victim was injured on 14th July she died only on 6th August was sufficient to show that the injuries were- such as were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is also obvious therefore, that these, injuries were also not of the kind as would give rise to the knowledge that they would ordinarily result in death. None of the ingredients mentioned in Section 299 or 300 of the Indian Penal Code therefore, arc fulfilled in the present case. The learned Judge, therefore, erred in convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In our opinion, it is a case of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the wife. The accused was provoked by the desertion by which may or may not be justified and having seen his entities failed was enraged which resulted in stabbing the wife. Therefore, there was no question of intentionally causing death or intentionally causing such bodily injuries as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death nor any knowledge that the injuries caused would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The wife has lived for 23 days thereafter and unfortunately then died. In the circumstances the case cannot be taken beyond Section 326, I.P.C. 13. In the result, therefore, the appeal partly succeed. The appeal is partly allowed, the conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. is set aside and instead the accused is convicted under Section 326, I.P.C. He is in jail since his arrest. The circumstances of the case are such that interest of justice would be met if he is sentenced for a period already undergone by him i.e. from the date of arrest till today. We therefore direct that in the event of the accused not being required in any other offence, he be released forthwith.