JUDGMENT :- Through this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 27-5-1991 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Code No. 154/90 convicting and sentencing him to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo 1 month's R.I. for the offence under Section 304 (II), I.P.C. 2. In short the prosecution case is as under : On 9-7-1990 the deceased Sanjay asked the wife of the appellant whether she had taken tea. At this the appellant became infuriated. At about 4.30 p.m. the same day the appellant pulled Sanjay towards his house, took him inside and assaulted him with slipper. He asked Sanjay to touch the feet of his wife. This incident was seen by Sunanda Kamble P.W. 6, the sister of Sanjay. At about 5.30 p.m. Sanjay came out from the house of the appellant. After some time Sunanda Kamble went to the house of Sharada Kamble P.W. 1 and Champabai Kamble P.W. 2, the aunt and mother of Sanjay respectively to inform them about the incident. Shobha the wife of the brother of Sunanda Kamble came there and informed them that the appellant had forcibly taken Sanjay to the shop of Maruti Patil P.W. 3. Consequently Sunanda, Sharada and Champabai went to the said shop. Inside the said shop they found the appellant, the deceased Sanjay and Maruti Patil. The appellant was abusing Sanjay. Maruti Patil asked Sunanda, Sharada and Champabai to go away. Sunanda went away but Sharada and Champabai remained. Immediately thereafter Champabai, Sharada and Maruti Patil saw the appellant inflicting a solitary blow with a wooden block on the head of the deceased and Sunanda heard the sound of "phatt". Thereafter the appellant is alleged to have run away. At about 7 p.m. Sunanda Kamble along with Vinod Shinde went to Kolhapur and informed her father Ramchandra Kamble P.W. 9. Along with Ramchandra Kamble they returned to the village at about 10.30 p.m. Dr. Darekar P.W. 5 was called and he advised that Sanjay be taken to Kolhapur for treatment. Consequently Ramchandra Kamble P.W. 9 arranged for a vehicle and on the same they took Sanjay to C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur where he was examined at 12.20 a.m. on 10-7-1990 by Dr. Ravindra Khot P.W. 11 who found him unconscious. 3. Darekar P.W. 5 was called and he advised that Sanjay be taken to Kolhapur for treatment. Consequently Ramchandra Kamble P.W. 9 arranged for a vehicle and on the same they took Sanjay to C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur where he was examined at 12.20 a.m. on 10-7-1990 by Dr. Ravindra Khot P.W. 11 who found him unconscious. 3. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Ramchandra Kamble P.W. 9, on 10-7-1990 at Police Station Kadgal. On the basis of it P.H.C. Vijaykumar Parab P.W. 14 registered a case under Section 326, IPC. When on the same morning Sanjay succumbed to his injuries at 11.55 a.m. it was converted to one under Section 302, IPC. 4. The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by PSI. Pandurang Pawar P.W. 16 who during the course of it recovered the wooden block which was 8 inches in length and with which the appellant had assaulted Sanjay. On 25-9-1990 after completing investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. 5. The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Sanjay Kamble was conducted by Dr. Ajay Chougule P.W. 10. He found on it three injuries viz. one contusion on temporal region, one abrasion on right side of chest and one swelling on right elbow. On internal examination he found fracture of right temporal portion extending to frontal portion. In his opinion the deceased died on account of the contusion on the temporal region and the corresponding internal damage. In the opinion of doctor the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial the prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses; 4 out of them viz. Sharada Kamble, P.W. 1 Champabai Kamble P.W. 2 Maruti Patil P.W. 3 and Sunanda Kamble P.W. 6 were examined as eye-witnesses. The defence of the appellant was one of denial but he examined no witness in his defence. The learned trial Judge accepted the involvement of the appellant in the incident but convicted him instead of an offence under Section 302, IPC, for one under Section 304 (II), IPC. 7. I have heard Mr. S. V. Marwadi for the appellant and Mrs. The learned trial Judge accepted the involvement of the appellant in the incident but convicted him instead of an offence under Section 302, IPC, for one under Section 304 (II), IPC. 7. I have heard Mr. S. V. Marwadi for the appellant and Mrs. J.S. Pawar for the respondent, I have also perused the evidence on record. In my view the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304 (II), IPC, is based on credible evidence and suffers from no infirmity. But I do feel that the sentence awarded to him is excessive and calls for reduction. As mentioned earlier four eye-witnesses viz. Sharda Kamble, P.W. 1 Champabai Kamble P.W. 2 Maruti Patil P.W. 3 and Sunanda Kamble P.W. 5 have been examined by the prosecution. It is on the basis of the averments contained in their evidence that I have laid out the prosecution story in para 2 and consequently there in no necessity to graphically reiterate it. The evidence of Sunanda, Sharda, and Champabai shows that at about 5.30 p.m. Shobha came and informed them that the appellant had forcibly taken Sanjay Kamble to the shop of Maruti Patil. When they went there they found the appellant and Maruti Patil. Maruti Patil asked them to go. Sunanda went away but Sharada and Champabai remained. Maruti Patil, Sharada and Champabai saw the appellant inflicting a solitary blow with a wooden block on the head of the deceased (to the said blow he is alleged to have succumbed 18 hours later). Sunanda Kamble heard the sound of "phatt" and saw the appellant with a wooden block in his hand. 8. The version of the incident as given by these eye-witnesses is in conformity with the medical evidence which shows the presence of a contusion on the temporal region of the deceased accompanied by fracture of right temporal bone extending to frontal portion. Sunanda Kamble's statement that the appellant earlier on the same day at about 4 p.m. assaulted Sanjay Kamble with slippers is corroborated by the presence of an abrasion on the right chest and the swelling on the right elbow of the deceased. 9. It is significant to point out that Maruti Patil is a wholly independent witness who had no axe to grind against the appellant. He is also a very natural witness of the incident inasmuch as the incident took place inside his shop. 9. It is significant to point out that Maruti Patil is a wholly independent witness who had no axe to grind against the appellant. He is also a very natural witness of the incident inasmuch as the incident took place inside his shop. In our view unless he had witnessed the fatal assault on the deceased by the appellant he would not have falsely deposed against the appellant. It is true that Sunanda, Sharda and Champabai being the aunt, mother and sister of the deceased respectively are interested witnesses but the settled law is that the testimony of an interested witness has only to be evaluated with caution and not mechanically rejected. I have exercised the necessary caution in evaluating their testimony and I find the same inspires implicit confidence. 10. In my view the learned trial judge acted rightly in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304(II), IPC. 11. Mr. Marwadi, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that there are some unexplained injuries on the appellant which probabilise his acting in private defence of person, I have reflected over the submission and find the same to be devoid of merit. A perusal of the statement of Dr. Vishwanath Devoushi P.W. 12 shows that he had examined the appellant on 11-7-1991 and found on his person the following injuries : 1) Abrasion over zygomatic region; 2) Minor abrasion over right shoulder; 3) Abrasion and scratch mark over right side of chest 2" in length. Dr. Devoushi stated that the age of these injuries was within 48 hours. A perusal of these injuries would show that they are superficial injuries. It is well settled that the prosecution is under no obligation to explain superficial injuries. (See para 2 of AIR 1977 SC 2252 : (1977 Cri LJ 1930) Bhabha Nanda Sarma v. State of Assam). Dr. Devoushi stated that the age of these injuries was within 48 hours. A perusal of these injuries would show that they are superficial injuries. It is well settled that the prosecution is under no obligation to explain superficial injuries. (See para 2 of AIR 1977 SC 2252 : (1977 Cri LJ 1930) Bhabha Nanda Sarma v. State of Assam). At any rate even if for arguments sake it is assumed that the deceased first inflicted these injuries on the person of the appellant there can be no getting away that the appellant blatantly exceeded his right of private defence of person and therefore would still be guilty for the offence under Section 304 (II), IPC, for on the basis of these injuries it can neither be said that the appellant had apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, and consequently could not kill the deceased as provided by clauses firstly and secondly of Section 100, IPC. 12. The sole question which remains is that of sentence. Mr. Marwadi, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that looking to the circumstances, in which the incident took place, the weapon with which the appellant inflicted a solitary blow on the deceased namely a wooden block which was 8 inch in length and bearing in mind that there is nothing to indicate that the appellant has any criminal history, it would be expedient in the intereat of justice, if his substantive sentence is reduced to already undergone and in lieu thereof a reasonable fine, which should be directed to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, is imposed on him. I have reflected over the said submission and I regret that I cannot accede to it, I do not think that deceased committed any crime in asking the wife of the appellant whether she had tea. Even assuming that the appellant had been married recently and such a conduct of the deceased irritated him there was a limit to which he could go. It should be borne in mind that just about an hour before fatally assaulting the deceased the appellant had locked him inside the room of his house and assaulted him with slippers. Even assuming that the appellant had been married recently and such a conduct of the deceased irritated him there was a limit to which he could go. It should be borne in mind that just about an hour before fatally assaulting the deceased the appellant had locked him inside the room of his house and assaulted him with slippers. To inflict a severe blow with a wooden block on the head of the deceased for such an act, about an hour thereafter in my opinion, would not justify the substantive sentence of the appellant being reduced to the period already undergone, as contended by Mr. Marwadi. But be that as it may a sentence of 5 years R.I. on these facts is certainly excessive, I feel that considering the overall circumstances the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if the substantive sentence of 5 years R.I. awarded to the appellant he is reduced to 2 1/2 years R. I. and he is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and to undergo 6 months R.I. in default. 13. In the result this appeal is partly allowed. Although I maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304(II), IPC, and fine of Rs. 100/- and one month's R. I. in default thereof, but reduce his substantive sentence from 5 years R.I. to 2 1/2 years R.I. (30 months R.I.) and impose a fine of Rs. 2500/- on him and direct that he would undergo 3 months R.I. in case he fails to pay the same within a period of 6 months from today. The fine shall be deposited by the appellant in the trial Court and would be paid as compensation to the legal heir/heirs of the deceased, as the case may be. They shall be informed about it as soon as the fine is deposited. The period served by the appellant as an under-trial and convict shall be set off in computing the period of sentence which the appellant will serve. The appellant is on bail and shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. It shall be open to the trial Court to accept the fine on production of a certified copy of this judgment which in case an application is made by the learned counsel for the appellant, shall be issued within 8 weeks from today. Appeal partly allowed.