Judgment P.K.Deb and D.P.S.Choudhary JJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above-named accused-appellant from jail against the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, in Sessions case No. 357 of 1986 whereby and whereunder the accused-appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally killing his mother-in-law Paku Murmu on 9-5-1986 at 6 p.m. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The accused-appellant married the daughter of the deceased Paku Murmu, namely, Sona Hembram and in the wed-lock they have a male issue. As per the customs prevailing amongst the parties, the accused-appellant was a Chardamad of the deceased Paku Murmu. The wife of the accused-appellant Sona Hembram used to dance in the festivals which was disliked by her husband. As per tribal customs, married woman do not participate in dance festival. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 9-5-1986, the accused-appellant being enraged started beating his wife Sona Hembram, as a result of which Sona Hembram rushed out to inform Paku Murmu her mother for protection and at that moment Paku Murmu was present at the house of the informant P.W. 1 Mangal Tudu in the neighbourhood. There at the house of the informant other persons, namely, Samual Murmu, Chandra Hembram, wife of Mangal Tudu and Dhena Kisku were present and they were taking toddy. Sona came on running and informed her mother that she was being assaulted by her husband by a Thenga and was being chased. At this Paku Murmu stepped forward where through the accused-appellant was proceeding and asked her son-in-law not to beat her daughter. Hearing this, the accused-appellant gave a Thenga blow on her forehead as a result of which who fell down and then another blow was given by the said Thenga. The people present at the spot caught hold of the accused-appellant. He was kept confined and then in the next morning, the informant Mangal Tudu being accompanied with Sona Hembram went to Litipara Police Station which is about 20 kilometres away from their village Chhoramurjora. There before the officer-incharge Mangal Tudu gave description about the whole occurrence of the yesterday evening and the same was taken up in black and white by the officer incharge and then L.T.I. of Mangal Tudu was taken. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Mangal Tudu, which has been marked as Ext. There before the officer-incharge Mangal Tudu gave description about the whole occurrence of the yesterday evening and the same was taken up in black and white by the officer incharge and then L.T.I. of Mangal Tudu was taken. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Mangal Tudu, which has been marked as Ext. 1, a case was registered. Police came to the spot and found the dead body of Paku Murmu lying in the Courtyard of Mangal Tudu and then the dead body was sent for autopsy. During the Court of post-mortem examination three injuries were found on the person of the deceased, namely, (i) two incised wound on the mid-forehead (ii) Scalp broken and (iii) Abrasion on the right for sum of hand. 3. After closure of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant. Thenga which was produced by the witnesses had already been seized from the place of occurrence during the course of investigation. On being committed to Sessions, charge was framed vide order dated 1-12-1989 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and when the same was explained and read over to the accused he pleaded not guilty. 4. The defence case is the denial of the prosecution story and that he was falsely implicated in the case. There is no specific case for and on behalf of the accused-appellant except the denial as mentioned above. 5. For and on behalf of the prosecution as many as six witnesses have been examined in the case. Out of them P.W. 1 Mangal Tudu, P.W. 2 Dhena Kisku, P.W. 3 Sukhi Kisku and P.W. 4 Sona Hembram are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence; P.W. 5 Indradeo Gope is the investigating Officer while P.W. 6 Dr. Sheo Kumar Gupta is the medical officer who held autopsy over the dead body of Paku Murmu. All the eyewitnesses, as mentioned above, have deposed in the same way to the effect that on the date of occurrence in the evening while they were sitting at the Angan of P.W. 1 Mangal Tudu then P.W. 4 Sona Hembram came running to inform her mother Paku Murmu deceased, who was also present there, to the effect that she was being chased by her husband for beating by means of a Thenga. Hearing this, the deceased Paku Murmu rose up and stepped forward for intervention then the accused-appellant gave two Thenga blows on her person on the vital parts of her body and as a result she succumbed to her injuries, 6. Cross-examinations were held to all those witnesses but except some minor contradiction on vital material points all the witnesses echoed the same statement unequivocally. The evidence regarding assault has also been corroborated by the medical officer except the fact that although the assault was made by means of Thenga but the doctor found two injuries to be incised injuries and opined that those might be caused by sharp-cutting weapon. It should be mentioned here that the evidence of the doctor as well as the report of the post-mortem prepared by him is very cryptic one. It is devoid of giving size, description and measurement of the injuries properly. In the inquest report, the injuries were found to be caused by blunt weapon as the injuries on the forehead being broken including scalp. Breaking of forehead and scalp by means of heavy blunt weapon may some time reveal like that of the injury by sharp-cutting weapon but that can only be formed if the size and the description of the injuries are being properly narrated. We have already mentioned that the doctors evidence or the post-mortem report is devoid of that. At least the doctors report supports this fact that the injuries as described to be caused on the vital part of the deceased i.e. on the forehead. The inquest report and ocular evidence totally support the prosecution story and the doctors evidence also supports the injuries caused on the person of the deceased. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant made an attempt to impress us by referring to the effect that some of the witnesses stated that occurrence took place on the lane attached to the North of the Courtyard of P.W. 1 Mangal Tudu but the dead body was found by the Investigating Officer on the Courtyard of Mangal Tudu. This argument was also placed before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge has given his opinion in the judgment itself on that argument. This argument was also placed before the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge has given his opinion in the judgment itself on that argument. Besides such opinion of the Sessions Judge, we find on close scrutiny of the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the effect that the lane North to the Courtyard of Mangal Tudu was just attached and contiguous to the Courtyard and through that lane the accused-appellant had approached the Courtyard of P.W. 1 Mangal Tudu and then the deceased intervened. So there remains no such discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence i.e. either on the lane or in the Courtyard. On independent scrutiny of the evidence of the four eye-witnesses together with the medical evidence or we come to the same finding as that of the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution could be able to prove the guilty of the accused-appellant to the effect that he was responsible for causing death of Paku Murmu by means of a Thenga. 8. Now the point comes in whether in the circumstances of the case the offence of the accused-appellant could be covered by Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code or not. Learned State Counsel has fairly submitted that the circumstances of the case go to show that there was no clear intention of the accused-appellant to kill Paku Murmu although the injuries caused by him were on the vital part of the body. The accused-appellant happens to be the son-in-law of the deceased. It has also been mentioned that the behaviour of Sona Hembram, wife of the accused-appellant, was disliked by the accused-appellant and as such being enraged he wanted to beat her. Sona Hembram came for protection to her mother, the deceased Paku Murmu. She rose up for protection of her daughter and to pacify her son-in-law. The accused-appellant was already enraged and he definitely did not like such intervention and in such mental condition, he gave two blows by Thenga on the vital part of the deceased. Such injuries were caused definitely with the knowledge that those might have caused death but clear intention or pre-planned intention was not there in causing the injuries on the person of the deceased Paku Murmu. Such injuries were caused definitely with the knowledge that those might have caused death but clear intention or pre-planned intention was not there in causing the injuries on the person of the deceased Paku Murmu. Considering the circumstances in which the occurrence took place and the offence was committed, we are of the clear opinion that the present case comes within the purview of Sec. 304, Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant is in custody since the inception of the case i.e. from 10-5-1986 and he remained in custody for more than 13 years by this time. Such period in custody for ends of justice is sufficient for punishment for the offence committed by the accused-appellant. 9. In the result, the appeal is rejected with the modification in the provision of conviction by converting Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code to that of Sec. 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed is also modified to the extent of period undergone in place of life imprisonment. The appellant may be set free immediately.