Judgment P.K.Deb and D.P.S.Choudhary JJ. 1. This jail appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant, who has been convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 509/90. The judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by then 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka. 2. The accused-appellant was charged under Section 302, IPC for intentionally killing his father, Dadla Tuddu, in the after-noon hours at about 5 p.m. on 11-5-1990, at his house situated at village Jamkenali, P. S. Amarapara, within the then Sahebganj district. As per the prosecution case the deceased and the accused being the father and son used to live separately having a common court-yard and they had a long standing dispute regarding the landed prdperties and usufruct of the lands and the orchard. On previous occasions also both the son and the father indulged in quarrel for their legitimate shares in respect of the usufruct of the lands. It has been alleged that on the date of the occurrence in the evening house the accused had assaulted his father by means of a lathi made of Tar tree, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and he died out of those injuries. The dead body was kept covered by some cloth by the accused appellant. On the next day, in the morning hours, PW-5, Baha Tuddu, who used to fetch water from the well for the deceased found her master missing and on being asked the accused, who use to live in the neighbouring house of the same Angan, he confessed before her that on his assault by means of lathi of Tar in the last evening, his father had died and the dead body was also shown to her by the accused and then she called her husband and in presence of both of them the accused had confessed his guilt. She then rushed to the village Chowkidar, Singha Palladia, who came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body and caught hold of the accused. She then rushed to the village Chowkidar, Singha Palladia, who came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body and caught hold of the accused. He went to the Amrapara Police Station along with the accused and there the accused was made over to the Police and fardbeyan was made by PW-7, stating all the facts as to how he was reported by PW-5 and how the accused made his extra judicial confession before him and other villagers including PW-5, Baha Tuddu, PW-6, Thakur Murmu, and PW-2 Jissu Soren and others. It is alleged that before the Police also, the accused made confession. On arrest, the accused was forwarded to the Magistrate with a prayer for recording his confession under Section 164 Cr PC. Before the Magistrate, the accused stated that his father died due to accident and therefore, his statement was not recorded under Section 164 Cr PC. The police investigated the case and after holding inquest, the dead body was sent for autopsy and after closure of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302, IPC. On being committed to the Session, charge was framed vide order dated 18-1-91, under Section 302, IPC and when the same was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty. 3. The defence case as revealed from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the statement made under Section 313 Cr PC of the accused is that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case as he was not present on the date of occurrence at his house and he took a plea of alibi in his statement made under, Section 313 Cr PC. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as eight witnesses have been examined, out of whom PW-1, Dr. Jageshwar Mahto, is the Medical Officer, who held postmortem examination over the dead body. PW-2 Jissu Soren is a villager and according to the prosecution case and the Investigating Officer, the accused made extra judicial confession before him. At the first instance, this witness denied that any extra judicial confession was made before him and then he was declared hostile, but during cross-examination this witness admitted that the accused had made extra Judicial Confession before him. PWs 3 and 4, Budhan Tuddu and Sakul Hansda are the seizure list witnesses. At the first instance, this witness denied that any extra judicial confession was made before him and then he was declared hostile, but during cross-examination this witness admitted that the accused had made extra Judicial Confession before him. PWs 3 and 4, Budhan Tuddu and Sakul Hansda are the seizure list witnesses. PW-5 Baha Tuddu and PW-6, Thakur Murmu are the wife and husband and according to them in their presence the accused made extra judicial confession of causing assault on his father as a result of which he died. PW-7, Singha Pahadia is the Informant and in whose presence also the extra judicial confession was made by the accused. PW-8 Ramakant Ram is the Investigation Officer. 5. On scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that although there was no eye witness to the occurrence, but the extra judicial confession made by the accused had been supported by all the prosecution witnesses and considering the assault being made on the non-vital parts of the body of the deceased, he came to the finding that the offence committed by the accused appellant can only attract Section 304 Part I of the, IPC and as such conviction order was passed under that Section, sentencing him to life imprisonment as mentioned above. 6. The extra judicial confession made by the accused appellant has been admitted by all the witnesses to the effect that out of the land dispute which was long standing between the father and the son the accused had assaulted the deceased by means of lathi made of the branches of Tar tree. 7. The postmortem report is somewhat revealing in this case. The doctor has found two injuries on the person of the deceased; (i) Compound fracture of both legs at the middle part, (ii) Compound fracture of right upper arm. According to the doctor the death was due to severe haemorrhage but in the postmortem report there is nothing written as to where such haemorrhage was caused because the injuries were on the limbs causing only compound fracture. According to the doctor the death was due to severe haemorrhage but in the postmortem report there is nothing written as to where such haemorrhage was caused because the injuries were on the limbs causing only compound fracture. During the cross-examination, he stated that he found some clots of blood at the site of the fracture but it does not show that the death was caused due to haemorrhage, it has been found that the doctor has also done the autopsy casually on total non-application of mind thus such opinion of the doctor that the death was caused due to haemorrhage cannot be believed as the same gets no support form the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Even if the whole of the prosecution evidence is believed, then also the case does not come within the purview of the murder or culpable homicide amounting to murder. There was a long standing dispute between the father and the son and being enraged the son had assaulted his father by means of a lathi of Tar, but definitely, he had no intention to kill his father and even he had no knowledge that such injuries would have caused death because he had chosen only non-vital parts of the body while assaulting. Thus after scrutiny of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution could only establish the case against the accused appellant, beyond all reasonable doubt, under Section 325, IPC, as the fractures were caused on the limbs on being assaulted by means of a hard and blunt substance. The accused appellant has already remained in custody for about 9 years and he has been more than sufficiently punished for the offence committed by him. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the conviction to the extent that the accused appellant is found guilty under Section 325, IPC and thus convicted accordingly. The sentence imposed is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the accused appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.