JUDGMENT : B.N. Agrawal, C.J. - The Sole Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 304, Part-II and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'Indian Penal Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years on the first count and for a period of four years on the second count. Both the sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. Initially the accused was charged under Sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code. But the learned trial Judge found the accused not guilty u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, acquitted him of the said charge, and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 3.4.1993, sister-in-law of the accused was combing the hair of mother of accused. Mother of the accused used to tell him to work for his livelihood. On the date of occurrence upon hearing this from the mother, accused came with a Daula (katari) and cut the hair of the head of his mother out of anger. When his mother and Laxmipriya Giri alias Champamani (P.W. 8) protested, the accused dealt a blow on the neck of his mother causing injuries to her and thereafter she succumbed to the same. The accused is also said to have inflicted injuries on P.W. 8. Upon hearing the alarm raised, some villagers arrived and confined the accused in a room. Father of the accused, who was then absent from home, on getting information from some of the villagers came back and saw his wife lying dead on the ground. Stating aforesaid facts, informant Bidyadhar Giri (P.W. 1) lodged. first information report at the police station on the basis of which a case was registered, police took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge sheet against the accused. Upon filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the accused to Court of Session to face trial. 3. Defense of the accused is that he was innocent and has been' falsely implicated in the case in hand. Further, according to the accused no such occurrence has taken place much less in the manner alleged. 4. In support of prosecution case, 19 witnesses were examined out of whom P.W. 8 is nobody else than sister-in-law of the. accused and an injured eye-witness. Further, according to the accused no such occurrence has taken place much less in the manner alleged. 4. In support of prosecution case, 19 witnesses were examined out of whom P.W. 8 is nobody else than sister-in-law of the. accused and an injured eye-witness. P.W. 1 is the informant himself who claimed to have arrived the place of occurrence upon hearing the hullah, whereas P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 9 also claimed to have arrived there upon hearing the hullah and found mother of the accused lying dead on the ground, and P.W. 8 lying unconscious on the ground. These witnesses stated that they apprehended the accused and bolted him in a room. P.W. 6 is a witness to seizure, P.W. 10 is father of the accused, P. Ws. 14 and 13 are formal witnesses, and P. Ws. 16, 17 and 18 are three Doctors. P.W. 16 is said to have examined the injured. P.W. 18 is Dr. B.N. Mohanty, who. conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P. Ws. 11 and 19 are the investigating officers in the case. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution convicted the accused and sentenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal. 5. In this appeal, it appears that there was an injured eye witnesses, i.e. P.W. 8, who has consistently supported the prosecution case disclosed in the First Information Report, and her statement is corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5, who arrived after hearing the hullah. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence or any of these witnesses. Learned Counsel for the accused also could not point out any infirmity in the evidence of the said witnesses. 6. Evidence of the Investigating Officers and the medical evidence support the prosecution case. In my view, prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts, and the Court below has not committed any error in convicting the accused. 7. it has been contended by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that sentences of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and four years have been ordered to run concurrently, and the accused has remained in jail for about seven years as he was arrested on 4.4.1993. Therefore, this Court should reduce the period of sentences awarded against him to the period already undergone. 8. Therefore, this Court should reduce the period of sentences awarded against him to the period already undergone. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the period of sentence already undergone, I am of the view that ends of, justice will be met in case the sentences awarded against the accused is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, I reduce the sentences to the period already undergone. 9. In the result, with the aforesaid modification in sentence awarded against the Appellant, the appeal is dismissed. The Appellant, who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. Final Result : Dismissed