JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — The appellant stands convicted under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the murder by intentionally causing the death of his father-in-law Pankaj Bag. He has also been convicted under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for having attempted to commit the murder of his mother-in-law Urmila and under Sec. 323, I.P.C. for having voluntarily caused hurt to his sister-in-law Srimati and sen¬tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; all the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was earning his livelihood by pulling rickshaw and was staying at Panitanki Jhumpudi, Sector-7, Rourkela. His father-in-law Pankaj Bag (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was staying in the same locality with members of his family. The appellant most of the time was taking liquor and was quarrelling with and ill-treating his wife Laxmi (P.W.12). In the night of 30.5.1992, the appellant returned home in a state of intoxica¬tion and started quarrelling with his wife. His mother-in-law Urmila could not tolerate it and came to the house of the appel¬lant and questioned him. At this the appellant got enraged and challenged his mother-in-law as to why she was interfering in his domestic affairs. He brought out a long iron rod and with it assaulted on her head causing profuse bleeding injury. Hearing her shout, the deceased and his younger daughter Srimati (P.W.3) came to the spot. When they came and tried to dissuade the appellant, the latter assaulted Srimati (P.W.3) and the deceased on his head and other parts of the body with that iron rod. Due to such assault, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and fell down. When other people of the Basti came, the appellant threatened them to assault. The deceased was ultimately shifted to the hospital but he could not survive and died. 3. Plea of the appellant was one of complete denial. 4. Prosecution examined fourteen witnesses on its behalf. P.W.1 Urmila (widow of the deceased), P.W.3 Srimati (daughter of the deceased) and P.W.12 Laxmi (wife of the appellant) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The deceased had also made dying declaration which was recorded by the Investigating Officer (vide Ext.1) in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 6. 4. Prosecution examined fourteen witnesses on its behalf. P.W.1 Urmila (widow of the deceased), P.W.3 Srimati (daughter of the deceased) and P.W.12 Laxmi (wife of the appellant) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The deceased had also made dying declaration which was recorded by the Investigating Officer (vide Ext.1) in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 6. Basing on their evi¬dence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant, as mentioned above. 5. It is not in dispute that the deceased had a homicidal death. P.W.10, the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, found the following external injuries on his person : (i) Lacerated injury over back of right parietal region ½ x ¼ x scalp deep. (ii) Lacerated wound obliquely vertical and 1" behind injury No. (i) of the size of 2" x ½” x bone deep and was irregular size. (iii) lacerated wound obliquely vertical 1½” behind injury No. (ii) of the size 3" x ½” x bone deep of irregular size. (iv) Lacerated wound obliquely vertical 2.3/4" behind injury No. (iii) 1½” x ½” x scalp deep. (v) Lacerated wound obliquely vertical over occipital region 1½” below injury No. (iv) of the size 2" x ½” x bone deep. (vi) Lacerated wound obliquely placed over left eye brow ½” x ½” x scalp deep. (vii) Bruise obliquely over the side of left arm 3" x 1" x muscle deep. (viii) Lacerated wound obliquely placed 2" below injury No. (vii) of the size 2" x ½” x muscle deep. (ix) Lacerated wound obliquely placed on the back of right shoul¬der 2" x ½” x muscle deep. (x) multiple bruises over back of chest over an area of 15" x 9" of skin and muscle deep. (xi) Lacerated wound at the front of right leg below knee 1½” x ½” x muscle and bone deep. (xii) Two bruises over front of left leg below the knee 2" x ½” and 1" x ½” respectively and both were skin deep. On dissection, he noticed fracture of right parietal bone at multiple sites. There was fracture of occipital bone. There was scalp haematoma over right side and back of scalp. Multiple reptured vessels with subdural and epidural haemorrhage and haematoma were found on the membranes which were deeply congest¬ed. He opined that the injuries on head particularly injury Nos. On dissection, he noticed fracture of right parietal bone at multiple sites. There was fracture of occipital bone. There was scalp haematoma over right side and back of scalp. Multiple reptured vessels with subdural and epidural haemorrhage and haematoma were found on the membranes which were deeply congest¬ed. He opined that the injuries on head particularly injury Nos. (ii), (iii) and (v) were fatal in ordinary course of nature. P.W.9 is the doctor who examined P.W.1 Urmila on 31.5.1992. On her examination, he noticed one lacerated injury of the size of 3" x ½” x 1/10" over the right frontal region of her head. After getting the X-ray plate, he opined that the injury found on her head was simple in nature as there was no boney injury. P.W.3 Srimati was also sent for medical examination but she had no external injury on her person. It is in the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) that because of assault she had pain near her waist. 6. So far as the main occurrence is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 Urmila, P.W.3 Srimati and P.W.12 Laxmi is relevant. According to P.Ws. 1 and 3, in the night of occurrence, hearing the quarrel between the appellant and his wife P.W.12, P.W.1 first came to the house of the appellant and challenged him as to why he was quarrelling and assaulting her daughter. The appellant took exception to it and challenged her as to who she was to interfere in his domestic affairs. So saying, he brought an iron rod and with it assaulted on the head of P.W.1 causing bleeding injury. When P.W.3 came to her mother’s rescue, she was also assaulted by the appellant. Hearing the noise when the deceased came there and tried to intervene, the appellant dealt a blow by means of that iron rod on the back of his head as a result of which he sustained bleeding injury and fell down. Thereafter the appellant dealt number of blows on him. Their evidence with regard to assault on the deceased. P.W.1 and P.W.3 has remained unshaken in cross-examination. Both of them have identified the iron rod (M.O.I) as the weapon of offence. No contradiction whatsoever with reference to their previous statements recorded under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. had been brought out in evidence. Thereafter the appellant dealt number of blows on him. Their evidence with regard to assault on the deceased. P.W.1 and P.W.3 has remained unshaken in cross-examination. Both of them have identified the iron rod (M.O.I) as the weapon of offence. No contradiction whatsoever with reference to their previous statements recorded under Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. had been brought out in evidence. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.12 Laxmi, it may be seen that she deposed that her husband (appellant) came in a state of intoxication and quarrelled with her. Hearing this when her mother P.W.1 came and objected, the appellant challenged as to who she was to interfere in his domestic affairs. He immediately brought out an iron rod and with it assaulted on the head of her mother causing bleeding injury. Her sister Srimati (P.W.3) came and objected. The appellant also dealt a blow to her with that iron rod. Her father (the deceased) came and objected to the behaviour of the appellant. This witness (P.W.12) admitted that she had not seen the assault on her father as she had already gone inside her house and when she came out, she found her father lying in front of her Jhumpudi in a dying condition. The aforesaid evidence of P.W.12 indicates that she was not a witness to the assault given by the appellant on the deceased. Besides the evidence of the eye-witnesses, there is also the dying declaration made by the deceased. Ext. 1 is the dying declaration which was recorded by P.W.14, the Investigating Officer. His evidence shows that he visited the spot at 11.45 p.m. in the night of occurrence. He recorded the dying declara¬tion in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 6 who are residents of the same locality. They have fully corroborated the evidence of the Investigating Officer. Both of them stated that being asked by the police officer, the deceased stated that he was assaulted by the appellant by means of an iron rod. The evidence of the eye-witnesses also receives corroboration from the dying declaration Ext. 1 made by the deceased. 7. In view of the overwhelming evidence, referred to above, we have no hesitation to hold that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased with the iron rod M.O.I resulting in his death. He had also caused hurt to P.W.I Urmila and P.W.3 Srimati by means of the said iron rod. 1 made by the deceased. 7. In view of the overwhelming evidence, referred to above, we have no hesitation to hold that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased with the iron rod M.O.I resulting in his death. He had also caused hurt to P.W.I Urmila and P.W.3 Srimati by means of the said iron rod. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had no intention to cause the death nor any intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. 9. As already noticed, the appellant came drunk to his house and as usual he started quarrelling with his wife. When this was objected to by P.W.1 Urmila, he first assaulted her. When P.W.3 came to the rescue of her mother, she was also assaulted. Immediately thereafter the deceased came and when he protested, the appellant gave successive blows to him. It is a case where there was no pre-meditation. The appellant in a heat of passion assaulted the deceased to death without any intention whatsoever. He seems to have lost control on him as he thought that interfer¬ence in his domestic affairs by his mother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law was unwarranted. In the circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the case would broadly come within Excep¬tion IV of Sec. 300, IPC. Therefore, the offence would come within the purview of Part I of Sec. 304, IPC. The evidence on record also does not justify to hold that the appellant has attempted to commit the murder of P.W.1 Urmila. It would be a case coming under Sec. 325, IPC. 10. In the result while acquitting the appellant of the charge under Sec. 302, IPC, we hold him guilty under Sec. 304, Part-I, IPC and convict him thereunder. We sentence him to suffer impris¬onment for seven years. His conviction under Sec. 307, IPC is also set aside. Instead, he is convicted under Sec. 225, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years. His conviction under Sec. 323, IPC is hereby maintained. All the sentences are to run concurrently. The appeal is allowed in part. If the appellant has already suffered the sentence as modified by us, he may be set at liberty forthwith if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. CH. P. K. MISRA, J. I agree. Appeal allowed in part.