ORDER 1. Though this appeal has been filed by special leave in challenge of both the conviction and sentence, we found the necessity to confine to the quantum of sentence. The first appellant herein was the first accused. He was acquitted along withnumber of other accused by the trial court. But the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the first appellant under Section 304 Part II and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years on the first count and tofine of Rs 500 on the second count. All his co-accused (the remaining appellants) were convicted only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced only tofine of Rs 500. Apparently, that is 178 SCC (2004) 10 SCC the reason why the first appellant is now singled out as the rest of the coaccused are reconciled to the verdict passed by the High Court. Though those co-accused have also been arrayed as appellants in the present appeal, no argument was made on their behalf. So we dismiss the appeal as against all those co-accused and proceed to consider only the case of the 1st appellant who will be referred to as the appellant in this order. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent State we are not persuaded to interfere with the conviction of the offence under Section 304 Part II.brief sketch of the facts is necessary in considering the question of quantum of sentence. 3.commotion took place in front of the house of Bhimappa (PW 1) during the night of 10-9-1984. The appellant and his co-accused were involved in assaulting Bhimappa and his brothers-in-law. While the brawl was in full swing PW ls daughter Renu Kavva,twelve-year-old little girl, rushed to the scene presumably to rescue her father whom she would have thought to be indangerous situation. The appellant herein then swishedwooden hammer he was then possessed with, which hit on the head of Renu Kavva, which unfortunately turned out to be fatal. Therefore, the High Court, on the appeal against acquittal, found that the appellant did not intend to inflict the injury which caused her death. We are in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the offence is only under Section 304 Part II IPC. 4. Therefore, the High Court, on the appeal against acquittal, found that the appellant did not intend to inflict the injury which caused her death. We are in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the offence is only under Section 304 Part II IPC. 4. It is true thatlittle girl died in the unfortunate incident. But it is also true that the appellant had no ire against that little girl either before or during the occurrence. It was an act done inrash mood without any intention to cause even grievous hurt to her. Even so, the appellant must pay the penalty for it. There is only one injury which the little girl sustained and probably because the skull bone of the deceased was not grown to sturdiness as in grown-up persons, the strike had resulted in suchcalamitous proportion. 5. Section 3()4 Part II 0f the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment of imprisonment which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both earned counsel madeplea that on the fact situationsentence of finewell be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Though we too are persuaded to think so, we are not disposed to impose any amountfine. After consideringvarious aspects we think thatfine of Rs 25,000 IS necessary to meet the ends of justice . 6. In the result we confirm the conviction of the offence under Section 304 Part II, but we alter the sentence tofine of Rs 25,000. If the appellant fails to remit the fine in the trial court within six weeks from today. we direct him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. If the fine is relished from the appellant the trial court shall pay the same to. PW .1 Bhimappa ( father of Renu Kavva) by way of compensation as provided m Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.