JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The appellant Gobardhan Majhi, who was one of the accused persons in S. C. No. 253/92 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 37/93 registered u/s 302/34, IPC has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence whereby he was directed to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed murder of one Govinda Majhi. 2. From the narration of facts by the prosecution, it appears that accused is the brother-in-law of deceased Govinda Majhi. On 18.6.92 at about 4.00 P.M. deceased Govinda Majhi under the influence of liquor went to the house of the appellant and other accused persons and used abrasive language at them. The appellant and other two accused persons (who are since dead) being in a sudden impulse due to such chastise by the deceased chased the deceased who was running ahead of them. The deceased Govinda in order to save his life entered inside the house of one Jadu Majhi. Jadu Majhi closed his door and on his persuation the accused persons left that place. After some time deceased Govinda Majhi left that place and ran towards the village road, It is alleged that while he was taking shelter beneath a Mahua tree, the accused persons went there and there was a fighting between them during which the appellant alleged to have inflicted blows on the head of the deceased by means of a lathi. Thereafter all the assailants including the appellant left deceased Govinda at that place and went away to their house. Subsequently after having escaped from that place deceased Govinda went to his brother's house and narrated the incident. Due to night-fall the report could not be lodged at the police station on that day and on the following morning the brother of the deceased lodged a report at the police station, but on the same morning Govinda expired in his house. It is alleged that all the three accused persons including the appellant gave lathi blows, first blows and kicks. After the injured Govinda succumbed to the injuries, a case u/s 302/34, IPC was registered and immediately investigation started. All the accused persons including the appellant stood prosecuted for commission of murder of Govinda. But during the pendency of the trial accused Jabar Majhi and Damodar Majhi died and the case against them had abated. 3. After the injured Govinda succumbed to the injuries, a case u/s 302/34, IPC was registered and immediately investigation started. All the accused persons including the appellant stood prosecuted for commission of murder of Govinda. But during the pendency of the trial accused Jabar Majhi and Damodar Majhi died and the case against them had abated. 3. The plea of the appellants in the trial Court was one of denial of occurrence. According to the defence, the evidence of prosecution witnesses was tainted with enmity and they were interested witnesses and, therefore, no credibility should be attached on their testimony. The trial Court on an ellaborate resume of the evidence was, however, inclined to record a conviction against appellant Gobardhan @ Goburu Majhi u/s 302/34, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 4. To prove the charge against the appellant 11 witnesses were said to have been examined by the prosecution of whom P.Ws. 4 to 6 were said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. From the text of the evidence of P.Ws, 4 to 6 it has further appeared that the death of injured Govinda was on account of injuries said to have been inflicted by the appellant as well as his associates. But the death was not instantaneous and death took place on the subsequent morning. From the medical evidence it transpires that there was no fracture of the skull bone, but due to haematoma resulting in collection of blood in subcutaneous tissue the patient died. There was also no rupture of the skin nor any fracture noticed in the brain. It is not known, even though there has been evidence that the injured after receiving such blows was able to walk down to his residence, why he was not taken to nearest dispensary and allowed to expire on the following morning. Had the injured been provided with immediate treatment, we think, there could have been a chance of his survival. From the F.I.R. it has further transpired that after receiving injury he was conscious for some time, therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant and his associates had any intention to kill him. Rather, the parties are closely related to each other. 5. From the F.I.R. it has further transpired that after receiving injury he was conscious for some time, therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant and his associates had any intention to kill him. Rather, the parties are closely related to each other. 5. The evidence of all the witnesses had established that the deceased used abusive language and on account of such intemperate language being hurled at the appellant and other associates, they must have acted on a sudden impulse by giving injury to the deceased. The other two accused have died during the pendency of the trial. 6. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, we have no other option but to hold that the appellant did not have any intention to kill the deceased for which he shall be liable to be punished only u/s 304, Part-l, IPC instead of u/s 302, IPC. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for 10 years in the mean time. In that view of the matter, in order to meet the ends of justice, we direct the appellant to undergo the sentence which he has already suffered. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant u/s 302, IPC is converted into one u/s 304, Part-l, IPC and the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life is reduced to the sentence already undergone. P. K. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Partly Allowed