JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1993/Sesssions Case No. 51 of 1993 (G.D.C.) directing the Appellant to undergo imprisonment for life has been challenged in this appeal. 2. The brevity of the prosecution story narrated in the trial Court's judgment is as follows: On 4.10.1992 at about 10.00 P.M. there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased. But due to the intervention of the informant, such quarrel could be subsided. Within a short while, the Appellant is said to have gone inside the house and brought out a knife and thereafter inflicted a blow by the said knife on the left side chest of the deceased, sequel to which the latter fell down sustaining bleeding injury and instantaneously died. Subsequently, the informant, who was the brother of the deceased, reported the incident to the police. The OIC reached the spot, held inquest over the dead body in presence of witnesses, recorded the statements of witnesses, arranged to dispatch the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem examination, seized the incriminating materials such as blood stained cloth and the sample earth, sent the incriminating materials to the scientific expert through the learned S.D.J.M; Paralakhemundi and after closure of investigation placed the charge-sheet under against the Appellant. 3. The defence plea was one of denial of the incident. The Appellant claimed to have been falsely implicated. 4. The learned Trial Judge after elaborate discussion of the evidence found the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 5. In order to sustain the conviction against the Appellant 17 witnesses were examined, of whom the evidence of P. Ws. 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 is significant. The testimony of P.W. 17 revealed that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on account of stab blow on his left chest. It has further transpired that such blow would cause death in ordinary course of nature and the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. 6. Most of the witnesses examined for the prosecution was I declared hostile and their evidentiary value was practically reduced to cipher and in no manner does it help the prosecution. However, P.W. 10 who is the wife of the deceased claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. 6. Most of the witnesses examined for the prosecution was I declared hostile and their evidentiary value was practically reduced to cipher and in no manner does it help the prosecution. However, P.W. 10 who is the wife of the deceased claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. She presented a graphic picture about the incident as to how her husband received the piercing knife injury on his chest. A bare suggestion was given to her that she was not present in her house at.the time of occurrence; but the learned trial Court has spurned such objection on the ground that the statement alleged to have been made by P.W. 10 before the police was not con fronted to the 1.0., P.W. 16. The evidence of P.W. 10 lends great significance in order to determine the culpability of the Appellant inasmuch as she being the wife of the deceased would not ever make any attempt to see the real culprit go scot free. Even though she may be characterised as an interested witness and a relation of the deceased, yet her evidence goes along way in proving the prosecution case. It was brought out from her evidence that while her husband was playing tape recorder, the Appellant protested as to why the former used to play such tape recorder at his inconvenience, but the deceased paid a deaf ear, and continued to play the tape recorder further. There was a quarrel between the deceased and the Appellant and immediately thereafter the latter went inside his house, brought out a knife and in quick succession plunged a blow with that knife into the left side chest of the deceased. No sooner was such blow inflicted on the deceased than he fell down on the ground and died instantaneously. The statement of P.W. 10 has received substantial corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 13 on all material particulars. As discussed above, P;W. 17 the post-mortem doctor, has also certified that the deceased died of the injury sustained by him. 7. Turning to the evidence of P.W. 16, the 10, it seems that P. Ws. 14 and 15 had not claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence was only on hear-say. But the learned Trial Judge also paid undue emphasis on their evidence without carefully perusing the evidence of P.W. 16. Even if we exclude the evidence of P. Ws. 14 and 15 had not claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence was only on hear-say. But the learned Trial Judge also paid undue emphasis on their evidence without carefully perusing the evidence of P.W. 16. Even if we exclude the evidence of P. Ws. 14 and 15, there is the evidence of P.W. 10 substantially corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 13 and 17. Therefore, on a combined reading of the testimony of P. Ws. 10, 13 and 17, it has been amply proved by the prosecution that the Appellant was the author of the crime, who caused the fatal injury on the chest of the deceased, as a result of which he died. 8. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the Appellant had an intention to cause the death of the deceased. From the evidence on record, we did not find any material to suggest that the Appellant was in inimical terms with the deceased or his family. The unfortunate incident had taken place on the spur of the moment when despite protest raised by the Appellant, the deceased continued to play the tape recorder, which enraged him to give such fatal blow. without any pre-meditation and unfortunately he succumbed to one blow. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the Appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased, but he inflicted" such injury out of sudden anger. In this background, he should be held guilty u/s 304, Part-II, Indian Penal Code but not u/s 302, Indian Penal Code as held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. Mr. Sk. Zafrullah, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant while winding up his argument brought to our notice that the Appellant has already suffered imprisonment for about 10 years. In order to meet the ends of justice, we sentence the Appellant undergo imprisonment, which he had already suffered. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order conviction and sentence of the Appellant u/s 302, Indian Penal Code is set aside. The Appellant is convicted u/s 304, Part-II, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already 4 suffered. He be released from jail custody and set at liberty forthwith. Final Result : Allowed