ORDER : N. Santosh Hegde, J. - The appellant before us in this appeal and his father Subodh Jha were accused for having committed the murder of one Sakhichand on 27-6-1981 at about 6.00 p.m. They were charged for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 323 and 324 Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the trial, the father of the appellant who was the co-accused before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur died and proceedings as against the said accused person abated and the trial proceeded against the present appellant. 2. The trial court after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code as also for the offence punishable under Section 323 Indian Penal Code for having caused injuries to PW 5, hence sentenced him under the first charge to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years, while for the charge under Section 323 Indian Penal Code he was sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In appeal filed against the said judgment of the trial court, the High Court of Judicature at Patna concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence. The appellant is now before us against the said judgment. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are that the deceased was at one point of time working in the agricultural field of the appellant and his father, but stopped going to the said work on the ground that he was not being paid sufficiently. Therefore, on 27-6-1981, at 6.00 p.m., the accused persons went to the house of the deceased and started demolishing the wall of the house of the deceased on the ground that the said wall was constructed on the land belonging to them. When the deceased questioned the act of the accused of demolishing the wall, the prosecution states that he was assaulted by the accused persons with bhalla and spade consequent to which the deceased suffered serious injuries. When the deceased questioned the act of the accused of demolishing the wall, the prosecution states that he was assaulted by the accused persons with bhalla and spade consequent to which the deceased suffered serious injuries. The prosecution also alleges that the appellant took away Rs 125 which were in the pocket of the deceased and further, the accused assaulted PW 5, the wife of the deceased. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that PW 5 went to the police station and lodged a complaint, based on which the case was registered against the accused and investigation followed. The deceased who was seriously injured was taken to the hospital but he died on 7-7-1981, consequent to which the charges registered against the accused were altered and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant alone because the other accused died in the meantime. 5. The prosecution in support of its case had examined PWs 1 to 5, eyewitnesses, out of whom PW 3 did not support the prosecution case. The trial court, as stated above, relying on the deposition of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5, held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II as also the offences pointed out under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. The trial court also took notice of the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant that there were considerable contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses as also the contents of the FIR lodged by PW 5. But the trial court, after considering the evidence of the eyewitnesses, came to the conclusion that what was stated in the complaint cannot be true but what was stated by the eyewitnesses in the court being in conformity with the medical evidence could be accepted. On the above basis, the trial court, though found some discrepancies in the complaint filed, relied upon the oral evidence of eyewitnesses and awarded the conviction as stated above. In the appeal, the High Court after re-appreciation of the same evidence, has concurred with the findings of the fact arrived at by the trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find no reason to interfere with the said findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below. In the appeal, the High Court after re-appreciation of the same evidence, has concurred with the findings of the fact arrived at by the trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find no reason to interfere with the said findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that at the time when the offence was committed, the appellant before us was about 17 years of age. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept this fact. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant must have been in his late teens at the time of the incident in question. It has also come on record which is also noted by the two courts below that the deceased was an old person aged about 65 years suffering from many ailments like tuberculosis and lung disease, etc. The cause of death has been attributed to the cumulative effect of his illness and injuries suffered by him and not only to the injury suffered by him. Though the attack was on 27-6-1981, he died in the hospital on 7-7-1981. 7. Taking all these facts into consideration, we feel that the sentence of seven years? rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant is rather on the high side. Therefore, we think it appropriate that ends of justice would be met if the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code is maintained but the sentence is reduced to three years? rigorous imprisonment in place of seven years? rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the two courts below. We also maintain the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant under Section 323 Indian Penal Code for having caused injuries to PW 5. 8. In the said view of the matter, we modify the sentence awarded on the appellant and reduce the same to three years? rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code. 9. With the above observation, this appeal stands allowed to this extent. Appeal partly allowed.