P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment, dated 7-8-2001, in S. C. No. 168 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions judge at Khammam, where under the sole appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Pasham Chandraiah (hereinafter be referred to as the deceased ), the appellant, p. Ws. 1 and 2 are residents of Gopalapuram village in Khammam district. The deceased was a village elder. There were some disputes between the appellant and B. Mukkaiah, p. W. 6, with regard to sharing the produce of soap nut tree. In that connection, a panchayat was scheduled to be held in near future. Meanwhile, anticipating danger in the hands of P. W. 6, on 15-3-2000, evening, the appellant approached the deceased and sought for shelter. Accepting his request, the deceased provided accommodation to the appellant, in his house. While so, during the early hours, on 16-3-2000, the appellant beat the deceased on his head with a pestle. On hearing the sound, when P. Ws. 1 and 2, the son and wife of the deceased respectively, got up, the appellant ran away from that place. P. Ws. 1 and 2 and some neighbours, p. Ws. 4 and 5, who allegedly came there, tried to apprehend the appellant, but they could not. On the complaint lodged by P. W. 1, a case in Crime No. 10 of 2000 on the file of dammapet Police Station was registered against the appellant for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was investigated into. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellant is Of total denial. ( 4 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 13 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and M. Os. 1 to 5. ( 5 ) OUT of these witnesses, P. Ws. 1 arid 2, who are son and wife of the deceased, are said to be the eye witnesses. P. W. 3 is the son-in-law of the deceased, P. Ws. 4 and 5 are the persons who have rushed to the scene of offence immediately after hearing the cries of P. W. 2 and noticed the appellant running away. 1 arid 2, who are son and wife of the deceased, are said to be the eye witnesses. P. W. 3 is the son-in-law of the deceased, P. Ws. 4 and 5 are the persons who have rushed to the scene of offence immediately after hearing the cries of P. W. 2 and noticed the appellant running away. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 is the person with whom the appellant was allegedly having disputes. However, he turned hostile. P. W. 7 is the son of P. W. 6. He spoke about the disputes between the appellant and his father. P. W. 8 is the inquest panch and P. W. 9 is the panch witness for the recovery of M. O. 2 i. e. pestle. ( 7 ) P. W. 10 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found depression on left parietal region above the left ear, measuring 5 x 4 cms. , and fracture of left parietal bone, the fragments found entered left cerebral hemisphere. According to him, the death of the deceased was on account of the head injury. ( 8 ) P. W. 11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who investigated the case. P. W. 12 is the photographer, who took photographs of the dead body, and P. W. 13 is the Inspector of police, who, on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. ( 9 ) EX. P-1 is the complaint given by P. W. 1 to the police, Ex. P-2 is the statement of p. W. 6 recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , ex. P-3 is the inquest report, Ex. P-4 is the crime detail form, Ex. P-5 is the disclosure statement of the appellant, Ex. P-6 is the recovery panchanama, Ex. P-7 is the post-mortem certificate, Ex. P-8 is the First information Report, Exs. P-9 to P-12 are the photographs with their corresponding negatives and Ex. P-13 is the FSL Report. ( 10 ) AFTER closure of prosecution side evidence, the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr. P-6 is the recovery panchanama, Ex. P-7 is the post-mortem certificate, Ex. P-8 is the First information Report, Exs. P-9 to P-12 are the photographs with their corresponding negatives and Ex. P-13 is the FSL Report. ( 10 ) AFTER closure of prosecution side evidence, the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. Though the appellant denied most of the incriminating evidence appearing against him, admitted the following question No. 2, "p. W. 1 further deposed that in the early hours of the day of the incident, you assaulted the deceased on his head with a pestle and he saw the same when you gave a second blow and when himself along with his mother and brother tried to intervene, you threatened them with the pestle. What do you say? by saying that it is true. . The said admission itself goes to show that the appellant has assaulted the deceased. ( 11 ) ON the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and taking into consideration the admission of the appellant that he assaulted the deceased, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the admission of the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. cannot be taken as a ground to convict him for the offence alleged. He further contends that in the absence of any motive attributed or enmity between the appellant and the deceased, the appellant cannot be held guilty. According to the learned counsel, admittedly, the deceased was an elder in the village and he used to settle disputes between persons and in that view of the matter some persons aggrieved by the verdict of the deceased, might have attacked and killed him and that the appellant is falsely implicated in this case. ( 13 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the learned Judge rightly placed his reliance on the evidence of p. W. 1 and 2 and found the appellant guilty of the offence and hence no interference is warranted in the Judgment under appeal. ( 14 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. ( 13 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the learned Judge rightly placed his reliance on the evidence of p. W. 1 and 2 and found the appellant guilty of the offence and hence no interference is warranted in the Judgment under appeal. ( 14 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 clearly show that on the date of incident, the appellant came to their house, slept on the cot and during early hours, he attacked the deceased with the pestle. The puzzling question is, as to what circumstance provoked the appellant to attack the deceased. Neither enmity was attributed to the appellant nor any motive to attack the deceased was established. Similarly, P. Ws. 1 and 2, forthat matter P. Ws. 4 and 5 have no enmity to falsely implicate the appellant in the instant case. In fact, P. W. 6, who, admittedly, had animosity with the appellant, turned hostile. ( 15 ) IT is well settled that in the presence of sufficient oral evidence, there is absolutely no necessity for the prosecution to establish motive. ( 16 ) AS already referred, the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 clearly shows that on the date of incident, the appellant slept in the house of the deceased and during early hours, he attacked the deceased with pestle. Not only p. Ws. 1 and 2, but also P. Ws. 4 and 5 witnessed the appellant running away from the scene of offence. It is already discussed above none of the prosecution witnesses having any motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The appellant, in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , admitted the evidence of P. W. 1 in the form of question No. 2, which is extracted above. Keeping in view, all the above circumstances, there is no other go except to accept the case of the prosecution that the appellant attacked the deceased, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge. ( 17 ) NOW the only question that remains for consideration is as to what offence is constituted against the appellant. ( 18 ) THE evidence of P. W. 10, the Medical officer, clearly shows that the deceased suffered depression on left parietal region above the left ear and fracture of left parietal bone. He stated that the deceased died of head injury. ( 18 ) THE evidence of P. W. 10, the Medical officer, clearly shows that the deceased suffered depression on left parietal region above the left ear and fracture of left parietal bone. He stated that the deceased died of head injury. Admittedly, the appellant gave only one blow on trie head of the deceased with the pestle. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of any motive, intention or knowledge, the appellant can only be held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian penal Code. Reference in this connection is made to the Judgment in Chowa Mandal v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) In that case, the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code. Since the motive of the appellants was not proved, the Apex Court modified the conviction and sentence recorded by the high Court and converted it to the one under section 326 IPC and directed the appellants to undergo R. I. for five years. Following the ratio laid down in the case cited supra, and since no motive is established, we hold that the act of the appellant cannot be construed as an act other than causing grievous hurt. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the offence constituted against the appellant is only under Section 326 of the indian Penal Code. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-accused in s. C. No. 168of 2000 on the file of the Additional sessions Judge, Khammam, to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is converted to the one under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is accordingly sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for five years. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be set off. With the above said modification, the criminal appeal is allowed partly.