JUDGMENT Per M.E.N. PATRUDU, J. S.Jayakumar, an experienced advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae advanced his enlightening arguments which are convincing and interesting on behalf of the appellant. We would like to place on record our appreciation for his effort to secure acquittal for the said accused. However, he is not successful to get full benefit for the crime alleged to have been committed by the appellant. 2.00 He has canvassed acquittal for the appellant or in the alternative for reduction of sentence. A true advocacy. 3:00. The facts leading to conviction of the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in S.C.No.367 of 2002 are as follows: 3:01. The deceased is the father of the appellant. P.W.1 is his sister and P.W.2 is his mother. The unfortunate incident occurred in the early hours at about 4.00 a.m on 10.1.2000. The place of offence is their house. All of them are living together. There is no dispute about it. 3:02. The motive for the incident is that the appellant is addicted to drinks and spending money and not taking care of the family and on the other hand often insisting for money from the deceased who is the retired Office Assistant aged about 78 years. The appellant is a painter having his own earnings, yet he is demanding money from the deceased, his father, to consume liquor. The deceased is not able to meet the demand as he is retired. The appellant is angry. On 9.1.2000, at about 10 or 11 p.m. there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased in the house. The appellant came in a drunkard mood, quarrelled with the deceased and demanded money. P.W.2, the mother of the appellant, intervened and separated them. This incident is few months prior to the main incident. 3:03. The appellant went to the open terrace of the house and slept. The deceased was sleeping in the veranda of his house. P.W.1 and P.W.2 slept inside the house. While so, at 4.00 a.m., they heard the noise of the deceased and on hearing they rushed to the spot, wherein they found that the appellant was beating the deceased and pushed the deceased. 3:04. The specific evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that the appellant pushed the deceased resulting the deceased sustaining injuries and immediately the appellant fled away from the scene of occurrence. 3:04. The specific evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that the appellant pushed the deceased resulting the deceased sustaining injuries and immediately the appellant fled away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased sustained head injury resulting his death. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged and police have registered a case, commenced investigation and completed the same. 4.00. After examining eleven witnesses and perused exhibits P.1 to P.11 and five material objects were seized and they are marked as M.Os.1 to 9, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 5:00. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the following grounds. 6.00. There is no motive for the appellant to kill his father. It is pointed out that the appellant himself is an earning member and from the evidence of P.W.2 it is clear that the accused was earning substantial amount and hence there is no need for him to demand for further amount from the deceased. 7.00. We do not find any force in the said argument, as it depends upon the individual to demand money, despite the fact that he himself being an earning member. In the instant case, the record discloses that the accused was addicted with a bad habit of consuming liquor. The accused is demanding money from the deceased. There is a clear evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the appellant is in the habit of demanding money from the deceased and the deceased was unable to give money, being the retired employee, we do not find any reason to discard the evidence of P.Ws. 1. and 2, who are sister and mother of accused. 8.00. When there is a direct evidence with regard to the commission of offence, motive is more or less academic. Hence, we do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on motive. 9.00. It is next contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 should not have witnessed of the occurrence, because their conduct is quite unnatural, as P.Ws.1 and 2 did not intervene, when the deceased was beaten by the accused. It is also stated that the clothes of PWs.1 and 2 are not stained with blood. 9.00. It is next contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 should not have witnessed of the occurrence, because their conduct is quite unnatural, as P.Ws.1 and 2 did not intervene, when the deceased was beaten by the accused. It is also stated that the clothes of PWs.1 and 2 are not stained with blood. If they caught hold of the deceased after the incident, as deposed by them, their clothes would have been blood stained. Therefore their presence at the time of occurrence is doubtful. 10.00. We reject this argument as the entire incident was over in few minutes. The accused pushed the deceased and went away. There is no opportunity to intervene. Further, there is no blood on the deceased except on his head. Mere absence of blood stains on P.Ws.1 and 2 is not a ground to discard their evidence. 11.00. The next contention is that the report before the police was made only at 10.30. a.m . There is a delay of four hours in reporting the matter to the police and the delay was not explained properly and P.Ws.1 and 2 are not direct witnesses to the occurrence and they are set up and planted for the purpose of this case. 12.00. We are rejecting all the submission made by the learned counsel for the reason that the occurrence happened suddenly. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant pushed down the deceased and in such a case, it is absolutely impossible to intervene and stop the quarrel. Apart from that, the deceased sustained injury on his head and there was no injury all over the body. It is a clear case of prosecution that the appellant did not use any weapon at the time of commission of offence. In such a case, even if there is bleeding on the head of the deceased, it is not necessary that the clothes of P.Ws 1 and 2 must have been blood stained because the death was caused instanta-neously. 13.00. With regard to the delay in reporting the crime to the police, the evidence of P.W.1 would disclose that they reached the police station at 5.30 p.m. and reported the matter to the police and the police have come to the scene of occurrence and enquired about the incident. However, according to P.W.2, she went to the police station at 9 a.m. The report is given by P.W.1. However, according to P.W.2, she went to the police station at 9 a.m. The report is given by P.W.1. In such case, there is no delay as far as reporting the occurrence to the police. There may be delay in registering the case and that may be the fault of the investigating officer. 14.00. In Dharmendrasing v. State of Gujarath AIR 2002 SC 1937 : 2002 (4) SCC 679 it is held that if investigation commences before registering F.I.R. and even if it is accepted, it will have no effect on the merit of the case based on unimpeachable evidence of direct witnesses supported by medical evidence. 15.00. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is trustworthy. There must be some motive for the sister and mother of the appellant to implicate him in a grave crime. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that theyhave grudge against the appellant as he has not contributed any amount to the welfare of the family and therefore they have implicated him, is without any force. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clearly established that there was a wordy quarrel between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. This fact was also witnessed by P.W.5, the neighbour, an independent witness. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 would clearly establish that there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused at about 10.00 or 11.00 p.m and the main incident occurred at 4.a.m on the same night. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the direct witnesses to the incident. They testified truthful evidence. They have narrated the true story. It is not the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused was armed with any weapon and attacked the deceased. They have deposed that the appellant pushed the deceased and in the course of which he fell down and sustained injury. It is sufficient to come to the conclusion that they have given a truthful version. Therefore, we hold that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is trustworthy. 16.00. In this case, the evidence of P.W 9, Dr.Ganesan, establishes that the deceased died of shock and haemmorhage. In fact, the cause of death is not in question. 17.00. After verifying the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we are, of the opinion that this case is attracting Exception 1 of Section 300 Cr.P.C. 18.00. 16.00. In this case, the evidence of P.W 9, Dr.Ganesan, establishes that the deceased died of shock and haemmorhage. In fact, the cause of death is not in question. 17.00. After verifying the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we are, of the opinion that this case is attracting Exception 1 of Section 300 Cr.P.C. 18.00. Learned counsel had rightly argued that the accused having lost his self control, because of the earlier incident and because of the humiliation and insults received in the house, he might have pushed the deceased. This is a case that he has no motive to kill his father. The deceased is none other than his father. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the case would falls under the provision of Section 304 I.P.C. When the offence is committed without any intention or without any knowledge that the injury would cause death, the act attracts Section 304(ii) I.P.C. The appellant neither had an intention to kill the deceased nor had any knowledge that such push will cause injury on the head of the deceased resulting the death of the deceased. 19.00. Thus, we hold that the accused is guilty for the offence under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. is modified. With regard to sentence, in our considered opinion, five years imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and the sentence already undergone will be given set off. 20.00. With the above modification of conviction and sentence the appeal is disposed of.