JUDGEMNT Kulshrestha, J. --1. By this appeal, the appellant assails his conviction under section 302 of the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- awarded thereunder: in default of payment of fine, further sentence of one years RI, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Alirajpur in Sessions Trial No. 365/2003 vide judgment dated 10.8.2005. 2. The appellant was indicted for having caused murder of his wife along with one Kanhaiyalal who was charged under section 201 and Kabra @ Kunwarsingh charged under section 341 of the IPC. It was alleged that 10 days prior to 24.6.2003 in Village Walpur, deceased Bhagdibai, wife of the appellant, was assaulted by the appellant and grievous hurt was caused to her by the appellant while the other persons namely Kanhaiyalal with a view to screen the offence committed by the appellant had not taken the deceased for treatment and accused Kabra had kept her in the restraint. The matter came to light when a report was received from Dr. Kamlesh Devda to the effect that the appellant had assaulted the deceased (his wife) 10 days prior to the said report and she was having very high fever and, therefore, she was referred to the Barwani Hospital where she died on 25.6.2003. On the basis of the report, offence was registered and accused were prosecuted. Accused denied having committed any offence but the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as hereinabove stated. 3. Though prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, the witnesses examined as eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution, therefore, had to fall back on the testimony of (PW 4) Pijaribai, mother of the deceased, and Chaggansingh (PW 5), father of the deceased. In her deposition, (PW 4) Pijaribai stated that accused used to beat her daughter and in the past a Panchayat was convened in respect of the cruel treatment extended by the accused to his wife. Assurance had been extended by Sarpanch of Balpur who was maternal Uncle of the accused that accused will not misbehave with his wife. In her deposition, (PW 4) Pijaribai stated that accused used to beat her daughter and in the past a Panchayat was convened in respect of the cruel treatment extended by the accused to his wife. Assurance had been extended by Sarpanch of Balpur who was maternal Uncle of the accused that accused will not misbehave with his wife. When she learnt' from the Aunt of the accused that the accused had caused injury to his wife by means of a stone, she had visited them and on enquiry, her daughter (the deceased) had told her that her husband Kanhaiyalal had caused the said injury by hitting her with a stone. She had also stated that when her husband was sending her to wash clothes and she had not left, he had caused the said injury. She was being treated by Doctor in Bodgaon but since the treatment was not effective, she was sent to Barwani. 4. Chhagansingh (PW 5), father of the deceased, has corroborated the version of his wife (PW 4) Pijaribai. He has stated that accused used to belabour the deceased after getting drunk. Before the Panchayat, his Maternal Uncle had given assurance that he shall not misbehave with the deceased. His daughter had informed that when she had not gone to wash the clothes, accused had caused injury by striking her with a stick. 5. Insofar as the injury is concerned, the Autopsy Surgeon (PW 10) Dr. Niti Gupta had noticed the injury on the body which she had noted down in the P.M. Report Ex. P/l3. The injuries described in P/13 read as follows: "There is a 1, 1/2" x 1" rectangular lacerated present on left fronto parietal area with a depressed 1" x 1 " fracture of bone." 6. In the above context, learned counsel for the appellant contends that even if it is assumed in favour of the prosecution that the injury was caused by the accused by means of a stone or a lathi, it is a case where even according to the prosecution death resulted after about 10 days and, therefore, it cannot be said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There are no circumstances to spell out that the accused intended to cause the death of his wife otherwise he would not have refrained from causing further injuries after having caused the injury. There are no circumstances to spell out that the accused intended to cause the death of his wife otherwise he would not have refrained from causing further injuries after having caused the injury. 7. There is evidence that accused used to beat his wife and the fact that he had rested contend by causing a single injury gives unmistakable indication that had the accused intended to cause her death, he would have caused sufficient injuries to ensure the fulfillment of the intention. The injury caused had though resulted in a depressed fracture, it was not of the gravity to cause instantaneous death and the stone seized by the prosecution vide Panchnama Ex. P/9 was 500 gm was also light in weight. All these circumstances brought on record duly indicate that accused did not intend causing death of his wife and it was in the normal routine that he had caused the injury to her without meaning to cause her death. At the same time by striking a stone of about 500 gm over the head of the deceased, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the accused ha knowledge that he was thereby likely to cause death also. Though quite late, death did occur and in such circumstances, we feel, the act would fall in the description of the offence of culpable homicide in nature, punishable under Part II of section 304 of the IPC. 8. In the result, this appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- is set aside and he is, instead, convicted under section 304 Part II and sentenced to RI for four years. Considering that the appellant is a Tribal, we do not deem it tit to impose any sentence of fine.