JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The appellant who is in custody in the Central Jail, Baripada has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years as per the judgment/order passed by the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No.17 of 2002. 2. The appellant faced the aforesaid Sessions Trial for alleged commission of offences under Sections 302 and second part of Section 506 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 14.1.2001 the appellant took part in a cock fight. Being defeated in the said fight he returned home and picked up quarrel with his mother Dangi Hansda who was seventy years’ old, abused her and threat¬ened to kill her. Then he brutally assaulted her by a lathi on the village road, dragged her and pressed her chest with a long bamboo lathi causing fracture of one of her hands and several injuries all over her person. The villagers intervened and re¬strained the appellant from assaulting her mother any further. The occurrence being reported at the local outpost, on police requisition the inured mother was medically examined and she was advised to go to the District Headquarters Hospital for better treatment. The injured mother however could not be taken to the District Headquarters Hospital and she succumbed to the injuries. Information as to her death having been reported to police, the latter took up investigation, arrested the appellant and sent the dead body for post mortem. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against the appellant and the offences allegedly committed by him being triable by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada. 3. The defence of the appellant was that the case had been falsely foisted against him and he did not commit the offences alleged against him. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges against the appellant got as many as twelve witnesses examined in the case besides exhibiting eleven documents marked as Exts.1 to 11. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 6 stated to be the eye-witnesses to the alleged occur¬rence. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charges against the appellant got as many as twelve witnesses examined in the case besides exhibiting eleven documents marked as Exts.1 to 11. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 6 stated to be the eye-witnesses to the alleged occur¬rence. P.W.7 was the Gramarakshi who had sent the injured mother of the appellant to the PHC, P.W.8 was the Assistant Surgeon of Baripada Hospital and conducted autopsy over the dead body, P.W.9 was the Lady Medical Officer who had examined the deceased and found abrasions, fracture and dislocation of bones of the de¬ceased. P.W. 10 was the ASI of the local Outpost who had sent the injured to the CHC for medical examination and treatment and to have arrested the appellant, P.W.11 was a Police Constable who had carried the dead body of the deceased to hospital for post mortem. P.W.12, the OIC of Khunta Police Station was the inves¬tigating officer. The appellant however did not get any witness examined in his defence. 5. The trial Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the testimony of the eye-witnesses in graphic details as to assault by the appellant on her mother. The post mortem report shows that the 8th to 11th left ribs, right lower end of radius and ulna had been fractured with congestion of all internal organs of the deceased, dislocation of right wrist joint and abrasion over her right eye-brow. In the opinion of the doctor conducting post mortem the injuries found on the deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. After pursuing the entire evidence and the impugned judgment, this Court does not find any reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court based on record. The finding of the trial Court that the charge under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code had been well established against the appellant is supported by ample evidence on record. The trial Court has found that the ingredients of the charge under Section 506, second part, were not established. This Court concurs with the aforesaid findings of the trial Court. 6. The appellant was aged thirty-years at the time of trial. The trial Court has found that the ingredients of the charge under Section 506, second part, were not established. This Court concurs with the aforesaid findings of the trial Court. 6. The appellant was aged thirty-years at the time of trial. There is nothing in the evidence to reveal that the appel¬lant had any pre-plan or pre-meditation to do away with the life of her mother. There is evidence on record that the appellant was without any avocation. He took part in a cock fight with the hope to win, and being defeated in that fight he returned home with utter disappointed. To add to his disappointment, when his mother was not able to supply him any curry with rice, he being a tribal person who volatile temperament could not control himself and for such a trifling matter did not hesitate to pacify his agony by raising his hand on his mother without realizing the consequences that might follow. An act he committed which could not be re¬versed, leaving him only to repent in leisure. He is throughout in custody till date. Considering all these circumstances, this Court feels that the sentence awarded against the appellant may be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by him. 7. Accordingly this Court allows the appeal. While con¬firming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code this Court sentences the appellant to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and directs him to be set at liberty forthwith. Order accordingly.