By Court- The present appeal arises against the impugned judgment dated 30th March, 1987, passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case Nos. 330/1984 and 36/1985, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant-Bahamuni Marandi (P.W. 5) lodged an FIR before the police on 20.2.1984 alleging therein that in the previous evening the accused appellant-Lal Murmu came to her house and asked her husband as to why being a 'Pradhan' of the village no action was being taken against the persons who got the crops of the villagers grazed through their cattle, to which the deceased replied that he was helpless to do anything since the villagers were not attending the Panchayat. Thereafter, some altercation took place and then the appellant is said to have assaulted her husband-Boila Baski by means of a 'Juath', due to which, he fell on the ground. Thereafter the informant brought her husband in the courtyard with the help of some other persons. In the next morning, when the informant was being taken to hospital, he died in the way near Durgapur Hat. 3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and thereafter the charge was framed against him. In course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned trial court on the basis of evidence so produced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated hereinabove. 4. After arguing for a while on the merit of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, the present case would fall under Section 304 II and not under Section 302 IPC since only a single blow was only given by the appellant to the deceased that also by means of a 'Juath' which used for the purpose of ploughing land on his head and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant had in fact any intention to kill the deceased. He did not also repeat the blow. It is further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for more than 20 years and therefore he has sufficiently been punished for the offence committed by him. 5. From the evidence of P.W. 6. He did not also repeat the blow. It is further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for more than 20 years and therefore he has sufficiently been punished for the offence committed by him. 5. From the evidence of P.W. 6. the doctor Indra Prasad Mishra, it appears that only two injuries were found on the person of the deceased. One was lacerated wound 2" x 1" x bone over the right side of the forehead with swelling and echymosis 6" x 4" and other was abrasion in the left side of the neck. According to the doctor, the injuries which were found on the person of the deceased were caused by hard and blunt substance. 6. After going through the evidence of the prosecution, we are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and we are also of the view that the present case would fall under Section 304 II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC, under which he has been convicted by the trial court. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court for the offence under Section 302 IPC and alter the conviction by convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years. Since the appellant has already remained in custody for more than 20 years and therefore he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed by altering the conviction and with modification in sentence as aforesaid.