JUDGMENT : B.P. Ray, J. - The Appellant having been convicted for commission of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1996, has preferred this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case as revealed from record is that the Appellant poured kerosene oil kept in an earthen pot. The wife-Sabitri Kishan protested, as a result of which the Appellant got enraged, dealt Budia (axe) blow on the head of his wife causing fracture and bleeding injury for which she fell down and lost her senses. She was immediately removed to S. Balang hospital for treatment and after some treatment she was removed to Subdivisonal Hospital, Bonai for better treatment where she succumbed to the injuries on 2.10.1995. The son of the Appellant lodged an F.I.R. at Tikayatpali Police Station on 1.10.1995 and a case u/s 307 IPC was registered against the Appellant. After the death of the deceased-Sabitri, the case turned to one u/s 302 IPC. 3. In course of trial, prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove the charge; but none was examined on behalf of the Appellant. 4. The plea of the Appellant was complete denial of the prosecution allegation. 5. P.W.1 the son of the Appellant & deceased-Sabitri, is a post-occurrence witness and is the informant. P.Ws. 2 & 3 (the son and daughter respectively of the Appellant & deceased-Sabitri) are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 2 was aged about 10 years. He has categorically stated that his father-Appellant in a heavily drunken state came and assaulted his mother by means of a farsa as a result of which her mother became senseless and she was shifted to hospital. Similarly P.W.3 stated that she was present at the time of occurrence. When her father-Appellant in a drunken state, poured oil which was kept in an earthen pot, her mother-deceased protested, her father assaulted her mother by means of a Budia (axe) blow and thereafter she was shifted to the hospital and on 2.10.1995 she succumbed to the injuries. P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and P.W.10 is the doctor who examined the weapon of offence (M.O.I) and opined that the injury sustained by the deceased can be caused by M.O.I. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the evidence of P.Ws. P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and P.W.10 is the doctor who examined the weapon of offence (M.O.I) and opined that the injury sustained by the deceased can be caused by M.O.I. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 & 3 should be disbelieved in view of the categorical statement of the doctor (P. W. 7) who had stated in cross-examination that "xx xx I am of the opinion that the injury found by me had been caused by the sharp side of the axe. In this case, no injury was caused by the blunt side of the axe xx xx". 6. On perusal of the post-mortem report (Ext.7) we find that the doctor has indicated the injury in column-4 of the post-mortem report in the following manner: Lacerated wound (incised) of size 3" x 1/4" X 1/4" containing three stitches present over the top of the head 4" away from the rt. eye in the parietal bone. 7. P.W.12 who examined the deceased at the first instance found that lacerated wound of size 3" X 1" X 1/2" on the right parietal bone, which was grievous in nature. P.W.10 the doctor who examined the weapon of offence, gave the opinion that the injury found by him on the deceased-Sabitri can be possible by such weapon. As it appears P.W.7 has confused while deposing in Court. 8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no material to disbelieve P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the natural witnesses to the occurrence and none else than the children of the Appellant and the deceased. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further argued that in view of the nature of injury and the sequence of events as well as the fact that the deceased died two days after the incident, the conviction u/s 302 IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. We have considered the submission carefully. We find from the evidence that pursuant to a quarrel, the Appellant got enraged and assaulted the deceased. There is also one injury which absolutely caused death after two days. The Appellant had no premeditaton or intention to cause death; but he had the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death. We, therefore, find him guilty of offence u/s 304, Part II IPC and convict him thereunder. 11. There is also one injury which absolutely caused death after two days. The Appellant had no premeditaton or intention to cause death; but he had the knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death. We, therefore, find him guilty of offence u/s 304, Part II IPC and convict him thereunder. 11. Accordingly we set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 3.1.1998 passed by Sri R.C. Patnaik Learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1996 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 303 of 1995 arising out of Tikayatpali P.S. Case No. 26 of 1995) u/s 302 IPC against the Appellant (Baisakhu Kishan) sentencing him life imprisonment and convict the Appellant u/s 304, Part II IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. It is stated that the Appellant (Baisakhu Kishan) is in custody since last twelve years. If that be so, he be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. The appeal is allowed in part. L. Mohapatra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Allowed