JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the Appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Kamar, learned public prosecutor. 2. This appeal is presented against the judgment dated 29.4.2003 in Sessions Case No. 40 (J)/2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for an offence of killing the mother and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment for further period of 6 months. 3. The prosecution case as revealed from the FIR filed by PW-1 reveals that on the night of 25.10.2001 around 12 o'clock, when the mother of the informant Kaushailya Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) went to visit the house of her elder son Bibul Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant), the Appellant cut the deceased with a dao while the deceased was sleeping in the house of the Appellant. 4. On the basis of the FIR, the criminal process was set in motion and eventually charge under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the Appellant Bibul Gogoi. The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. Nevertheless, he was tried on the charge of murder. 5. Although there were no direct eyewitness to the incident, PW-1 the son of the deceased, PW-3, a nephew of the deceased and PW-4, the husband of the deceased, have deposed that after the occurrence, the Appellant confessed that he had killed the deceased with a dao. The weapon of assault was recovered on being produced by the Appellant and the said dao was seized and produced as exhibit 2 during the trial. PW-2 was the seizure witness. 6. PW-9, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, noticed the following injuries: 1. One deep sharp cut injury on the right side of the neck with separation of the structure including the right carotid artery, size 10 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm deep. 2. One sharp cut injury on the back of the neck at the level of Atlanta occipital joint, size 8 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm deep. 3. One sharp cut injury at the right cheek placed transversely of size 5 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm deep. 4. 2. One sharp cut injury on the back of the neck at the level of Atlanta occipital joint, size 8 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm deep. 3. One sharp cut injury at the right cheek placed transversely of size 5 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm deep. 4. One sharp cut injury on the right ear with partial separation of the right ear lobule with laceration of the post cricular region of size 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. The doctor opined that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage suffered by the deceased from the above ante-mortem injuries. 7. It is proved through evidence that the deceased was sleeping in the residence of the Appellant on the night when the assault was made. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume, when the deceased was found dead in the house of the Appellant with injuries suffered by her, that the Appellant was either involved with the assault or had knowledge about the assault. In fact the Appellant has admitted that he assaulted his mother. 8. In the statement given by the Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the statement given by him at the time of sentence, while admitting his involvement, the Appellant has expressed remorse for his conduct. The Appellant also stated that he does not know what induced him to make the assault on his mother and claimed that perhaps being possessed by a devil made him give the dao below on his mother. 9. We have also examined the statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and can gather that there was cordial relationship between the Appellant and the deceased and in fact, the Appellant had invited his mother to his residence to spend the night, as the Appellant's wife was away and his minor children were in the house. 10. We further find that the Appellant was a poor daily wage earner with wife and two minor children and he had to sleep with an empty stomach, the night his mother visited him. 10. We further find that the Appellant was a poor daily wage earner with wife and two minor children and he had to sleep with an empty stomach, the night his mother visited him. It is also noticed that he woke up in the middle of the night hungry and miserable and in such miserable state, on a minor issue of food not being made available to satiate his hunger, he lost his sense of reasoning and in a fit of anger, gave dao blows on his mother. 11. In this case, although it is undoubtedly established that the assault made by the Appellant has led to the death of the deceased, it is difficult for us to take the view that the Appellant for his act, should be convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC as no pre-meditation is seen and the assault by the Appellant was a case of anger fuelled by hunger. 12. Considering the remorse expressed by the Appellant and considering his situation before the incident, when he had to go to bed with an empty belly and woke up with a protesting stomach and his conduct immediately after the assault and also considering the guilty confession made by the Appellant and the circumstances indicating that there was cordial relationship between the Appellant and the deceased mother, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be served, by substituting the Appellant's impugned conviction under Section 302, to one under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. We order accordingly. 13. In view of the conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, we modify the sentence of life imprisonment, to imprisonment for a period of 8 years. The sentence of fine is also recalled, considering the poor background of the Appellant. 14. Accordingly, this appeal stands partly allowed with the modification of the conviction and sentence to the extent indicated above. Send down the LCR forthwith. 15. Before parting with the case records, we wish to record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned amicus curiae in the case. Although Mr. Mahanta is entitled to his professional fee, he in his usual fairness, declined to accept any fee for the assistance rendered to the Court. Appeal allowed