JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Appellant faced trial for commission of offence punishable u/s 302 of I.P.C. in ST. Case No. 225/7 of 2002 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda. By judgment and order dated 30th April, 2003 he was convicted and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. Being aggrieved the Appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution case, in short, is that the Appellant was the only son of Chainu Pradhan, who was a railway employee. The Appellant was unemployed and used to demand money from his father. Being aggrieved by the fact that Chainu Pradhan used to give his entire salary to his wife, Appellant picked up a quarrel with his father. It is alleged in course of altercation he assaulted Chainu Pradhan by means of a wooden baton (Argadi) thereby causing grievous injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Due to the assault Chainu Pradhan fell down and died instantaneously. On hearing commotion Ratnakar Pradhan.(P.W.8), who was a neighbour, rushed to the place and found Chainu Pradhan lying dead in front of the house in a pool of a blood and the Appellant was standing near the dead body holding a wooden baton which was stained with blood. He reported the incident to the O.I.C., Jharsuguda P.S. on the same day i.e. on 29.7.2001 by filing an F.I.R. (Ext.5). 3. On the basis of the said F.I.R. police registered a case, took up investigation, made inquest over the dead body and sent the same for postmortem examination, seized the wearing apparels of both the deceased and the Appellant, seized the weapon of offence and sent the same for chemical examination and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet against the Appellant in G.R. Case No. 786/2001. Thereafter cognizance was taken of the offences and the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda for trial. 4. The Appellant took the plea of denial. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure he took the stand that he was not present in his house at the time of occurrence and he had gone outside for work. 5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution got examined eleven witnesses. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda for trial. 4. The Appellant took the plea of denial. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure he took the stand that he was not present in his house at the time of occurrence and he had gone outside for work. 5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution got examined eleven witnesses. Out of them P.W.1 was the wife of the deceased and mother of the Appellant, P.W.2 was an inquest witnesses, P.Ws.3, 5 and 7 were seizure witnesses, P.Ws.4 and 6 were independent witnesses, P.W.8 was the informant and the occurrence witness, P.W.9 was the O.I.C. and I.O. of the case, P.W.10 was the lady Assistant Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy, and P.W.11 was the O.I.C. of Jharsuguda P.S., who took up investigation and submitted charge sheet. On behalf of the defence only one witness was examined. 6. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, in extenso came to the conclusion that the circumstances are very clinching and complete the chain pointing at the guilt of the Appellant, thereby excluding any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. He further held that circumstances and evidence clearly established the none else than the Appellant caused the death of his father. On the basis of such findings he convicted the Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. 7. Mr. Ragada, learned Counsel for the Appellant, strenuously placed the evidence of all the witnesses before this Court. According to Mr. Ragada there is no evidence much tess any reliable evidence to conclusively establish the guilt of the Appellant. It is stated that out of eleven witnesses examined by the prosecution, the most vital witnesses, i.e. the wife of the deceased and other inmates, have turned hostile and do not support the prosecution case. That apart, the prosecution had also not come with clean hands as none of the independent witness were examined. According to Mr. Ragada, an accused is always presumed to be innocent till the prosecution is able to bring home the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. It is stated that in the case at hand, the prosecution totally failed to establish the allegations levelled against the Appellant and the order of conviction is based on mere surmises and conjectures. According to Mr. Ragada, an accused is always presumed to be innocent till the prosecution is able to bring home the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. It is stated that in the case at hand, the prosecution totally failed to establish the allegations levelled against the Appellant and the order of conviction is based on mere surmises and conjectures. Further, it is submitted that seizure of the "Lungi" and other material objects have not been duly proved and this aspect of the case was not kept in mind by learned Sessions Judge. It is also submitted in absence of any cogent evidence, the order of conviction cannot be sustained. 8. All the submissions are strongly repudiated by Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the State. According to him, enough evidence are available on record to establish the fact that the Appellant, who was a wayward person and had no income of his own, had assaulted his father thereby causing grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. Relying upon the evidence of P.W.8 and other circumstantial evidence Mr. Mishra submitted that learned Addl.Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at suffer from no infirmity at all and it is a fit case where the order of conviction invites no interference. 9. Being the final Court of facts, we went through the evidence meticulously. The fact that Chainu Pradhan was murdered is not disputed. The evidence of P.W.10, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body clearly stated that Chainu Pradhan had sustained the following injuries:- (i) Lacerated injury of 3" X 1" X 1/2" on right side face with fracture of underlying maxilla bone, (ii) Lacerated wound 1 and 1/2" X 1" X 1/2" below the lower lip, (iii) Lacerated wound 2" X 1" X 1" on chin, (iv) Lacerated wound 3" X 1/2" X 1/2" on frontal aspect of head with fracture of underlying bone into two pieces in the middle, and (v) Fracture of right side collar bone. P.W.10 has further opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and that the injuries were possible by a lathi. Though P.W.10 was cross-examined at length, nothing could be brought out to disbelieve his evidence. P.W.10 has further opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and that the injuries were possible by a lathi. Though P.W.10 was cross-examined at length, nothing could be brought out to disbelieve his evidence. Thus, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of Chainu Pradhan was a homicidal one. So far as the author of the said crime is concerned, it appears that the eye witnesses to the occurrence have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The only witness, who supported the prosecution case, is P.W.8. But then, perusal of his evidence reveals that he had not seen the Appellant assaulting his father, Chainu Pradhan. He arrived just after the assault and found that the Appellant was standing near the dead body of Chainu Pradhan holding a wooden baton which was stained with blood. The evidence of P.W.8 coupled with the evidence of D.W.1, who happens to be the Sarpanch of the village, clearly establishes that the accused was present near the dead body of his father. Apart from the evidence of P.W.8, the prosecution relies upon other circumstantial evidence. Law is no more res integra that before holding the Appellant guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstance appearing against the accused must be proved to be conclusive in nature and they should consistently establish the guilt of the Appellant excluding any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. According to P.W.8 when he reached at the spot he found Chainu Pradhan lying in front of the house with grievous injuries in a pool of blood and the Appellant was standing near him holding the wooden baton. After seeing P.W.8, the Appellant threw the wooden baton and went away. The witness examined on behalf of the defence (D.W.1), who is a Sarpanch, had also arrived at the place of occurrence. A comparison of the evidence of P.W.8 and D.W.1 reveals that D.W.1 arrived at the spot little earlier than P.W.3. D.W.1 also found the deceased near the dead body, but then, according to him he was crying. Surprisingly, the Appellant in his statement made u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure took the stand that he was not at ail present when the occurrence took place. This statement of the Appellant is contrary to the evidence of his own witness, D.W.1. D.W.1 also found the deceased near the dead body, but then, according to him he was crying. Surprisingly, the Appellant in his statement made u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure took the stand that he was not at ail present when the occurrence took place. This statement of the Appellant is contrary to the evidence of his own witness, D.W.1. It is pertinent to observe that in a case based on circumstantial evidence falsity of defence plea provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances to connect the Appellant in the crime (see State of U.P. v. Harl Mohan and Ors. 2001 S.C.C. 49.) P.W.8 is very consistent in his evidence and the same appears to be credible. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the wooden baton was stained with blood and so also the wearing apparels of the Appellant. The trial Court was vividly discussed all the aspects in his judgment. It appears that though opportunity was given to the Appellant to explain as to how his "Lungi" was stained with blood, he did not give any satisfactory explanation. On the other hand, in his statement made u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure he denied about the existence of blood stains in his "Lungi" and his presence at the spot at the time of commission of offence. The said explanation is proved to be false in view of.the evidence of his own witness, D.W.1 and that of P.W.8. 10. After analyzing the entire evidence, this Court finds that though none of the witnesses have stated to have seen the accused causing the death of Chainu Pradhan by assaulting him in a wooden baton (M.O.II), the chain of occurrence like the evidence of P.W.8, D.W.1, seizure of the wooden baton, which contained stains of human blood, the conduct of the Appellant, who maintained mum when questioned by P.W.8, the wearing apparels of the Appellant which contained blood stains and last but not the least, the falsity of the defence plea completes the chain pointing at the guilt of the Appellant, and excludes any other reasonable hypothesis. 11. After considering the submissions made by the Appellant meticulously, this Court, finds that on the date of occurrence there was altercation between the Appellant and his father, Chainu Pradhan, when his father refused to give any money to the Appellant. 11. After considering the submissions made by the Appellant meticulously, this Court, finds that on the date of occurrence there was altercation between the Appellant and his father, Chainu Pradhan, when his father refused to give any money to the Appellant. In course of such quarrel and in a sudden heat of passion the Appellant picked up the wooden baton which was lying near the place and assaulted his father. It further appears that there was no premeditation nor any mens rea. In course of hearing, it is submitted that the Appellant is a married man and has three children. That apart, the wife of the deceased, who is the mother of the Appellant, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and so also other close relatives. It appears that the Appellant is in custody for about eight years. 12. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we set aside the conviction passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, convicting the Appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life in S.T. Case No. 225/7 of 2002 and instead hold the Appellant guilty u/s 304, Part-I I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years. The sentence already served shall be treated as set off. The Crl. Appeal is partly allowed. S.C. Parija, J. 13. I agree.