Judgment : 1. By this Appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 5th August, 2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 44/2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, District Yavatmal, convicting the appellant/ accused for offence punishable under section 304 II of the Indian Penal Code ( in short “IPC”) and sentencing him to suffer R.I. For 10-years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-in default, to undergo further imprisonment for one month. 2. Facts in brief are these : PW 1-Sangeeta lodged a compliant that the appellant (her uncle) had demanded Rs. 10/-from her grandfather Bhimrao (deceased) at about 7.00 o' clock. When refused, Maroti (appellant) abused Bhimrao, caught hold of his neck, dragged him to Chhapri (verandah) and pressed his neck. As a result, her grandfather died. The complaint of alleged murder was registered at Ladkhed Police Station on 29.7.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. The investigation was done into the accusation and the accused was charge-sheeted. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions charge was framed under section 302 IPC on 20.11.2007, to which the accused pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried (Exh.5). The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. The trial Court upon evidence led, found the accused guilty under section 304 (ii) of the IPC and sentenced the appellant/ accused as above. 3. Heard submissions at the Bar. 4. Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case rests upon the sole eye witness – Sangita; whereas the Investigating Officer was not at all examined. According to learned Advocate, the appellant could have been given benefit of doubt. In the alternative, he submitted that the appellant had no requisite intention to commit culpable homicide and the incident had happened all of a sudden, on the spur of the moment and without any malice aforethought, without any premeditation. Furthermore, no weapon was used by the appellant. Therefore, the substantial sentence of imprisonment be reduced to as already undergone. It is submitted that the appellant has family consisting of his wife and small children to look after and support; besides, the appellant is aged about 40 years, without any criminal antecedent. 5. Per contra, Mr A.S.Parihar, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order. 6. Therefore, the substantial sentence of imprisonment be reduced to as already undergone. It is submitted that the appellant has family consisting of his wife and small children to look after and support; besides, the appellant is aged about 40 years, without any criminal antecedent. 5. Per contra, Mr A.S.Parihar, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order. 6. I have perused the evidence led in the trial Court bearing in mind the submissions advanced at the Bar and also perused the impugned judgment and order. 7. Learned trial Judge has considered the entire evidence of Sangita, (eye witness) and also corroborating evidence which ruled out the possibility of false implication. The learned trial Judge has applied his mind and judged the extent of penal liability of the accused in the facts and under the circumstances and rightly concluded that the offence committed, under the circumstances, would fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC before awarding sentence. The evidence of Sangita appears inspiring full of confidence and it is also corroborated by evidence of Mahadev (PW 2); Meerabai (PW 3) Dr. Ravi Deokar (PW 4) to point out guilt of the appellant/accused. The fact that Investigating Officer did not enter the witness box cannot belittle the value of direct evidence of Sangita, which is amply corroborated. Therefore, the conviction by the impugned judgment is correct, proper and legal. 8. However, on the point of sentence, the submission and plea for reduction of sentence needs anxious consideration. The dispute between appellant and his father arose over flimsy reason/cause that the appellant demanded Rupees ten from his father. Upon refusal from father, the appellant got annoyed and committed the act without any evidence of malice aforethought. There is no evidence of premeditation nor accused/appellant carried or used any weapon. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, it was a domestic quarrel but knowledge may be imputed to the appellant about likely consequences of his act of pressing neck of his old-aged father, the penal liability of the accused was rightly determined under section 304 Part II and in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, appropriate sentence of five years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-in default, one month would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with modification of sentence accordingly. 9. The appeal is partly allowed with sentence modified accordingly.