JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. This appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., is directed against judgment and order dated 03.12.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2011, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu under Section 308 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.02.2011, PW-2 Puja Devi was present in her house with her father accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu. At about 2.30 P.M. Guman Singh (PW-1), father of the accused/appellant entered into the house. Suddenly, the accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu got enraged and gave blows with a block of cement (brick) on the head of his own father i.e. Guman Singh Thapa and injured him. Immediately, 108 Ambulance was called and Guman Singh Thapa (PW-1) was taken to the hospital. The First Information Report was got lodged by PW-2 Puja Thapa (daughter of accused/appellant). On the basis of First Information Report (Ex. A1) Crime No. 14 of 2011, was registered at Police Station-Rishikesh. Investigation was done by PW-4 Sub-Inspector Devendra Singh Rawat, who interrogated the witnesses, inspected the site and submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu. 4. After giving necessary copies, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate, appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, on 30.05.2011, after hearing the parties, framed charge, in respect of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C., against the accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu, to which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Guman Singh (injured), PW-2 Smt. Puja (informant), PW-3 Rishi Thapa (eye witness and son of the accused), PW-4 Sub-Inspector Devendra Singh Rawat (who investigated the crime), PW-5 Constable Kanta Prasad, PW-6 Dr. S.P. Kudiyal and PW-7 Dr. Uttam Singh. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In reply to which, the accused pleaded that he caused injuries on the person of his father. S.P. Kudiyal and PW-7 Dr. Uttam Singh. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In reply to which, the accused pleaded that he caused injuries on the person of his father. After hearing the parties, the trial court found accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. Thereafter, the parties were heard on sentence, and the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. Aggrieved by said order dated 03.12.2011, this appeal is preferred by the convict. 5. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries found in the person of Guman Singh (father of the accused) recorded by PW-7 Dr. Uttam Singh Kharola on 20.02.2011. The injuries recorded in Ex. A11 are being reproduced below:- 1. Lacerated wound over the left eyebrow 1.5cm x 4cm x 1mm freshly bleeded. 2. Lacerated wound over the left ear lobule 1.5cm x 5cm x 1mm deep freshly bleeded. 3. Lacerated wound over the left side of vertex 1.5cm x 4 cm x 1mm deep freshly bleeded. All the above injuries were opined to have been caused with hard and blunt object. Abrasion was found by the medical officer as fresh. 6. PW-1 Guman Singh is the star witness of the incident, who suffered the injuries. He is father of the accused. He has specifically stated that on 20.02.2011, his son Bachan Singh assaulted him with a brick on his head, whereafter, he started bleeding. The witness has further stated that he was taken to the hospital. This Statement of PW-1 is further corroborated by PW-2 Puja (daughter of the accused), who was eyewitness and present inside the house at time of incident. Not only this, PW-3 Rishi Thapa (son of the accused) also corroborated the prosecution case that his father assaulted Guman Singh with the brick on his head. 7. Statements of the above three eyewitnesses read with the injury report quoted above, and the reply given by the accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa@ Pappu under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it is undoubtedly proved on record that the injuries quoted above were caused by the accused Bachan Singh Thapa on the head of his father Guman Singh. 7. Statements of the above three eyewitnesses read with the injury report quoted above, and the reply given by the accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa@ Pappu under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it is undoubtedly proved on record that the injuries quoted above were caused by the accused Bachan Singh Thapa on the head of his father Guman Singh. There does not appear to be intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of his father, but the blows given with brick could have caused death of his father and he would have been guilty of charge of commission of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. On re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, this Court is in complete agreement with the trial court that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C., against the accused Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu. There is no scope of interference with the order of conviction. Therefore, the appeal on the count of conviction is liable to be dismissed. However, considering the fact that the accused is in jail for last more than one and half years, and further the fact that he had no intention to kill his father, this Court thinks just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from two years to rigorous imprisonment for a period he has already undergone (more than one and half years). The direction to pay fine is not required to be interfered with. 8. Therefore, so far as the conviction of the accused/appellant is concerned, the appeal is dismissed and the trial court’s order to that extent is upheld. Only the sentence is modified, and the punishment of imprisonment is reduced to the period of two years to the period already undergone (more than one and half years), without disturbing the direction to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and consequence of default thereof. The appeal stands disposed of. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of the jail concerned. (Urgency Application No. 2649 of 2012, also stands disposed of).