Judgment :- P. DEVADASS, J. A1 in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.41 of 2007, on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC V), Tiruppur appealed as against his conviction and sentence. 2. Deceased Rajaboopathy and Amirtharani (P.W.1) are spouses. Kalaiselvi and Vijaya (P.W.3) are their daughters. Jesurajan (P.W.2) married Kalaiselvi. They are all residing in North Street, Anna Nagar in Palladam, Tiruppur District. Their neighbour is Rangasamy (A.1). His son is Paraman (A.3). Suresh (A.2) is sister's son of A.1. 3. On the eastern side of Rajaboopathy's house, there is a neem tree. There was long-standing dispute between Rajaboopathy and A.1 whether the land over which the neem tree stands belongs to the deceased or it is a common property. In this backdrop of the matter, on 14.01.2006, at about 11.30 a.m., near the neem tree, wordy altercation took place between Rajaboopathy and A.1. A.1 assaulted Rajaboopathy with M.O.2 wooden stick on his head and hip. A.1 also assaulted on the head of P.Ws.1 and 2. The occurrence was also witnessed by P.W.3. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1-complaint to P.W.9-Venkatachalam, Head Constable, Palladam Police Station. He registered this case (Ex.P.11-FIR). P.W.10-Loganathan, Inspector, investigated the case. P.W.6-Dr.Nazudrin treated Rajaboopathy, P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.10 visited the scene place, recovered bloodstained clothes, seized M.O.2 weapon, arrested the accused. On 25.01.2006, at the hospital, Rajaboopathy died. P.W.5-Dr.Edwin Jod conducted autopsy and concluded that he died of head injury (Ex.P.7-Postmortem certificate). Concluding his investigation, P.W.10 filed the Final Report for offences under Sections 302 IPC and 324 IPC (2counts). Since Paraman was a Juvenile in conflict with law, he was enquired into by the Juvenile Justice Board, Coimbatore. 4. The Trial Court examined A.1 and A.2 on the incriminating aspects appearing in the prosecution evidence. They have denied their complicity in this case. They did not let in any evidence. 5. Relying on the evidence of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, the Trial Court convicted A1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life and also convicted him under Section 324 IPC (2 counts) and fined him Rs.5,000/-for each count with default sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the fine amount to be paid as compensation to P.W.1 under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court acquitted A2. It is stated that Paraman has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the fine amount to be paid as compensation to P.W.1 under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court acquitted A2. It is stated that Paraman has been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. 6. Mr.S.Ananthanarayanan, learned counsel for the appellant now confined his arguments only to the nature of offence. The learned counsel contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the offence will not fall under Section 302 I.P.C, it would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under Section 304 (II) I.P.C. 7. Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the appellant had beaten the deceased to death, he is responsible for his death and thus, he was sentenced to life. 8. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions. Perused the entire evidence on record and the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court. 9. The evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the corroborative medical evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 clearly establishes that on the occurrence day the appellant had beaten the deceased with M.O.2 stick on his head and he had also assaulted P.Ws.1 and 2. There is nothing to disturb the conviction recorded against the appellant. 10. Now we shall consider the nature of offence. The occurrence was on 14.01.2006, at about 11.30 a.m. Just prior to the occurrence, there was wordy altercation between A1 and the deceased. It is with regard to the neem tree standing on a piece of property near the eastern side of the house of the deceased. Already with regard to this, there was dispute between both sides. The appellant came to the scene place unarmed. He did not bring any weapon with him. There was wordy dual prior to the occurrence. Suddenly, the appellant picked up M.O.2 stick lying near the fence and assaulted the deceased on his head. The occurrence had taken place in a spur of moment. There was no premeditation. The deceased did not die on the spot. He died subsequently on 25.01.2006 at the hospital. Thus, the appellant had no intention to cause his death. At best, he could be attributed with the knowledge that causing such bodily injury is likely to cause his death. The occurrence had taken place in a spur of moment. There was no premeditation. The deceased did not die on the spot. He died subsequently on 25.01.2006 at the hospital. Thus, the appellant had no intention to cause his death. At best, he could be attributed with the knowledge that causing such bodily injury is likely to cause his death. In the circumstances, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under Section 304 (ii) I.P.C. Since the appellant had voluntarily caused simple injury to P.Ws.1 and 2 that will fall under Section 324 IPC (2 counts).11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is set aside. Instead he is convicted under Section 304 (II) of IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and sentence under Section 324 I.P.C (2 counts) are maintained. He shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.