JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. In the instant case, the complainant Ganesh Chandra Andola gave a written complaint to Patwari, Patwari Circle, Ghigartola, Tehsil and District Bageshwar on 01.12.2005, at 11:45 A.M., alleging that when he went to Dhapoli, he came to know that his brother Khyali Charan, village pradhan, was killed by appellant Harish Singh Bisht. 2) The occurrence took place sometimes in the evening of 30.11.2005, and on the basis of written report, chick FIR was lodged on 01.12.2005 at 11:45 A.M. The distance between the village where the occurrence took place and the Patwari Chowki Ghigartola, Tehsil and District Bageshwar was four kilometers and, hence there appears to be no delay in lodging the first information report. The appellant was arrested on the same day i.e. 01.12.2005 and inquest report was also prepared on the self same date. 3) On the basis of said information, Patti Patwari started investigation of the case. Later, the investigation was transferred to regular police. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 4) When the trial commenced before the trial court, charge against the accused was framed in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced appropriately. Aggrieved against said order, present appeal was preferred by the convict. 5) Prosecution examined 11 witnesses namely, P.W.1 Ganesh Chandra Andola, P.W.2 Jeevan Singh, P.W.3 Dhan Ram, P.W.4 Kundan Singh, P.W.5 Devi Dutt, P.W.6 Shyam Singh, P.W.7 Dr. Khem Pal, P.W.8 Mohan Singh, P.W.9 Dr. N.S. Kutiyal, P.W.10 Mohan Singh Bhakuni, patwari and P.W.11 Bachan Singh Rana, Inspector Kotwali, Bageshwar. 6) After the prosecution evidence was closed, incriminating evidence was put to the accused / appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he has been falsely implicated in the case and the evidence adduced against him was false. 7) Prosecution led the evidence through P.W.2 Jeevan Singh, who said that he ran a flourmill. Appellant came to him on 30.11.2005, at 08-08:30 A.M. along with white plastic bag containing 15 Kg. of wheat. He left the wheat bag in his flourmill. 7) Prosecution led the evidence through P.W.2 Jeevan Singh, who said that he ran a flourmill. Appellant came to him on 30.11.2005, at 08-08:30 A.M. along with white plastic bag containing 15 Kg. of wheat. He left the wheat bag in his flourmill. The appellant came back to his shop at 05:30 P.M. and took back the flour. Appellant came to P.W.2 again at 07:00 P.M., called him, whereupon, he informed P.W.2 that three unknown persons assaulted him. The appellant left the house of P.W.2 thereafter. Plastic bag (Ext. 1) was exhibited before the Court. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 said that similar bags can be made available in market and also said that appellant was a regular customer to his shop. The evidence tendered by P.W.2 is the first circumstance towards proving the prosecution story. He is the most trustworthy witness. 8) P.W.6 Shyam Singh owned a teashop in Dhapoli. He said that appellant Harish Bisht came to his shop on 30.11.2005, at 05:30 P.M. Appellant requested P.W.6 to prepare omelette, which was kept in a packet. Since P.W.6 had to send coconuts for the marriage of his niece therefore, he requested the appellant to take those coconuts also. Appellant obliged him by taking those coconuts. Later on, P.W.6 came to know that Khyali Charan was killed. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 said that his niece was married about 5-7 days ago before the incident and also said that the appellant was a frequent visitor to his shop. P.W.6 also said that the informant as well as the appellant, both were his friends. Evidence tendered by P.W.6 is the second circumstance towards proving the prosecution story. He too is a trustworthy witness. 9) P.W.8 Mohan Singh deposed that appellant met him on 30.11.2005, at around 06:30-07:00 P.M., at Dhapoli, whereupon appellant told him that Khyali Charan inflicted blow of khukhri (curved knife) on his hand, which was bleeding. P.W.8 advised him to register a case with Patti Patwari. In cross-examination, he said that deceased was his co-villager. Patwari took his statement on the place of occurrence. The evidence tendered by P.W.8 also inspires confidence. 10) The fact, as evidenced by P.W.8 Mohan Singh, that appellant sustained incised wound was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 Dr. P.W.8 advised him to register a case with Patti Patwari. In cross-examination, he said that deceased was his co-villager. Patwari took his statement on the place of occurrence. The evidence tendered by P.W.8 also inspires confidence. 10) The fact, as evidenced by P.W.8 Mohan Singh, that appellant sustained incised wound was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 Dr. N.S. Kutiyal, who medically examined the appellant Harish Singh on 02.12.2005, at 03:20 P.M., and found one incised wound, measuring 2 cm x 1 cm, on tip of left thumb. Another small wound was also found present on the thumb. The duration of such injuries was more than 24 hours. Medical Officer proved medical examination report of appellant as Ext. Ka-3. According to Medical Officer, these injuries could have been caused on 30.11.2005 between 06-07:00 P.M. Thus, it is established that the appellant sustained injuries on 30.11.2005 between 06-07:00 P.M., but when he was confronted with such evidence, the appellant said that he was medically examined in the village. The appellant failed to explain as to how did he sustain the injuries on his left thumb on such date and time? 11) It was evidenced on record that there was a prior dispute between the appellant and the victim. The motive to commit the murder and presence of appellant were, thus, established. 12) When the postmortem on the dead body of the victim was conducted, as many as 04 lacerated wounds were found by P.W.7 Dr. Khem Pal as under: i) Lacerated wound size about 4 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm deep over the left side forehead. ii) Small lacerated wound over the right eyebrow. iii) Lacerated wound over the left temporal region. iv) Small lacerated wound over the face lie anterior to left ear. There was fracture of frontal bone as well as fracture of mandible bone on right side. The cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock, haemorrhage and head injury. 13) The ante mortem injuries suggest that the victim sustained severe injuries of stone on his head, which resulted into his death. Medical evidence supported the prosecution version. 14) Above all, the report dated 08.03.2006 received from Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra, was the most important piece of evidence. 13) The ante mortem injuries suggest that the victim sustained severe injuries of stone on his head, which resulted into his death. Medical evidence supported the prosecution version. 14) Above all, the report dated 08.03.2006 received from Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra, was the most important piece of evidence. The following articles were sent to FSL, Agra for examination: 1 Pant of appellant Harish 2 Jacket 3 Pant of deceased Khyali Charan 4 Jersey 5 T-shirt High neck 6 Two stones 7 Blood stained soil and simple soil 8 Plastic bag 9 Two coconuts 15) The FSL report found bloodstains on all the articles. Whereas article nos. 1, 3 to 6 and 8 contained human blood, the origin of blood on other articles i.e. article nos. 2, 7 and 9 could not be deciphered because the blood was found disintegrated. Report of FSL, thus, corroborates the fact that the stones, plastic bag and pant of appellant contained human blood. It is to be noted here that the stones and plastic bag were found near the dead body of the victim. The facts speak for themselves. The chain of circumstances is, thus, complete. 16) Victim died as a result of ante mortem head injuries. Appellant also sustained injuries on his thumb on the date of incident. Circumstances suggest that a scuffle took place between victim and appellant on the date of incident, in which appellant sustained injuries and victim was done to death. Appellant was unarmed, when the incident took place. Blood stained stones were found lying in the vicinity of dead body of victim. Stones, which caused head injuries resulting in death of victim, were picked up by the appellant from the place of occurrence. The killing was not preplanned. There was no evidence of premeditation. The logical deduction would be that killing of victim was the result of sudden / spontaneous act. In such a situation, a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of IPC, and not a case of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC, is made out against the appellant. 17) Considering above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met, if lesser punishment than what was provided by trial court, is awarded to the appellant. 17) Considering above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met, if lesser punishment than what was provided by trial court, is awarded to the appellant. 18) The judgment and order under appeal, passed by learned trial court on 30.03.2007, is interferrable only to the extent as above. 19) Thus, we hold that the learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence, but its conclusion about holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was incorrect. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is therefore, set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which, he shall further undergo six months’ imprisonment. 20) Appellant Harish Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Court concerned to serve out the sentence, as modified by this Court. 21) A copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below to make the appellant serve out the sentence, as above. 22) Let the lower court record be also sent back.