JUDGMENT P. Durga Prasad, J. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.10 of 2007 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal on 22.02.2008. 2. The appellant is the sole accused and he was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 3. According to the prosecution, the accused is a labourer and PW.2 was working in the group of the accused as a coolie and used to pay money to all the coolies promptly but not to PW.2. Due to which the deceased, who is the son of PW.2 quarreled with the accused for that money and as the deceased always quarrelling with the accused, the accused bore grudge against him. On 14.03.2006 at about 20.00 hours the deceased stood at the shop of PW.4. Meanwhile the accused came there and had a quarrel with the deceased for his visit to the shop of PW.4. As a result, exchange of hot words taken place between both of them and the accused having grudge against the deceased, beat the deceased with a stick and fisted him indiscriminately. PWs.2 to 4 have witnessed the said incident, as a result of which the deceased fell down unconscious. Immediately PWs.1 and 2 shifted the deceased to the nursing home of PW.5 at Pasra for treatment. Subsequently, he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal and he died on 16.03.2006 at 17.00 hours while undergoing treatment. On the complaint of PW.1, PW.9 has registered the case in Cr.No.16 of 2006 under Section 324 of IPC and took up the investigation and recorded statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama. After receipt of the death intimation of the deceased, section of law was altered to 302 of IPC. Thereafter the investigation was taken up by PW.10 and he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and the doctor PW.8, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries. On 11.09.2006 the accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet. 4. The Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. 5. On 11.09.2006 the accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet. 4. The Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. 5. The prosecution in order to establish the said charge examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and on behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and marked Exs.D-1 and D-2 in defence. 6. Taking into consideration of said oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 302 of IPC against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt? POINT: 9. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and due to that he fell down and sustained injuries and the injuries were not caused by the accused and no incident as alleged by PWs.3 and 4 has taken place between the accused and the deceased and as the accused was due of some amount to PW.2, a false case was foisted against him, and therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted for the charge framed against him. 10. The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has pleaded that PWs.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they are specifically stated about the overt acts of the accused and as per the opinion of the doctor, PW.8, the deceased died due to multiple injuries and but not due to Epilepsy, as such the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. 11. According to the prosecution, PW.2 the mother of the deceased, worked as a coolie in the group of the accused and he did not pay the wages to her and in that regard the deceased has questioning him for non-payment of the wages to his mother frequently due to which the accused bore grudge against the deceased and when the deceased was at the shop of PW.4 on 14.03.2006 at 20.00 hours the accused came there and a quarrel took place between them and the accused hit the deceased with a stick and fisted him indiscriminately, due to which the deceased fell down unconscious and subsequently he died while undergoing treatment in the MGM hospital. 12. PW.1 is the brother of the deceased. He is not an eye witness to the incident and he does not know the previous disputes between the deceased and the accused. But on hearing about the deceased felling down unconscious he came there and shifted him along with PW.2. 13. PW.2 is the mother of the deceased and she has stated that on the date of incident she returned to home after attending to the work and at that time the deceased was at the shop of PW.4 and at about 8.00 p.m. she went to the shop to bring her son for dinner. By the time she went there her son was lying unconscious and she was informed that a quarrel took place between the accused and her deceased son and she further stated that about for or five days prior to the incident she had a quarrel with the accused with regard to payment of arrears of wages and in the said quarrel her son also took up with the accused along her and as such the accused bore grudge against her son and beat him and made him unconscious and there is nothing in the cross-examination of PW.2 to disprove the above said averments stated by her. Therefore, from the above said evidence of PW.2, it is established that the accused was due some amount to her towards arrears of wages and he has not paid and herself and the deceased questioning the accused for payment of the said amount. 14. Therefore, from the above said evidence of PW.2, it is established that the accused was due some amount to her towards arrears of wages and he has not paid and herself and the deceased questioning the accused for payment of the said amount. 14. PW.4, at whose shop the incident has taken place, has also stated that on 30.03.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. the deceased came to his shop for purchase of cakes and was returning home. At that time he saw the accused passing by that side, as such the deceased questioned the accused as to when he will give the arrears of wages due to his mother and the accused stated that he will not pay the amount and the deceased can do whatever he likes and the deceased questioned him as to why he will not pay the arrears due to his mother, and both the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other by catching hold of each others collar, he intervened and separated them and again the accused picked up a stick and hit the deceased on his back and the deceased fell down on the ground unconscious. At the time of the incident, PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 came running to the place of the offence. Therefore, PW.4 also stated that the incident has taken place between the accused and the deceased when the deceased questioned the accused about the payment of arrears of wages due to his mother. 15. With regard to the occurrence of the incident on 13.03.2006, PW.4 has categorically stated about the quarrel that took place between the deceased and the accused and his intervening and separating them but the accused picked up a stick and beat with it on the back of the deceased and then the deceased fell down unconscious. 15. With regard to the occurrence of the incident on 13.03.2006, PW.4 has categorically stated about the quarrel that took place between the deceased and the accused and his intervening and separating them but the accused picked up a stick and beat with it on the back of the deceased and then the deceased fell down unconscious. PW.3, the other eye witness to the incident, has also stated that on the date of incident at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. he was returning from Pasra having bought the vegetables and when he reached the shop of PW.4, he noticed that the accused and the deceased are fighting with each other, as such he walked towards them and asked them why they are fighting but in the mean time the accused hit the deceased with a stick and the deceased fell down unconscious and in the cross-examination also he has stated that originally the accused and the deceased hit each other with hands, later the accused hit the deceased with a stick. He is not aware whether the deceased was suffering from Epilepsia. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, who are the eye witnesses to the incident have specifically stated about the quarrel taking place between the deceased and the accused and the deceased felling down unconscious and immediately after felling down, PWs.1 and 2 came there and took him to the hospital of PW.5. 16. PW.5, who is an ayurvedic doctor practicing at Pasra, has also stated about one and half years ago the mother and brother of the deceased brought the deceased to his hospital, both of them have complained that the deceased fell unconscious due to the beatings received by him, as he was under the impression that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsia even on that day he has given treatment. Since the deceased was unconscious and he need not have proper equipment for treating the deceased, he advised PWs.1 and 2 to shift him to MGM Hospital, Warangal and since they are not having any money he gave them Rs.500/-to shift the deceased to MGM Hospital, Warangal. Since the deceased was unconscious and he need not have proper equipment for treating the deceased, he advised PWs.1 and 2 to shift him to MGM Hospital, Warangal and since they are not having any money he gave them Rs.500/-to shift the deceased to MGM Hospital, Warangal. In the cross-examination he admitted that the deceased was brought to his hospital on 14.03.2006 at 6.00 p.m. and shifted him to MGM hospital on 15.03.2006 at 11.00 a.m. Thus, there is discrepancy with regard to the time of the deceased being brought to the hospital of PW.5. According to the prosecution, the incident has taken place on 14.03.2006 at 8.00 p.m., but according to PW.5, the deceased was brought to his hospital on that day by 6.00 p.m. Since he is giving evidence about one and half years of occurrence of the incident, the said discrepancy cannot be taken as fatal to the case of the prosecution. PW.5 has also admitted that he treated the deceased earlier for Epilepsia for about one year prior to the alleged incident and he did not find any external injuries on the body of the deceased when he was admitted in his hospital. 17. The doctor, PW.8, has identified the signature of the doctor L.Vinod Kumar, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, as he is no more as on that date and according to him, the doctor L.Vinod Kumar has found the following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased: 1. Both lungs are contused, plural cavities contained about 400 ml of blood and clots, on reflection of the chest wall contusion of 10x6 cms, present on the front of the chest; 2. Cervical dislocation of C3 to C4 cervical vertebre present with surrounding contusion; 3. Viseral organs liver, pancreas, gall bladder, intestines, kidneys and mysentary are contused, peritoneal cavity containing about 360 ml. of blood and blood clost. and he opined that the cause of death was due to multiple injuries and Ex.P-4 post mortem certificate issued by Dr. L.Vinod Kumar. In the cross-examination he has stated that the injuries 1 and 3 can be caused by way of usage of blunt force or weight. He denied the suggestion of sustaining injuries 1 and 3 by a fall on a hard surface by a person suffering from Epilepsia. L.Vinod Kumar. In the cross-examination he has stated that the injuries 1 and 3 can be caused by way of usage of blunt force or weight. He denied the suggestion of sustaining injuries 1 and 3 by a fall on a hard surface by a person suffering from Epilepsia. He further denied that the injury No.2 can be caused by a fall on a rough surface but he categorically stated that the said injury can be caused by way of forcibly bending the neck of a person and he also admitted that Ex.P-4 does not mention about the external injuries found on the dead body of the deceased. The contusion on the chest wall mentioned in Ex.P-4 is the result of external force used by the person. He admitted that the case sheet pertaining to the deceased mentioned at page 4 in the remarks column that ‘Status Epilepsia’. 18. To establish the fact that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsia, DW.1 was examined in defence and DW.1, Dr. C.Narendra Kumar, who worked as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in the MGM hospital, has produced the case sheet of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.D-2 and according to him, the deceased was admitted in their hospital on 14.03.2006 at 11.50 p.m. with injuries alleged to have been beaten and he was unconscious and his mother has stated that he was beaten at his house by known person on 14.03.2006 at 8.00 p.m. and as per the case sheet no external injuries are noticed on the body of the deceased. In Ex.D-2, it was mentioned that final diagnosis as Status Epilepsia. He admitted that as per the case sheet, the said deceased died as a result of Status Epilepsia but in the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he admitted that Status Epilepsia means a person will be continuously suffering from fits and would not be responding to the medication. He admitted that Status Epilepsia is possible by a head injury, by way of beating on the head, but he cannot say whether the Epilepsia suffered by the deceased was due to the said beating. He further admitted that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsia and the cause of the said Epilepsia can also be possible in view of any beating being given to him. He further admitted that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsia and the cause of the said Epilepsia can also be possible in view of any beating being given to him. Therefore, DW.1 has explained the Status Epilepsia as the person, who are continuously suffering from fits, would not be responding to medication and he also admitted that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and the cause and death can be also possible in view of any beating given to him and he has not stated that the deceased died due to Epilepsia, but only Status Epilepsia. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is established that the deceased died due to multiple injuries as stated by PW.8 as per the post mortem certificate Ex.P-4 but not due to Epilepsia. Moreover, as already discussed above, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 clearly establishes that the accused hit the deceased with a stick on his back and also admitted that there was free fight between the deceased and the accused and the accused fisted the deceased indiscriminately. Since there are no external injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and the injuries found as per Ex.P-4 are only internal injuries, they might have been caused with fisting of the accused. Therefore, the death is resulted due to the injuries caused by the accused to the deceased and further it appears to have been aggravated due to the fact that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsia and, therefore, the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the deceased fell down unconscious due to Epilepsia, cannot be accepted and as even if he is said to have been fell down due to Epilepsia, he would not have sustained internal injuries as mentioned in Ex.P-4. The finding of the internal injuries as per Ex.P-4 and as per the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, there is a free fight between the deceased and the accused and the accused fisted him indiscriminately, clearly shows that the said injuries are caused due to force used by the accused on the deceased. 19. The appellant’s counsel has further pleaded that the stick used by the accused was not seized by the prosecution. 20. 19. The appellant’s counsel has further pleaded that the stick used by the accused was not seized by the prosecution. 20. Even if the weapon used in the commission of the offence was not seized, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution when the direct eye witness categorically stated about the factum of accused hitting the deceased with a stick. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish that the deceased died due to injuries caused by the accused. 21. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the act of the accused does not constitute an offence under Section 302 of IPC. 22. As per the evidence of PWs.3 and 4, there is no pre-meditation by the accused to cause the death of the deceased and a sudden quarrel took place between them when the accused was found near the kirana shop of PW.4 by the deceased and he questioned him about the arrears of wages payable to his mother and there is a free fight between them and in the said free fight the accused fisted the deceased on his body indiscriminately, which led to the death of the deceased. Therefore, from the above circumstances, it is evident that the accused has no intention to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the act of the accused would fall under Exception-IV of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, the said act of the accused is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the punishment for the said act would fall under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC. 23. With regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused is aged about 55 years as on the date of commission of the offence and the offence took place in the year 2006 and by this time he would have attained the age of 61 years. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased and the manner in which the incident has taken place, we hold that the accused has already undergone sufficient imprisonment as he is undergone imprisonment for more than four years. 24. Taking into consideration of the age of the deceased and the manner in which the incident has taken place, we hold that the accused has already undergone sufficient imprisonment as he is undergone imprisonment for more than four years. 24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.10 of 2007 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is modified to that of Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life is modified to that imprisonment already undergone. Hence, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.