Judgment : (B.R. Gavai, J.) By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-8, Nagpur, dated 12th August, 2009 whereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case is that there was a dispute between the deceased who was the mother of the appellant with respect to the ownership of the land which was inherited by the deceased from her mother. It is the prosecution case that on 17th June, 2007, the deceased had come to the house of P.W.1 Prabhakar and P.W.3 Kasibai who is the wife of Prabhakar. It is the prosecution case that the deceased was complaining to these witnesses regarding the behaviour of the accused. It is the further case that when accused was passing from the road nearby he heard about the complaint made by the deceased and, therefore, came to the house of P.W.1 Prabhakar and P.W.3 Kasibai. It is the further case that he accosted the deceased and asked as to why she was complaining about him. It is the further case of the prosecution that thereafter he went home, brought a stick and assaulted the deceased with the same. It is the further case that due to assault deceased fell down. Even after that he started giving second blow to Sushilabai. When P.W.1 Prabhakar intervened he was also assaulted. Thereafter, accused again started giving blows by the said stick to the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 Prabhakar and P.W.3 Kasibai went to the house of one Nagpure for making telephone call to Police Station, Kondhali. However, phone was not working. The said witnesses halted near the forest and thereafter in the morning lodged report with Police Station, Kondhali. 3. On the basis of the evidence that was led before the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused for the offence aforesaid. 4. However, phone was not working. The said witnesses halted near the forest and thereafter in the morning lodged report with Police Station, Kondhali. 3. On the basis of the evidence that was led before the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused for the offence aforesaid. 4. Shri Daga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, fairly states that taking into consideration the nature of evidence that has come on record, the appellant does not press the appeal for acquittal but only prays for converting the conviction from under section 302 to either under section 304(Part I) or 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code and for reduction of sentence. 5. Shri Daga submits that the weapon used by the appellant was a stick lying in the house and, therefore, ti cannot be said that he had intention to kill the deceased. The learned counsel submits that at the most it could be said that the appellant had caused injuries to the deceased having knowledge that such bodily injuries are likely to cause death. The learned counsel, therefore, relying upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Selvamvs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 379, in the case Ravindra Shalik Naik and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1798 (S.C.), and in the case of Surajit Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 146, submits that taking into consideration the nature of weapon used and the nature of the injuries caused, the conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. 6. Shri Nayak, learned APP appearing for the respondent, on the contrary, submits that taking into consideration the entire conduct of the appellant i.e. assaulting his mother, even not showing any remorse and permitting her to lie throughout the night, the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned APP placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manubhai Atabhai vs. State of Gujrat, reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court, 2437. The learned APP submits that no interference is warranted with the impugned Judgment and order. 7. The learned APP placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manubhai Atabhai vs. State of Gujrat, reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court, 2437. The learned APP submits that no interference is warranted with the impugned Judgment and order. 7. Since Shri Daga, learned counsel fairly conceded that the appellant does not press the appeal for acquittal and does not challenge the conviction, it will not be necessary for us to discuss detailed evidence to find out as to whether the accused is responsible for assaulting the deceased and causing her death. The only question that we are called upon to answer is, as to whether the conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be upheld or as to whether the appellant deserves to be punished with lesser offence. 8. From the evidence it is clear that after the accused heard his mother complaining to P.W.1 Prabhakar and P.W.3 Kasibai, he accosted his mother and thereafter went to his house which was nearby and came with a stick. He has assaulted his mother with a stick which has resulted in causing 17 injuries to the deceased. The injuries caused were lacerated wounds, contusions, lacerated contused abrasions, abrasions and linear contusions. The cause of death given by the Medical Officer is injuries to vital organs. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Shalik Naik .vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) was considering the case wherein the quarrel took place between the accused and P.W.3. In the said case also after quarrel took place, the appellants went inside their house which was close to the spot of incident and all of them returned to the spot with armed with axe, knife and gupti. All the three appellants inflicted injuries on the head and abdomen of deceased Kisan by means of those weapons. Two appellants also inflicted injuries on the hand of P.W.3 with those weapons with intention to cause his death. Deceased Kisan had died due to the said assault. The Apex Court in the said case found that the case of the appellants would be covered by exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and as such held that the conviction under section 302 was not sustainable and converted the same into section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The Apex Court in the said case found that the case of the appellants would be covered by exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and as such held that the conviction under section 302 was not sustainable and converted the same into section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In the case of Surajit Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (supra), from the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, it was found that the deceased was assaulted by the accused with iron rod. The injuries sustained by the deceased could be seen from paragraph no.14 of the said Judgment which reads thus:-“14. P.W.9 Dr. Partha Sarathi Saha confirmed the injuries on Gour Chandra Sarkar and stated that a hard, blunt weapon could have caused them. The injuries were:- (1) 1½’’ cut mark over the right front parietal region. (2) 1/2’’ cut mark over the back of right parietal region. There were some abrasion marks over the right ear and right knee. He also found that the right parietal bone was fractured. The membrane and brain matter were ruptured. There was a fracture of the right 6th and 7th ribs and a fracture of the lower end of right radius and dislocation of the right elbow joint. In his cross-examination this witness stated that Injuries (1) and (2) above may be caused by contact with a hard and blunt weapon and even by a fall.’’ Though the Apex Court found that there was shoddy and defective investigation, the Court found that the accused was not entitled to acquittal. However, the Apex Court discussed as to whether offence under Section 302 of IPC was made out or not. It would be relevant to refer to paragraph no.64 of the said Judgment which reads thus:-“64, Given the nature of injuries, it is difficult to accept the view that Surajit Sarkar intended to cause the death of Gour Chandra Sarkar or that the injuries were so imminently dangerous that they would, in all probability, cause death. The murder of Gour Chandra Sarkar would, therefore, be ruled out. Nevertheless, the injuries were quite serious and inflicted by Surajit Sarkar on Gour Chandra Sarkar’s head with an iron rod, as stated by P.W.8 Achintya Sarkar. The murder of Gour Chandra Sarkar would, therefore, be ruled out. Nevertheless, the injuries were quite serious and inflicted by Surajit Sarkar on Gour Chandra Sarkar’s head with an iron rod, as stated by P.W.8 Achintya Sarkar. We can surely credit Surajit Sarkar with the knowledge that if a person is hit with an iron rod on the head, then the act is likely to cause the death of the victim. That being so, in our opinion, it would be more appropriate to hold Surajit Sarkar guilty of an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since we attribute to him the knowledge of his actions, he should be punished under the second part of Section 304 IPC.” 11. In the case of Selvam vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (supra), the accused has assaulted the deceased by using aruval and stick. The Apex Court found that from the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused no.1 used the aruval to strike on the head of the deceased. The Apex Court further held that it was also established beyond reasonable doubt that accused no.6 snatched aruval from accused no.1 and struck on the head of the deceased. The Apex Court also further found that the accused no.7 struck the head of the deceased by a stick. It has also been found that the result of the acts of all the accused nos. 1,6 and 7 is death of the deceased. However, while considering the question as to whether case would fall under Section 302 or 304 (Part I) IPC the Apex court observed thus:-“12. The next question which we have to decide is whether the criminal act committed by accused nos. 1, 6 and 7 amounts to murder under Section 300, IPC, or some other offence. The medical evidence of PW-11 is clear that all the injuries of the deceased were most probably as a result of an assault by a blunt weapon and in the opinion of PW-11, the deceased appears to have died due to head injuries. P.W.11 has also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not see any incised injuries during the post mortem examination and had a sickle been used it would have caused incised wounds. Thus, it appears that accused no. P.W.11 has also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not see any incised injuries during the post mortem examination and had a sickle been used it would have caused incised wounds. Thus, it appears that accused no. 1 and accused no.6 had used not the sharp side but the blunt side of the aruval and accused no.7 had used the stick in the assault on the deceased. The fact that the blunt side of the aruval and a stick was used in the assault on the deceased would go to show that accused nos. 1,6 and 7 did not have any intention to cause the death of the deceased. Nonetheless, the injuries caused by accused nos. 1, 6 and 7 were all on the head of the deceased, including his parietal and temporal regions. Accused nos. 1, 6 and 7, thus, had the intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death and were liable for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I, IPC.” 12. In the Judgment in the case of Manubhai Atabhai vs. State of Gujrat (supra) which is strongly relied upon by the learned APP, the Apex Court has observed thus:-“8. The nature of intention has to be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon death. 13. It can, thus, be seen that the Apex Court has observed that the nature of intention has to be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon death. 14. From the perusal of the aforesaid cases it will reveal that for considering as to whether case would fall under Section 302 or lesser offence, and for finding out nature of intention, one has to take into consideration the kind of weapon used, part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and the circumstanced attendant upon death. 15. In the present case, the accused was passing from the house of P.W.1 Prabhakar and P.W.3 Kasibai. When he heard his mother making complaint about him, he first accosted his mother, went home and brought a stick to assault her. 15. In the present case, the accused was passing from the house of P.W.1 Prabhakar and P.W.3 Kasibai. When he heard his mother making complaint about him, he first accosted his mother, went home and brought a stick to assault her. If the appellant had intention to kill the deceased, he could have very well brought a knife or sickle from his house which are readily available in the village house. The nature of injuries and weapon used by the appellant in the present case are much milder than the weapon used by the accused in the cases of Selvam, Surajit Sarkar and Ravindra Shalik Naik (supra). In that view of the matter, we find that though it can be said that the appellant had knowledge that injuries caused could cause death of the deceased, it can not be said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had an intention to kill the deceased. 16. In that view of the matter, we find that the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is not maintainable and the case would fall under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC. 17. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction is altered to under Section 304 (Part I) from under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of sentence is reduced from rigorous life imprisonment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years. Rest of the order passed by the learned trial Judge stands confirmed.