JUDGMENT : 1. The present appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.1.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 201/2006, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000/-, in default, to undergo further R/I for three years. Appellant is also convicted under sec. 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for 7 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to undergo further R/I for one year. He is also convicted under section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo further R/I for one year. It is further ordered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that out of total amount of fine, Rs. 25000/-each to be paid to the complainant (i) Samkka, (ii) Bhagylaxmi and (iii) Samlaxmi by way of compensation under section 357 of CrPC, which is impugned in this appeal. 2.1 The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was drinking liquor and not working, therefore, there were economic problems in the house, and therefore the appellant was giving mental and physical torture to his wife Sandhya and many times, the appellant was used to leave the house. Therefore, Sandhya had left the house and went to her father’s house at Pratapnagar, Block no. 8, Street No. 8, House No. 2. That on 30.6.2006, the appellant along with his mother came to the house of Sandhya’s father, where, Sandhya, her mother-father and mother of appellant had advised the appellant to do work. Therefore, keeping grudge in mind why Sandhya had left his house without his permission, at about 2.00 O’clock in the night, the appellant had given blows with iron pipe on the head of Sandhya (his wife) and she succumbed to injuries. When complainant Samkka, appellant’s mother Samlaxmi and witness Bhagylaxmi came to rescue Sandhya, the appellant had also beaten them by inflicting blows with iron pipe. When complainant had called her husband, the appellant ran away from there. Thereafter, they taken Sandhya to the hospital, where she died during treatment. Thereafter the complaint was filed. When complainant Samkka, appellant’s mother Samlaxmi and witness Bhagylaxmi came to rescue Sandhya, the appellant had also beaten them by inflicting blows with iron pipe. When complainant had called her husband, the appellant ran away from there. Thereafter, they taken Sandhya to the hospital, where she died during treatment. Thereafter the complaint was filed. 2.2 The appellant accused came to be arraigned for committing the murder and after the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet was hold against the present appellant. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 201/2006. 2.3 Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed the charge below Exh. 5 against the appellant for commission of the offence under section 302, 307, 325 and 498(A) of IPC. The appellant -accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.4 To prove the case against the present appellant, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: 1. PW-1 Ashokbhai Kanjibhai Patel Ex. 1 2. PW-2 Samkka Vainkat Ex. 15 3. PW-3 Bhagyalaxmi Vainkat Ex. 17 4. PW-4 Vainkat Mallu Ex. 18 5. PW-5 Dr. Ashok Babubhai Patel Ex. 21 6. PW-6 Dr.Rajesh Narayanbhai Patel Ex.19 7. PW-7 Rameshbhai Chhotabhai Tailor Ex. 25 8. PW-8 Shaikh Daud Shaikh Suleman Ex. 28 9. PW-9 Iqbal Ali Mahmad Shaikh Ex. 30 10. PW-10 Upendra Satyanarayan Ex. 31 11. PW-11 Ramlu Vainkat Ramchandra Ex. 33 12. PW-12 Sudarshan Vainkat Chanda Ex. 35 13. PW-13 Swami Vaikya Ex. 37 14. PW-14 Ganesh Rajaram Ex. 39 15. PW-15 Shamlaxmi Viankat Ex. 40 16. PW-16 Tirupati Bandiyalu Ex. 41 17. PW-17 Dilipkumar Mahobatsinh Brahmbhatt Ex.43 2.5 The prosecution also relied upon the following documentary evidences so as to bring home the charges against the appellant-accused. 1. Complaint Ex. 16 2. PM Note Ex. 20 3. Injury certificate of Samkkaben Ex. 22 4. Injury certificate of Subhlaxmi Ex. 23 5. Injury certificate of Bhagylaxmi Ex. 24 6. Panchnama of articles from deadbody Ex. 29 7. Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 32 8. Panchnama of clothes of injured witnesses Ex.34 9. Panchnama of person of accused Ex. 36 10. Muddamal recovery panchnama Ex. 38 11. Inquest panchnama Ex. 42 12. Report of Police Station Officer Ex. 44 13. Despatch entry Ex. 45 14. Receipt of FSL Ex. 46 15. FSL report with covering letter Ex. 47 16. 32 8. Panchnama of clothes of injured witnesses Ex.34 9. Panchnama of person of accused Ex. 36 10. Muddamal recovery panchnama Ex. 38 11. Inquest panchnama Ex. 42 12. Report of Police Station Officer Ex. 44 13. Despatch entry Ex. 45 14. Receipt of FSL Ex. 46 15. FSL report with covering letter Ex. 47 16. Serological Department Ex. 48 17. Letter written by FSL officer Ex. 49 18. Letter Ex. 50 19. Primary report of FSL Ex. 51 20. Report by PSO to PSI Ex. 52 3. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellants-accused under sec. 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution. 4. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.1.2007 held the present appellant-original accused guilty of the charge levelled against him under sec. 302, 325 and 307 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, as stated above. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the present appellant and Ms C.M. Shah learned APP for the respondent-State. 6. Mr. Barot learned advocate appearing for the present appellant has fairly submitted that he could not claim clean acquittal or could not claim the benefit of doubt and tried to persuade the Court that conviction under section 302 of IPC may be modified and the present appellants may be convicted under sec. 304 Part-I of IPC. 7. The learned advocate for the present appellant has contended that the trial court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective, and hence, the present appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and be acquitted. 8. On the other hand, learned APP has strongly opposed the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the present appellants and has submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material, in the form of oral and documentary evidence, produced before it and hence, no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned APP has further contended that this is a case of brutal murder, and therefore, no leniency should be shown to the accused since the injuries are on the vital part of the body, hence, no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Having gone through the entire record, it would be relevant to refer to section – 299 and section – 300 of IPC, which reads as under: 299. Culpable homicide.-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. 300. Murder.-Except in the cases hereinafter expected, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or 2ndly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or 3rdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or 4thly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.” xxx xxx xxx xxx 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder: -Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with [imprisonment for life],or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, Or With imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” 10. Having gone through the above provisions, we are unable to persuade ourselves that it is a clear case of acquittal and the reason for the same is that the complaint was given by the mother of the deceased, and therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity. The evidence of PW-1 Ashokbhai Kanjibhai Patel, Ex. 14 coupled with the injuries, have led to the death of the wife of the accused. The injuries are as under: Col. 17: (1) Lacerated wound present over Rt. Parietal region 4cm to midline at size 6 x 0.5 bone deep. (2) Lacerated wound present over Rt.Parietal region 5cm above Rt.ear size10cm x 1cm x bone deep vertical. (3) Lacerated wound present Rt. Paritalregion 3 cm above Rt ear size 12 x 4cm bone deep of size irregular in shape. (4) Lacerated wound present over Rt. Mastoid region of size 3.5 x 1 cm bone deep irregular in shape. (5) Lacerated wound present over Rt. Frontal region 2.00cm above Rt eye brow at size 1 x 0.5 muscle deep. (6) Stitched wound present over Rt frontal region 5 cm in length with 4 stitches present 3 cm above Rt. Eye brow. (7) Lacerated wound present over Rt frontal region 2 cm from midline of six 2.5x 0.5cm muscle deep. (8) Stitched wound present in the midline at head of 4cm in length, 3 stitches present. (9) Contusion present over Rt cheek 6.5 cm x 1.5 cm red in colour. (10) Contusion with laceration present over Rt side of lower Jaw of size 4.5x 2.0cm with abrasion of size 1.5 x 0.5cm red in colour. (8) Stitched wound present in the midline at head of 4cm in length, 3 stitches present. (9) Contusion present over Rt cheek 6.5 cm x 1.5 cm red in colour. (10) Contusion with laceration present over Rt side of lower Jaw of size 4.5x 2.0cm with abrasion of size 1.5 x 0.5cm red in colour. (11) Lacerated wound present over Rt cheek 2cm in length with two stitches present. 11. We are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view then the one taken by the learned trial Judge. Even the FSL report contains blood stain of the accused. Learned advocate Mr. Barot has tried to convince us that this is not a case which would fall under sec. 304 Part-II but under sec. 304 Part-I because the intention and motive is not prove. We are unable to convince ourselves that this case would fall within the purview of section 304 Part-I or 304 Part-II of IPC the reason being that the incident occurred at 2.00am in the night. The medical evidence shows that the injuries were such that the incident has not happened in a spur of moment. The appellant has designed to do away with his wife and had inflicted iron pipe blows. The appellant had also caused injuries by inflicting blows with iron pipe to the complainant the mother of the deceased, his own mother Samlaxmi and witness Bhagyalaxmi. The ocular version of the witnesses corroborates with the medical evidence on record. In the recent decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2013 SC 1484 in the case of Bakshish Ram and anr. vs. State of Punjab, wherein, the Apex Court has held that the High Court should apply its independent mind and record its own finding by making independent assessment of evidence. 12. Having given our anxious though, we are unable to accept the submission that the case would fall under sec. 304 Part-II of IPC. However, it is clear that the motive and the intention has not been proved. The injury would such that accused would be having the knowledge that it would be fatal. This is nothing else but culpable homicide death of a person and is murder. 2. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no doubt left in our mind about the guilt of the appellants. The injury would such that accused would be having the knowledge that it would be fatal. This is nothing else but culpable homicide death of a person and is murder. 2. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no doubt left in our mind about the guilt of the appellants. However, at the same time, we feel that looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances under which the alleged incident occurred, though, the knowledge of the fact of inflicting iron pipe blows on the body of the deceased could be attributed to the present appellant. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, fine imposed by the learned trial Judge is on higher side and therefore, the same is required to be interfered with. 3. 14. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 201/2006 recording the conviction of the present appellant is confirmed. However, fine imposed upon the present appellant for each of offence is reduced to Rs. 1000/-for each of the offence. Order to give compensation to the complainant and injured witnesses is quashed and set aside. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. However, it is clarified that life would not be till last breath and his case may be considered by the appropriate authority. A writ of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Authority, forthwith.