JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dtd. 12.12.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 20 of 2002 convicting the appellant u/s 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.6.2001 the informant-Mitu Patra along with one Dukhia Marandi-P.W. 2 appeared before the Thakurmunda Police Station and reported that P.W. 2 told him regarding murder of Mani Soren, wife of the appellant in the last night by some unknown persons causing cut injury on her person as a result of which she died at the spot. The informant by hearing this came to the house of the appellant and found the wife of the appellant aged about 50 years was lying inside the house in a pool of blood. Her chest, face and hands were cut by means of some sharp cutting weapon. The informant asked about the matter to the appellant but he told that the deceased was found sleeping on a cot and she herself fell down on the ground from the cot. The appellant instead of informing his neighbourers went to his son, who was staying at the adjacent locality. The blood stained shirt and cloth of the appellant were lying at the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid information the Officer-in-Charge of Thakurmunda P.S. treating the same as an F.I.R. registered Thakurmunda P.S. Case No. 33 of 2001 and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Sections 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant. 2. The prosecution in order to establish the charges examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited several documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 13. The weapon of offence was marked as M.O.I. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W. 1 was the informant and P.W. 2 was the post occurrence witness before whom the appellant made extra judicial confession. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 were the seizure witnesses. P.W. 5 is the son of the deceased and P.W. 7 is the brother-in-law of the appellant. P.W. 8 is the mother-in-law of the appellant and P.W. 9 was the Investigating Officer. P.W. 10 was the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 were the seizure witnesses. P.W. 5 is the son of the deceased and P.W. 7 is the brother-in-law of the appellant. P.W. 8 is the mother-in-law of the appellant and P.W. 9 was the Investigating Officer. P.W. 10 was the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body. The plea of the appellant was complete denial of the prosecution case. The appellant has specifically stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that though he was staying in the same house with the deceased, the cause of death was not known to him and a false case has been lodged against him. 3. The trial court relying on the evidence of the witnesses and the evidence of P.W. 10, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination found the appellant guilty u/s 302 of I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in absence of any direct evidence against the appellant for his alleged involvement in the crime, the court below should not have accepted the circumstantial evidence on record particularly when the circumstances are not firmly established. He further submits that if the circumstances are taken together it did not form a complete chain, therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant, and as such the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Laxman alias Laxmayya Gangaram Zinna (At present imrpisoned at Central Prison, Yeravada, Pune) Vs. The State of Maharashtra, wherein the Court held that admission or confession of the accused in the statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. can be acted upon and the Court can rely on this confession and proceed to convict him but the conviction can be based solely on such admission or confession provided the entire statement is inculpatory The answers given admitting the guilt in the examination of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. can form the basis of the conviction, surely before the accused is examined, he must be informed that he can decline to give answers to the questions put to him and that he will not render himself liable for punishment in case he refuses to answer the questions or he gives false answers. He further relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rishi Pal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, wherein it is held that circumstances sought to be proved against the accused have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Such circumstances must form complete chain leaving no option but to hold that the accused is guilty of offence with which he is charged. The theory of last seen together is not of universal application and may not always be sufficient to sustain a conviction unless supported by other links in the chain of circumstances. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate while supporting the impugned judgment submits that the trial court after taking consideration the evidence of the witnesses rightly convicted the appellant u/s 302 of I.P.C. and the impugned judgment may not be interfered with. 6. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that P.W. 1 stated in F.I.R. that he has lodged the same before Thakurmunda P.S. along with P.W. 2 but P.W. 2 in his deposition has stated that they have lodged the F.I.R. at the spot which creates contradiction between the two witnesses. P.W. 1 has further stated in his deposition that there was dispute between the appellant and deceased but in cross-examination he has stated that he has not known anything about appellant and deceased prior to the occurrence. P.W. 2 first time disclosed before the Court that appellant has told him that he killed his wife and not asked to P.W. 1 or not mentioned in the F.I.R. as he was the scriber of F.I.R. So it is a after thought story and belated disclosure regarding the occurrence, which creates suspicion about the truthfulness of his version. P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, who were seizure witnesses have stated in their deposition that they have signed the seizure list at the instance of police. Though the appellant and deceased were staying together in one house but on the date of occurrence no witness has seen that on the night of occurrence they are staying together. The appellant had no pre-meditation to assault the deceased rather the appellant on heat of passion inflicted such bodily injury, which likely to cause death. 6.1. This Court in the case of Sania Dora alias Badnaik Vs. The appellant had no pre-meditation to assault the deceased rather the appellant on heat of passion inflicted such bodily injury, which likely to cause death. 6.1. This Court in the case of Sania Dora alias Badnaik Vs. State of Orissa, held that where there had been a sudden quarrel and on the spur of moment, without any premeditation and being incensed, the appellant-accused who belonging to an aboriginal tribe dealt a blow which landed on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injury, in those circumstances, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant be converted from Section 302 of I.P.C. to one u/s 304, Part-II of I.P.C. 6.2. Similar view was also been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mandangi Samburu Vs. State of Orissa, wherein the appellant, who belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community was convicted for the offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. was converted to one u/s 302, Part-II of I.P.C. 6.3. In another unreported Jail Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1997 disposed of on 11.10.2007, this Court also took a similar view as the accused was a resident of Nabarangpur, an interior part of the State and inhabitants of that area are tribal. It was held that such people are of different mindset and they committed offences on the spur of moment. The order of conviction u/s 302 of I.P.C. and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life passed against the appellant was set aside, as the offence committed by the accused was not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder, he was convicted u/s 304, Part-I of I.P.C. 6.4. Therefore, the ratio decided in the aforementioned cases is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, as in the said cases the conviction u/s 302 of I.P.C. was converted to u/s 304, Part-II of I.P.C. on two grounds, i.e. the appellants therein were tribal people and the offences committed by them without any premeditation and on the spur of the moment. In the present case the appellant being a resident of Thakurmunda, an interior part of the State and being an aboriginal, on sudden provocation committed the offence on heat of passion without premeditation. In the present case the appellant being a resident of Thakurmunda, an interior part of the State and being an aboriginal, on sudden provocation committed the offence on heat of passion without premeditation. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction u/s 302 of I.P.C. and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T. Case No. 20 of 2002 is set aside and instead the appellant is convicted u/s 304, Part-I of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone. Since the appellant is in custody, he be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other cases. Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. I agree