Judgment : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Appealing accused stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, with a default sentence of imprisonment for a further period of six months, not termed as to be rigorous, and, hence, simple, on a count under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Adv.R.Muraleekrishnan appearing for the appellant, at State expense, argued that the accused was entitled to be acquitted, at least, on benefit of doubt; and, in any view of the matter, conviction and sentence are liable to be altered tapering the count to be a lesser one. Sri. K.K. Rajeev, the authorised learned public prosecutor argued that the conviction and sentence be sustained as they were inexcusable on the material legal evidence on record. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that in the incident that occurred at about 4.30 p.m. on 07.07.2006, in a tribal settlement colony, Gopi died at the hands of the accused in the courtyard of a shed owned by that victim, wherein he and the accused were staying together, while working as coolie labourers. The allegation is that, on that evening, while the accused and the victim were alone in that shed, they quarrelled regarding sharing of wages and, on account of that, the victim was repeatedly beaten by the accused, resulting in fatal injuries to the victim's head. Going by Ext.P4 wound certificate, the victim was admitted to the Community Health Centre, Adimali, at about 10.15 p.m. on that day itself and he expired at about 10 o'clock the next morning. 3. Ext.P4 wound certificate records three basic injuries: a 5 centimetre bone deep lacerated injury on the left mastoid region; a lacerated injury about 6-7 centimetre, obliquely placed on the anterior aspect of the left leg; and, a 3-4 centimetre lacerated injury, anteriorly below the left knee. Multiple contusions on the back of the chest are put together in the wound certificate. When all those contusions are enumerated vividly, the postmortem description gets enlarged to be one noting 15 injuries. Of all those injuries, the lacerated injury to the left mastoid region was treated as sufficient to cause the death. Ext.P3 postmortem certificate corroborates the evidence of PW5, who conducted postmortem. When all those contusions are enumerated vividly, the postmortem description gets enlarged to be one noting 15 injuries. Of all those injuries, the lacerated injury to the left mastoid region was treated as sufficient to cause the death. Ext.P3 postmortem certificate corroborates the evidence of PW5, who conducted postmortem. The testimony of that forensic surgeon and the contents of the postmortem certificate go to show that the death was as a result of the injuries caused to the head and the resultant oedema, and, other factors resulting from that injury. PW5 also opined that a blow with MO1 could cause injury No.1 and that the said injury is sufficient to cause death. That is decisive to classify the act attributed to the accused, even if it were one amounting to an offence, on its quality and degree, to fix criminal liability as referable to the appropriate penal provision. 4. MO1 is a blunt weapon. It is a wooden piece, slightly curved at one end, with a long flat face. That is a tool used for setting the level of mud and hardening muddy floors by hitting on the spread mud and a tool or instrument usually available in rural homes with such beaten floors. 5. This case is from a tribal settlement, where economically and socially marginalised live. We cannot ignore this sociological backdrop while deciding the case in hand. Every act, at least of humans, amounting to a crime or not, has to be viewed timecentric and space-centric. Based on the calender and clock, time has to be determined in legitimately due approximation. This would fall within the indological understanding of the concept: as to time: “Kalam”. Hereinbefore, we used the term “space-centric”. 'Space' is, and cannot be, merely a geographical limitation. It has to be conceived and recognised in the sociological paradigm of the contextual and situational backdrop and the 'down to earth' scenario in which an act is alleged to have been committed. In our view, these factors cannot be ignored while assessing human conduct to determine its gravity and laying down a verdict on the culpability or otherwise of such human conduct. 6. With the aforesaid in mind, we proceed to consider as to whether the legal evidence on record establishes that the death of the victim resulted out of a homicide at the hands of the accused. 6. With the aforesaid in mind, we proceed to consider as to whether the legal evidence on record establishes that the death of the victim resulted out of a homicide at the hands of the accused. That it is a homicide and that it could result from the use of MO1 is clearly established through the medical evidence on record. We take it so, though for the time being, we may also note that there is a suggestion in defence and in the version in the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC that the altercation was generated by aggression which commenced at the hands of the deceased and the accused was, essentially, keeping himself away from being attacked, and as a result, the deceased fell and his head hit against a piece of rock, which resulted in injury No.1. Before proceeding further, we may also record that the accused and the victim were, at the relevant point of time, under intoxication of liquor. 7. Having noted as aforesaid, the material legal evidence on record clearly shows that there is none, who saw the actual incident. PW2, who is the sister of the deceased, stated that she heard the deceased cry, and thereupon, she came to the scene of occurrence, and then, saw the victim lying on the floor, bleeding, and the accused standing nearby, with MO1. Therefore, let us take it that there was an altercation in which the victim sustained injuries at the hands of the accused and MO1 was the weapon which caused the injuries. Brother of the deceased, who gave FI Statement, had not seen the incident. PW3, the neighbour of the accused, does not substantially speak of having seen the incident. PW4 had turned hostile. 8. With the aforesaid, is the fact that no prior motive or enmity is attributed as between the victim and the accused. Deceased is the brother of PW2. Accused is PW2's brother in law. Parties are close relatives. As already noted, they live in a tribal settlement and belong to a socially and economically marginalised sector of the society. The only attribute made to demonstrate the intention to commit murder is the so-called altercation following the dispute, which was obviously one that caught up in a moment on account of sharing of the income of coolie labour. The victim and the accused, as already noted, were intoxicated with liquor. The only attribute made to demonstrate the intention to commit murder is the so-called altercation following the dispute, which was obviously one that caught up in a moment on account of sharing of the income of coolie labour. The victim and the accused, as already noted, were intoxicated with liquor. Obviously, we can visualise that both of them went to work together, after which they would have consumed alcohol and would have had some money left with them to be shared. There would have been a spontaneous exchange of words as regards the sharing of that remaining amount. There would have been some incident, which ultimately led even to the accused beating the victim with MO1. That does not even remotely suggest a premediation. There would have only been a sudden quarrel which led to a sudden fight in the heat of passion. There is no legal evidence to hold, or even infer, that the accused took undue advantage or had acted in an unusual manner. 9. But, the nature of the transaction and all attendant circumstances would clearly show that the alleged acts, though could have been done with the knowledge that they are likely to cause death, were evidently done without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the legal evidence on record proves only that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Part-II of Section 304 IPC. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, to be altered accordingly. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned public prosecutor, on the question of sentence as well. We are of the view that rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of the fine, sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of six months would satisfy the ends of justice. We are of the view that rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of the fine, sentence of simple imprisonment for a further period of six months would satisfy the ends of justice. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed altering the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him by the court below to be one of conviction and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, with fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only), and in default of payment of such fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months, under Part-II of Section 304 IPC.