JUDGMENT : A.G. Uraizee, J. The appellant has been found guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been awarded life imprisonment and ordered to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months by Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, FTC, Veraval vide judgment and order dated 25.06.2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2007. 2. The short matrix of the prosecution case is that on 22.05.2007 at about 1530 hours the appellant stopped the autorickshaw of the deceased Saiyed Najumiya Hussainmiya Siraji and demanded money which the deceased refused to pay. Therefore, the appellant attacked him with a knife and caused grievous injuries. The deceased died on 02.06.2007 during treatment. A complaint in respect of this incident was lodged by the deceased himself with Talala Police Station vide I-C.R. No. 63 of 2007 for the offences punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code and 135 of B.P. Act. However, pursuant to the death of the deceased, the appellant was charged with section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, on the basis of material collected against the accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima facie case against the accused, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.2 Trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses whose evidences were read before us by learned advocates for both the sides : (i) P.W. 1 Nasimbanu Najumiya Ex.10 (ii) P.W. 2 Fatimaben Chootumiya Ex.13 (iii) P.W. 3 Kalubhai Jumabhai Ex.14 (iv) P.W. 4 Tarmahammad Allarakha Ex.16 (v) P.W. 5 Dadumiya Noormiya Ex.18 (vi) P.W. 6 Mahammadbhai Ibrahimbhai Ex.20 (vii) P.W. 7 Ismailbhai Bodubhai Ex.22 (viii) P.W. 8 Kishorebhai Shantilal Ex.22 (ix) P.W. 9 Hanifaben Sandhi Ex.24 (x) P.W. 10 Hussainsha Jalali Ex.26 (xi) P.W. 11 Gordhanbhai Valani Ex.27 (xii) P.W. 12 Dr. Narendrabhai Naranbhai Ex.32 (xiii) P.W. 13 Dr. Illiyas Gariba Ex.37 (xiv) P.W. 14 Dr. Narendrabhai Naranbhai Ex.32 (xiii) P.W. 13 Dr. Illiyas Gariba Ex.37 (xiv) P.W. 14 Dr. Dalpat Nathabhai Sapra Ex.40 (xv) P.W. 15 Ramnath Gosai Ex.47 (xvi) P.W. 16 Jitudan Gadhvi Ex.49 (xvii) P.W. 17 Hussainmiya Jusabmiya Ex.60 (xviii) P.W. 18 Sanatkumar Kelaiya Ex.61 (xix) P.W. 19 Ashokkumar Pandya Ex.66 2.3 The prosecution also exhibited the following documents which have been perused by us during the course of hearing: (i) Panchnama of local place Ex. 15 (ii) Panchnama of clothes of accused Ex. 17 (iii) Inquest panchnama Ex. 19 (iv) Arrest panchnama of accused Ex. 21 (v) Panchnama of seizure of blood of accused Ex. 24 (vi) Letter for preparing map of place of offence Ex. 28 (vii) Map of local place Ex. 29 (viii) Panch rojkam Ex. 30 (ix) DDO, Talala's noting dated 04.07.2007 Ex. 31 (x) MLC Certificate of deceased Ex. 33 (xi) Refer note of deceased Ex. 34 (xii) Case sample, Civil Hospital, Junagadh Ex. 35 (xiii) Indoor case of deceased Ex. 36 (xiv) Medical certificate Ex. 38 (xv) Letter for conducting post mortem Ex. 41 (xvi) Death form Ex. 42 (xvii) Post mortem note Ex. 43 (xviii) Letter of sending blood samples Ex. 44 (xix) Letter by Pradyumannagar police station Ex. 50 (xx) Complaint Ex. 62 (xxi) Complaint as per section 154 of Cr.P.C Ex. 63 (xxii) Letter by Hospital Police Chowky Ex. 64 (xxiii) True Copy of station diary Ex. 65 (xxiv) Letter dated 22.05.2007 Ex. 67 (xxv) Extract of D.O Register Ex. 68 (xxvi) Letter for recording DD Ex. 69 (xxvii) Letter dated 22.05.2007 Ex. 70 (xxviii) Letter dated 30.06.2007 Ex. 71 (xxix) Letter dated 27.05.2007 Ex. 72 (xxx) Letter dated 14.06.2007 Ex. 73 (xxxi) Reminder for post mortem Ex. 74 (xxxii) Reminder for post mortem Ex. 75 (xxxiii) letter for adding section 302 Ex. 76 (xxxiv) Letter dated 04.07.2007 Ex. 77 (xxxv) Notification dated 30.04.2007 Ex. 78 (xxxvi) Letter by FSL, Junagadh Ex. 79 (xxxvii) Muddamal dispatch note Ex. 80 (xxxviii) FSL Receipt Ex. 81 (xxxix) FSL Receipt Ex. 82 (xi) FSL Report Ex. 83 (xli) Physiology report of FSL Ex. 84 (xiii) Serological analysis letter Ex. 85 (xiiii) Serological analysis report Ex. 86 (xiiv) Letter and communication thereof Ex. 87 (xiv) Communication Ex. 78 (xxxvi) Letter by FSL, Junagadh Ex. 79 (xxxvii) Muddamal dispatch note Ex. 80 (xxxviii) FSL Receipt Ex. 81 (xxxix) FSL Receipt Ex. 82 (xi) FSL Report Ex. 83 (xli) Physiology report of FSL Ex. 84 (xiii) Serological analysis letter Ex. 85 (xiiii) Serological analysis report Ex. 86 (xiiv) Letter and communication thereof Ex. 87 (xiv) Communication Ex. 92 2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that therefore there is no reason to believe that the appellant had committed the alleged offence. 3.1 Mr. Barot submitted that if the first part of the arguments is not accepted by this Court, in the alternative, without prejudice to the submissions made herein above, the court may consider that the incident happened in a spur of moment and that there was no predetermination or intention to do away the deceased. He submitted that the alleged offence occurred on 22.05.2007 whereas the deceased had expired on 02.06.2007 i.e. after about 11 days of the alleged incident. He submitted that in fact the deceased had died due to septicemia and therefore considering the medical evidence and the fact that the deceased had survived for around 11 days after the incident, the Court may consider the case of the appellant under section 304 (Part I) or (Part II) of Indian Penal Code. 3.2 In support of his submissions, Mr. Barot has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of B.N. Kavatakar and Another v. State of Karnataka reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 304 and in the case of Maniben v. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 8 SCC 796 . 4. Mr. 3.2 In support of his submissions, Mr. Barot has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of B.N. Kavatakar and Another v. State of Karnataka reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 304 and in the case of Maniben v. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 8 SCC 796 . 4. Mr. HL Jani, learned APP appearing for the respondent State has supported the order of the trial court and has submitted that the trial court has gone into the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence so convicted of. He has submitted that considering the barbaric act committed by the appellant, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. He also submitted that the sentence imposed upon the appellant is just and proper and does not deserve to be reduced or quashed. 5. It has neither been disputed before this Court or before the trial court that deceased had met with his death on account of septicemia following cardio respiratory arrest. This even otherwise stands proved from the post-mortem report Ex. 43 which mentions the cause of death as cardiorespiratory arrest due to septicemia due to stab injury. 5.1 The post mortem report gives details about the injuries sustained by the deceased and the same reads as under: "17. (i) Big stitch wound vertical from xiphisternum to ASIS (ii) 7 inch length multiple black stich present over abdomen. (iii) Five tentlom sutured in stich wound over abdomen. (iv) Rounded, oblique wound present over Lt chest at mid-axilary line in 5th intercostal costal space. (v) Oblique stiched wound vertically situated in post axilary line of Lt chest. (vi) Rounded surgical wound in Rt side 3" away Rt umbilicus." 6. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the present appellant was the perpetrator of the crime or it was an accidental or suicidal death. The complaint given by the deceased is required to be gone through. In the complaint at Ex. 62 given on the same day i.e. 22.05.2007, the deceased has stated that on the day of incident, at around 03.30 pm while he was riding his autorickshaw, near Vadala crossing, the appellant - accused came on a motorcycle and intercepted his autorickshaw. The complaint given by the deceased is required to be gone through. In the complaint at Ex. 62 given on the same day i.e. 22.05.2007, the deceased has stated that on the day of incident, at around 03.30 pm while he was riding his autorickshaw, near Vadala crossing, the appellant - accused came on a motorcycle and intercepted his autorickshaw. The deceased has stated that the accused asked the deceased to give whatever money he had to which the deceased denied as he had to fill diesel in the auto. The deceased has further stated that saying this, he went ahead with his autorickshaw but the accused followed. He has further stated that the accused followed and finally stabbed him with a knife. He has stated that an unknown rickshaw driver came there and took the deceased to Vadala village gate from where his accomplices informed his parents and finally he was taken to Government hospital. 6.1 P.W. 1 - Nasimbanu Najumiya is the widow of the deceased and she has stated in her deposition that at around 03.00 pm while she was at her house, her niece came calling for her and informed her that the deceased had sustained stab injuries. She rushed to the place where the deceased was lying and saw her in-laws and other persons present there. This witness has stated that when the deceased was asked about the author of the injuries, he stated that it was the accused who had stabbed him as he denied giving the accused money which he had demanded. 6.2 The evidence of P.W. 9 - Hanifaben Sandhi is very important as she is an eye witness to the incident. This witness vide her deposition at Ex. 24 has stated that on the day of incident as her son was feverish, she took him to hospital and on the way when she reached Vadala crossing she saw that the deceased was going in an autorickshaw and the accused was coming on a motorcycle. This witness has stated that the accused intercepted the autorickshaw of the deceased and both of them had an argument. This witness has further stated that during the course of argument, the accused inflicted knife blows on the deceased and by that time another rickshaw driver reached there. This witness has stated that the accused intercepted the autorickshaw of the deceased and both of them had an argument. This witness has further stated that during the course of argument, the accused inflicted knife blows on the deceased and by that time another rickshaw driver reached there. 6.3 P.W. 10 - Hussainsha Jalali has supported the say of P.W. 9 so far as his reaching the scene of offence and taking the deceased to his village in this witness' autorickshaw. This witness vide his deposition at Ex. 26 has stated that while at around 03.30 pm while he was driving his autorickshaw and going towards Pranchi from Panikotha, he saw the deceased in an injured state at the scene of offence. This witness has stated that he took the deceased in his autorickshaw to Vadala village from where he was taken to hospital by his family members. This witness has further stated that when he reached the scene of offence and tried to inquire the deceased as to who committed the alleged offence, the deceased replied that it was the accused who inflicted knife blows on him and ran away. 7. The medical certificate at Ex. 33 mentions the history of the injury and it has been recorded therein that the accused had stabbed the deceased. The oral evidence of witnesses is duly corroborated with the medical reports as well as panchnama and it is clear that the deceased died a homicidal death due to the act of the appellant in inflicting knife blows on him which resulted into around six injuries. 8. However, we have also not lost sight of the fact that the deceased had died after 11 days of treatment. From the medical reports, it is clear that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory attack as a result of Septicemia which happened due to stab injury. In the case of the B.N. Kavatakar and another (supra), the Apex Court in a similar case of septicemia where the deceased therein had died in the hospital after five days of the occurrence of the incident in question, converted the conviction under section 302 to under section 326 and modified the sentence accordingly. 8.1 Similarly, in the case of Maniben (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: "18. 8.1 Similarly, in the case of Maniben (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under: "18. The deceased was admitted in the hospital with about 60% burn injuries and during the course of treatment developed septicemia, which was the main cause of death of the deceased. It is, therefore, established that during the aforesaid period of 8 days the injuries aggravated and worsened to the extent that it led to ripening of the injuries and the deceased died due to poisonous effect of the injuries. 19. It is established from the dying declaration of the deceased that she was living separately from her mother-in-law, the appellant herein, for many years and that on the day in question she had a quarrel with the appellant at her house. It is also clear from the evidence on record that immediately after the quarrel she along with her daughter came to fetch water and when she was returning, the appellant came and threw a burning tonsil on the clothes of the deceased. Since the deceased was wearing a terylene cloth at that relevant point of time, it aggravated the fire which caused the burn injuries. 20. There is also evidence on record to prove and establish that the action of the appellant to throw the burning tonsil was preceded by a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. From the aforesaid evidence on record it cannot be said that the appellant had the intention that such action on her part would cause the death or such bodily injury to the deceased, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the case cannot be said to be covered under clause (4) of Section 300 of IPC. We are, however, of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC." 9. In the present case, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the role of the appellant is clear from the complaint and other records. However, the point which has also weighed with this court are that the deceased had survived for around 11 days and ultimately died of septicemia. In the present case, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the role of the appellant is clear from the complaint and other records. However, the point which has also weighed with this court are that the deceased had survived for around 11 days and ultimately died of septicemia. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is required to be converted to that under section 304(I) of Indian Penal Code. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant - original accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 25.06.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Veraval in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2007 is converted to conviction under Section 304 (Part I) of Indian Penal Code. The appellant - original accused is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under section 304 (Part I) of Indian Penal Code instead of life imprisonment as awarded by the trial court under section 302 IPC. The sentence awarded by the court below stands altered accordingly. The period of sentence already undergone shall be considered for remission and set off in accordance with law. The judgment and order dated 25.06.2009 is modified accordingly. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. R&P, if lying with this Court, to be sent back forthwith. Appeal allowed.