JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 24.01.2009 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 24/34 of 2008, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years with the benefit of set off under Section 428, Cr.P.C. 2. Binod Duan (P.W.2) is the informant. Daughter of the appellant, as found from the evidence of the witnesses, namely Anjana Duan had eloped with Binod Duan (P.W.2) and they were staying as man and wife prior to the occurrence. Deceased Bisakha Duan is the mother of the informant Binod Duan (P.W.2). The occurrence happened on 25.07.2007 at about 8.30 P.M. in front of the house of the appellant at village Kudapada under Sasan P.S. in the district of Sambalpur. Some days prior to the occurrence, Anjana Duan, daughter of the appellant returned from her matrimony and came to stay in his father's (appellant's) house. Some times prior to the occurrence Binod Duan (P.W.2) came to the house of the appellant to bring back Anjana Duan to his house. The appellant refused to leave Anjana and abused the informant (P.W.2) in filthy words. The informant (P.W.2) came to his house and narrated the incident before his mother Bisakha Duan (deceased). Bisakha Duan then came to the house of the appellant situated in the same village and asked the appellant to leave Anjana Duan to her house. The appellant all of a sudden assaulted the deceased on her head with a piece of wood. The incident was witnessed by Dillip Mirdha (P.W.7) and Sunil Mirdha (P.W.8). Immediately after the occurrence, other villagers including P.W.2 came to the spot. They rushed Bisakha Duan (deceased) to the place of Dr. Gopal Chandra Behera (P.W.6), a Homoeopathic doctor of the locality. From there she was brought back to her house and again on the next day she was shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur, where she was treated by Dr. Kalyani Patra (P.W.4). After two days, she was shifted to V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla, where she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. From there she was brought back to her house and again on the next day she was shifted to the District Headquarters Hospital, Sambalpur, where she was treated by Dr. Kalyani Patra (P.W.4). After two days, she was shifted to V.S.S. Medical College & Hospital, Burla, where she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. On registration of the case against the appellant at Sasan P.S. on the basis of the written report dated 28.07.2007, investigation was taken up by the I.O. (P.W.10) and subsequently by P.W.11, who submitted charge-sheet on completion of investigation, implicating the appellant in offence under Sections 341/294/506/302, I.P.C. 3. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses to bring home the charges against the appellant. Besides the witnesses introduced in the preceding paragraph, P.W.1 Satyaram Duan is the husband of the deceased and a post-occurrence witness, P.W.3 Bihari Duan is a witness to the inquest, P.W.9 Manoj Kumar Malla is the witness to the seizure of the wearing apparel of the accused and the deceased, P.W.5 is the Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination. 4. Defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication. 5. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defence, and it has been specifically pleaded by the appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that in the occurrence night at about 8.00 P.M. Binod Duan (P.W.2), Sunil Mirdha (P.W.8) and Dillip Mirdha (P.W.7) came near his house (appellant's house) in a drunken state and started abusing him in obscene language. It is further pleaded that on protest by his wife, they assaulted her and at that time he came out from his house. The mother of Binod Duan (P.W.2) came there by running and a piece of wood kept on his thatched roof fell on her head and she sustained injury. 6. Learned trial court, on the basis of eye-witness account of P.Ws.7 and 8 and other corroborative evidence, held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both P.Ws.7 and 8 are interested witnesses and they being partisans and friends of the informant Binod Duan (P.W.2), they should not have been believed by the trial court to record the finding of guilt against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both P.Ws.7 and 8 are interested witnesses and they being partisans and friends of the informant Binod Duan (P.W.2), they should not have been believed by the trial court to record the finding of guilt against the appellant. Taking a clue from the cross-examination of P.W.7 it is further submitted that, house of one Jasobanti is situated near the house of the appellant and P.W.7 has testified that Jasobanti was also present near him at the time of occurrence, but the prosecution having not examined said Jasobanti, the prosecution version should not have been believed by the learned trial court. Further, Anjana Duan, for whom the entire occurrence happened, having not been examined by the prosecution, such non-examination of Anjana Duan casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate on the other hand supports the impugned judgment. 8. Evidence of P.W.7 shows that at the time of occurrence he along with Sunil Mirdha (P.W.8) was there in the club house. They heard the sound of quarrel near the house of the appellant and rushed to the spot to see the occurrence. Both P.Ws.7 and 8 are asserted to have seen the occurrence of assault by the appellant. They have specifically stated that by a wood the appellant assaulted on the head of the deceased. From the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 it is clear that the appellant gave a single blow and left the spot. Though P.Ws.7 and 8 have been cross-examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to discredit their evidence on the ground of interestedness. There is nothing on record to show their enmity or animosity towards the appellant to either falsely implicate him or their proximity with the informant to either benefit him by falsely implicating the appellant. Both these witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.7 and 8 stood unscathed through the thorough cross-examination of the defence and there is nothing to disbelieve them. 9. In paragraph-4 of the cross-examination, P.W.7 has testified that there was failure of electricity and it was a dark night. But subsequently in paragraph-5 of his evidence he has clarified that the place of occurrence was lighted by electric bulb fitted at a nearby house and after the assault by the appellant to the deceased, there was failure of electricity and there was darkness. But subsequently in paragraph-5 of his evidence he has clarified that the place of occurrence was lighted by electric bulb fitted at a nearby house and after the assault by the appellant to the deceased, there was failure of electricity and there was darkness. In view of such specific evidence, no doubt can be cast regarding possibility of identification or seeing the occurrence by the witnesses when it was dark. 10. So far as non-examination of Jasobanti is concerned, it is not the requirement of law that all the witnesses, those were present at the spot, should be examined. The prosecution is free to examine as many witnesses as required to unfold the narrative of events. If Jasobanti has not been examined and the defence feels that her examination would have thrown light towards innocence of the appellant, the defence could have taken step to examine her as a defence witness. But, admittedly no step has been taken to examine Jasobanti as a defence witness. In view of such fact, non-examination of Jasobanti by the prosecution could not affect the prosecution case in any manner. 11. So far as the criticism regarding non-examination of Anjana Duan is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that Anjana Duan is either an occurrence witness or a post-occurrence witness. No doubt, the occurrence happened as a result of quarrel to bring back Anjana Duan from the house of her father. But her non-examination does not in any way affect the prosecution case. 12. Taking all the aforesaid aspects into consideration, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C. is confirmed. 13. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is found from record that the appellant gave a single blow by a piece of wood on the head of the deceased and left the place immediately. He could have given more assault, but he chose not to assault the deceased any more. Preceding the assault, there had been quarrel between the parties and the occurrence happened suddenly. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I think it proper to reduce the sentence to 5 (five) years rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the Jail Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. Preceding the assault, there had been quarrel between the parties and the occurrence happened suddenly. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I think it proper to reduce the sentence to 5 (five) years rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the Jail Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. Appellant Meghanada Mallick be released from custody forthwith, if he has already suffered the sentence imposed on him and if his detention is not required in any other case. Final Result : Partly Allowed