JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2014 rendered in Sessions Case No. 79 of 2012 by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, thereby convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one month. The appellant has been prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that in the evening of 05/4/2012, between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m., in the courtyard of his hut, the appellant picked up a quarrel with the deceased Rambharose, his father-in-law, residing in a separate but adjoining hut and by beating him by means of stones and stick on his head, the appellant killed him. It was alleged that on the previous day as well, there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in which the appellant had threatened him to kill if the deceased interfered in the domestic issues of the appellant. 2. The report of the incident was lodged almost immediately at about 4.00 p.m. of 05/4/2012 and the law was set in motion. The appellant was arrested on 06/4/2012. Necessary panchanamas were prepared and postmortem examination of the dead body of Rambharose was conducted. The postmortem report revealed that the deceased had sustained in all seven injuries on the head and around the head region and the cause of his death was the head injury. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. On the merits of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that though the death of Rambharose was homicidal in nature, it did not fit into the parameters of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was within the scope and ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304II of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly by an impugned judgment and order, convicted the appellant for the said offence. The appellant, however, is not satisfied with the same and, therefore, he has approached this Court by filing this appeal. 3. I have heard Mrs. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the State. The appellant, however, is not satisfied with the same and, therefore, he has approached this Court by filing this appeal. 3. I have heard Mrs. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case including the impugned judgment and order. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there are no witnesses examined by the prosecution, who had actually seen the present appellant as carrying out any assault on the person of the deceased and that their evidence regarding presence of the appellant at the place where deceased Rambharose was lying in injured condition is also of doubtful nature. She also submits that although P.W.2 Anupabai has stated that she had seen the accused as standing near the deceased holding stick in his hand, the same is an omission and that no human blood has been found to be present on the stick as per the C.A. report vide Exh.62. She has, therefore, submitted that this is a case wherein benefit of doubt must go to the appellant and by giving the same, he deserves to be acquitted of the offence for which he has been held guilty, albeit wrongly by the trial Court. 5. According to the learned A.P.P. for the State, the evidence of three material witnesses; P.W.2 Anupabai, P.W.3 Anandrao and P.W.4 Dharamdas is consistent with each other and their evidence shows that the appellant was not only present at the place where the deceased was lying in injured condition but had also quarreled with him just before the deceased fell on the ground. He also submits that their evidence also shows that in their presence, the appellant had issued a threat that he would again beat up the deceased Rambharose. He further submits that the accused, though a son-in-law of the deceased, did not inform anybody regarding the bleeding injuries sustained by the deceased, leave apart taking the deceased to the hospital immediately for management of the serious injuries suffered by him. He also submits that there is evidence showing that when the appellant was asked about the reason for sustaining of bleeding injury by the deceased, the appellant maintained complete silence. He also submits that there is evidence showing that when the appellant was asked about the reason for sustaining of bleeding injury by the deceased, the appellant maintained complete silence. According to him, such subsequent conduct of the appellant only goes to show that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the fact that it were only the appellant who mercilessly assaulted the deceased, which assault caused his death. 6. On going through the evidence brought on record, I find that there is great substance in the argument advanced by the learned A.P.P. for the State and there is no merit in the argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant. The evidence of three witnesses; P.W.2 Anupabai, P.W.3 Anandrao and P.W.4 Dharamdas is of great significance and their testimony is consistent with each other. There are hardly any proved omissions in their testimonies, which would create any doubt about their trustworthiness. These witnesses had seen the accused as present at the spot of the incident just near the place where the deceased Rambharose was lying in injured condition. P.W.4 Dharamdas has stated that he had seen Rambharose as lying in a pool of blood. During the course of cross-examination taken on behalf of the appellant, certain suggestions were put to him by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The answers given to these suggestions disclose that this witness had even seen the quarrel as going on between the appellant and Rambharose for about five minutes and that he had also seen that both of them were abusing each other during the quarrel. 7. P.W.3 Anandrao had also seen the appellant as present near the place where deceased Rambharose was lying in a pool of blood. He has particularly stated that when he reached the spot he saw the injured condition of Rambharose and that he also saw the accused as present there. The accused did not give any explanation as to how the deceased suffered those injuries. According to this witness, the accused, on seeing him, even issued a threat that he would again beat up the deceased. The fact that the appellant did not say anything about the reason for those injuries and even used the words that, "he would again beat up" itself shows that the appellant had impliedly admitted the guilt by way of extra judicial confession that he had subjected Rambharose to beating by him. The fact that the appellant did not say anything about the reason for those injuries and even used the words that, "he would again beat up" itself shows that the appellant had impliedly admitted the guilt by way of extra judicial confession that he had subjected Rambharose to beating by him. These circumstances reveal relevant fact in the nature of subsequent conduct prescribed under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as rightly submitted by the learned A.P.P. for the State. They go to establish that the assault on the deceased was carried out by nobody else other than the accused himself. This assault resulted into the deceased sustaining grievous injuries on his head, which ultimately caused his death. The conclusion reached in this regard, therefore, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be seen as perverse or arbitrary or illogical. The death of deceased Rambharose was thus homicidal in nature and the appellant had caused it. 8. Now, the next question would be, whether such homicidal death amounted to murder or not? Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it did not amount to murder as there were no circumstances proved on the record sufficiently indicating the requisite intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant. I think, learned Counsel for the appellant is right in saying so. The evidence on record does not clearly indicate that the appellant, when he assaulted deceased Rambharose, had done it with an intention to kill him or with such a knowledge as to be aware that the injuries that he was causing would in all probability bring about his death. There was sudden fight in between the accused and the deceased Rambharose in which the passions ran high and the appellant hit the deceased by means of stones and stick on his head, which ultimately resulted in the death of Rambharose. This circumstance only shows that the act was committed without any premeditation. There is no evidence showing that the appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation or acted cruelly or in an unusual manner. Therefore, the finding recorded in this regard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be seen as erroneous. 9. This circumstance only shows that the act was committed without any premeditation. There is no evidence showing that the appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation or acted cruelly or in an unusual manner. Therefore, the finding recorded in this regard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be seen as erroneous. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a man of family, who has a son to take care of and, therefore, he should be released by reducing his sentence to the period of detention already undergone by him. The prayer is opposed by the learned A.P.P. for the State. 10. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already taken sufficiently lenient view and no scope is left for me to reduce his sentence of imprisonment even further. In the result, I am of the view that no sufficient grounds have been made out for making any interference in the judgment and order impugned and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The appeal stands dismissed. This Court places on record its appreciation for the effective presentation of the case by learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant so also by the learned A.P.P. for the State. The legal remuneration payable to the learned Counsel for the appellant is determined to be at Rs. 5,000/-, which may be paid to her as per rules.