JUDGMENT 1. - In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., the appellant is challenging the judgment dated 13.12.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Udaipur, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "trial court") in Session Case No.17/2005, whereby the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 458 of IPC and the following punishment was imposed against him, which reads as infra: 302 of IPC Imprisonment for Life along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. 458 of IPC 7 Years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment. 2. 458 of IPC 7 Years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case, on 22.10.2004, complainant, Narayan Lal, gave written-report (Ex.P/13) in M.G. Hospital, Udaipur, in which following allegations were levelled against him:- lsok esa Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh] Fkkuk&lwjtiksy] mn;iqj fo"k;& dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ckcr~A egksn; th] fuosnu gS fd eSa fnukad 18@10@2004 dks vius xkao foj/kksfy;k x;kA lkFk esa esjh iRuh Hkh FkhA esjs ?kj ij esjk yM+dk egsUnz Fkk] mldh iRuh Hkh ih;j xbZ gqbZ FkhA vkt lqcg 3 30 cts xkao foj/kksfy;k esa esjs HkkbZ ukFkwyky ds ?kj Qksu vk;k] tks esjs Hkrhts izHkwyky us ckr dhA Qksu mn;iqj ls esjs iM+kSlh fd'ku flag mQZ fiUVw us fd;kA mlus izHkwyky dks crk;k fd esjs yM+ds egsUnz dks iM+kSlh izdk'k lkyoh us pkdw ekj fn;kA ;g tkudkjh gksus ij eSa mn;iqj gkafLiVy vk;k] tgka esjs yM+ds egsUnz dk bZykt py jgk FkkA ;gka eq>s fd'ku flag mQZ fiUVw us crk;k fd jkr dks yxHkx 1 30 cts og ,oa egsUnz lkFk FksA esjs yM+ds egsUnz us ckgj esu xsV dk njoktk [kksyk rks vUnj edku esa cSBs izdk'k lkyoh us pkdw ls egsUnz ij okj dj fn;k] tks egsUnz ds isV] ihB ,oa ck,a gkFk ij yxkA tc egsUnz us gYyk fd;k rks eSa edku ij igaqpk rks eq>s ns[k izdk'k lkyoh ogka ls Hkkx x;kA ml le; gYyk lqudj ujs'k /kksch] vkns'k] eqds'k [kVhd ,oa rst flag cYyk Hkh ogka vk x,A esjs yM+ds egsUnz dks fd'ku flag] ujs'k /kksch] vkns'k gkafLiVy ysdj vk,A vr% Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd esjs yM+ds egsUnz ij tkuysok geyk djus okys izdk'k lkyoh ds fo:) l[r dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dj mls ltk fnykosA esjs yM+ds egsUnz dk vHkh gkafLiVy esa bykt py jgk gS vkSj og vHkh csgks'k gSA lgh@& ukjk;.k yky S/o Hkwjk th ljxjk xyh la0 70 LojkT; uxj] ekNy exjk] mn;iqj " 3. As per aforesaid report, information was received on the landline phone of complainant's brother, Nathulal, which was attended by Prabhulal (nephew of complainant). The said call was made by Kishan Singh @ Pintu, neighbour of the complainant from Udaipur and informed that accused appellant Prakash Salvi has inflicted injuries upon various parts of the body of his son, Mahendra, by a knife. After receiving the aforesaid information he immediately rushed to the Govt. The said call was made by Kishan Singh @ Pintu, neighbour of the complainant from Udaipur and informed that accused appellant Prakash Salvi has inflicted injuries upon various parts of the body of his son, Mahendra, by a knife. After receiving the aforesaid information he immediately rushed to the Govt. Hospital, where the treatment of his son was going on. In the Hospital, Kishan Singh (PW.8) apprised the complainant that in the night at about 01.30 AM, he and Mahendra were returning to the house after seeing "Garba", at that time, while dropping Mahendra, Kishan Singh left the house and thereafter Mahendra opened the main gate of the house. All of sudden Prakash Salvi, assaulted him, who was sitting in inside the house with a knife. Upon hearing the hue and cry of Mahendra, Kishan Singh came back and saw that injuries were caused by accused appellant upon different parts of body of Mahendra, and ran away. At that time, Naresh Dhobi, Aadesh, Mukesh Khataik and Tej Singh also came there and they took injured Mahendra to hospital for treatment. 4. Upon the aforesaid written report, FIR No.378/2004 (Ex.P/14) was registered at Police Station Suraj Pol for the offence under Sections 307, 324 and 458 of IPC on 22.10.2004. 5. During the treatment after five days, the complainant's son Mahendra died on 27.10.2004, therefore, offence under Section 302 IPC was added by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused and after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the accused appellant in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur, for trial. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Udaipur, where trial took place. 6. In the trial, to prove the prosecution case, statements of 17 prosecution witnesses were recorded and thereafter statements of accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the appellant denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses. In defence gave oral evidence of DW.1 Heeralal. 7. After recording the evidence of prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial court held the accused appellant for committing offence under Sections 302 and 458 of IPC vide judgment dated 13.12.2005 and passed sentence, referred above. The judgment dated 13.12.2005 is under challenge in this appeal. 8. In defence gave oral evidence of DW.1 Heeralal. 7. After recording the evidence of prosecution as well as defence, the learned trial court held the accused appellant for committing offence under Sections 302 and 458 of IPC vide judgment dated 13.12.2005 and passed sentence, referred above. The judgment dated 13.12.2005 is under challenge in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment impugned is based upon hear say evidence because none of the witnesses including Kishan Singh, and author of the FIR saw the occurrence. He further argued that upon perusal of the statement of alleged eye witnesses PW.8, Kishan Singh and PW.9 Mukesh Khatik, it will reveal that their testimony is not trustworthy because both these witnesses stated that when they reached at the place of occurrence, the accused appellant was ran way, while taking knife in the hand. According to accused appellant, both these witnesses cannot be treated as eye-witnesses because they reached at the place of occurrence after the incident took place. The trial court has thus committed grave error while relying upon testimony of these witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the Investigating Officer has failed to collect any material direct evidence to connect the present appellant with the alleged crime, therefore, it is a case in which the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While inviting attention of the Court towards the statements of Dr. Akhilesh Sharma (PW.1) and Dr. Anurag Sharma (PW.2), who examined the son of the complainant after the occurrence, it is submitted that no information or fact with regard to causing injury by the accused appellant was disclosed by the injured before the doctors. Dr. Anurag Sharma (PW.2) stated in his statement that police came in the award but did not record the statement of injured in front of him. Likewise, Dr. Akhilesh Kumar (PW.4) stated before the court that operation was performed by him in the night on 22.10.2004 and in front of him, statement was recorded but this witness has not supported the prosecution story with regard to involvement of the appellant. 10. Likewise, Dr. Akhilesh Kumar (PW.4) stated before the court that operation was performed by him in the night on 22.10.2004 and in front of him, statement was recorded but this witness has not supported the prosecution story with regard to involvement of the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the finding given by the trial court is totally erroneous and not based upon sound appreciation of the evidence available on record because as per admitted facts, the occurrence took place on 22.10.2004 and Mahendra (Injured) died on 27.10.2004 during the course of treatment, after five days of the incident, and in between the said period, no efforts were made to record dying declaration by the Magistrate. However, the learned trial court relied upon the statement of PW.8, Kishan Singh and PW.9, Mukesh Khatik and statement of PW.12 Mahipal Singh, and gave a finding that as per statements of Mahendra, recorded by the Sub-Inspector (I.O.), the accused appellant committed offence under Section 302 of IPC because in the statement of Mahendra, Ex.P/8, recorded by I.O., there is clear allegation against the appellant for inflicting injuries by accused appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Investigating Officer has failed to perform his duties because no efforts were made by him to record the statement of Mahendra, by the Magistrate, therefore, the actual truth did not come on record, hence the finding given by the trial court for conviction under Section 302 of IPC, deserves to be quashed. 12. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and stated that the accused appellant has committed offence of murder, which is evident from the statements of PW.8 Kishan Singh, who reached on the place of occurrence upon hearing the hue and cry of Mahendra, and saw that the accused was running from the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that PW.9, Mukesh Khatik, categorically stated that in front of the house of Mahendra, accused appellant was coming out from the house and ran away from the place of occurrence. Meaning thereby, both the witnesses have saw the appellant, therefore, his presence on the place of occurrence is not doubtful. 13. It is also submitted that PW.9, Mukesh Khatik, categorically stated that in front of the house of Mahendra, accused appellant was coming out from the house and ran away from the place of occurrence. Meaning thereby, both the witnesses have saw the appellant, therefore, his presence on the place of occurrence is not doubtful. 13. As per learned Public Prosecutor, the weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered at the instance of information furnished by the accused appellant, upon which human blood was found, as such it is a case in which the trial court has rightly arrived at the finding of guilt against the appellant for committing offence under Sections 302 and 458 of IPC. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the occurrence took place in the house of deceased and there are witnesses, who have categorically stated before the court that at the time of occurrence, they saw the accused appellant running from the place of occurrence having knife in his hand. Therefore, there is no question to quash the judgment impugned and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the evidence and fact that in this case occurrence took place on 22.10.2004 and injured Mahendra died on 27.10.2004 when he was under treatment. It is also not in dispute that injured, Mahendra, was taken to hospital for treatment by Kishan Singh (PW.8) and first of all he was examined by Dr. Akhilesh Kumar (PW.4) who has stated that when the statements (Ex.P/8) of Mahendra were recorded, he was in a position to give statement. 16. We have perused the statement of Mahenda (Ex.P/8) recorded on 21.10.2004 by the S.I. Mahipal. In the said statement, injured categorically stated that in the night on 21.10.2004 at about 01.30 AM after seeing "Dandia/Garba" I came back to the house and opened the main gate of my house, at that time, Prakash @ Gajendra who was inside the house, attacked upon him by a knife and caused injuries on stomach, back and left hand, therefore, I made a cry and accused appellant ran away towards the street. At that time, Kishan Singh, Tej Singh and Aadesh came there on the spot for my rescue and upon inquiry, I informed the names of Prakash @ Gajendra and apprised them about the incident in short and I became unconscious. It was further stated by the injured that accused Prakash was having enmity with me, therefore, he has caused injuries to him. 17. Upon statement (Ex.P/8) although the injured put his signatures, so also, Dr. Akhilesh Kumar (PW.4) has put his signatures, but it nowhere mentioned by him that he is fit to give statement, however, another document (Ex.P/9) is placed on record, which is a letter given by ASI to the Medical Officer of the hospital for ascertaining the condition of the injured whether he is fit to give statement or not. Upon the said document, there is an endorsement to the effect that "fit for statement". Upon consideration of the entire evidence and statements, it is obvious that the prosecution has led evidence to prove the incident but upon perusal of the FIR as well as evidence of other witnesses, including PW.8 Kishan Singh and PW.9 Mukesh Khatik, it emerges that there is no evidence with regard to motive. 18. It is worthwhile to observe that the incident took place on 22.10.2004 and on that date, statement of injured (Ex.P/8) were recorded by the S.I. and thereafter treatment was provided to injured, Mahendra, there he remained alive till 27.10.2004. In between the said period, i.e. from 22.10.2004 to 27.10.2004, there was sufficient time left with the Investigating Officer for recording the dying declaration/statement of Mahendra, by the Magistrate, but no efforts were made by the Investigating Officer so as to record the statement of deceased by the concerned Magistrate. It is also relevant to observe that the knife was recovered as per information of the accused appellant vide Ex.P/17 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Chhagan Lal and Ghasi Ram on 27.10.2004 and the said knife was sent for chemical analysis to the FSL. In the FSL report, although blood was found upon the knife but blood group was not determined. Therefore, obviously it can be said that the prosecution has proved that which blood was appearing upon the knife but group was not ascertained. 19. In the FSL report, although blood was found upon the knife but blood group was not determined. Therefore, obviously it can be said that the prosecution has proved that which blood was appearing upon the knife but group was not ascertained. 19. Upon examination of the entire prosecution evidence, it is revealed that there is no evidence of motive on record and injuries were not sufficient to cause death immediately, therefore, even if it is presumed that the injuries were caused by the appellant to the person of deceased, then also, it is not a case for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC. 20. In our opinion, on the following grounds, the finding of learned trial court held accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of IPC can be altered to offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC. (A) Admittedly, injured Mahendra was taken to hospital on 22.10.2004 and he died on 27.10.2004 and in between this period, no efforts were made by the Investigating Officer for recording his statements by the concerned Magistrate. (B) It is also obvious from the entire evidence that the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to prove the motive of the accused, which is one of the important ingredient for recording conviction under Section 302 of IPC. (C) Even if the allegations of deceased made in Ex.P/8 are accepted that appellant was having enmity with the deceased, then also, in absence of reliable evidence it cannot be said that the accused appellant was having any intention to cause death of Mahendra. (D) It is also worthwhile to submit here that as per prosecution case, the accused appellant was having knife in his hand but no injury was caused by him on the vital parts, such as, chest of the deceased. In the cross-examination, Dr. (D) It is also worthwhile to submit here that as per prosecution case, the accused appellant was having knife in his hand but no injury was caused by him on the vital parts, such as, chest of the deceased. In the cross-examination, Dr. Anurag Talesara (PW.2) gave following statement with regard to seriousness of the injuries, which reads as under: " ;g lgh gS fd pksV la[;k 1] 2] 3] 4 dks eSausa esjh jk; fjtoZ j[kh D;ksafd eSa bu pksVksa dks ns[kus ls bl fu"d"kZ ij ugha igqapk tks ldrk Fkk fd ;g fdl izdkj dh Fkh ;kfu izk.k?kkrd xaHkhj Fkh ;k lkekU; FkhA ejht 'kksd esa Fkk cksyus dh fLFkfr esa ugha FkkA ejht us ?kVuk ds ckjs esa ugha crk;k FkkA iqfyl okMZ+ esa vkbZ Fkh ij esjs lkeus ejht dk c;ku ugha fy;k Fkk u eq>s c;ku ysus dh rgjhj nh FkhA eSaus bl ejht dks nqckjk ugha ns[kk dsoy izn'kZ ih0 5 cukbZ rc gh ns[kk FkkA izn'kZ ih0 5 dh pksVksa ds lEcU/k esa ckn esa jk; nh FkhA izn'kZ ih0 6 esa vakijsfVo uksV~l esa ;g mYysf[kr ugha gS fd ;g pksVsa xaHkhj gksdj izk.k?kkrd gSA eSaus vkaijsfVax] M+k0 ls pksVksa ds ckjs esa jk; ugha ekaxh dh ;g xaHkhj gS o izk.k?kkrd gSA " (E) Upon assessing the entire evidence coupled with medical evidence, we are of the opinion that as per statement of doctor, the injuries were not sufficient to cause death immediately, which is evident from the fact that Mahendra died after five days of the incident. (F) The witness PW.1, Dr. Akhilesh Sharma, who performed the postmortem of deceased, Mahendra, gave his opinion that out of six injuries, Injury Nos.1 and 2 were of serious nature and dangerous to life, and Injuries No.3, 4, 5 and 6 were simple in nature. (F) The witness PW.1, Dr. Akhilesh Sharma, who performed the postmortem of deceased, Mahendra, gave his opinion that out of six injuries, Injury Nos.1 and 2 were of serious nature and dangerous to life, and Injuries No.3, 4, 5 and 6 were simple in nature. The following opinion was given by PW.1, which reads as under: " batjh la[;k 1 o 2 xaHkhj ,oa izk.kk?kkrd ikbZ xbZ Fkh rFkk pksV la[;k 3] 4] 5] 6 lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh ikbZ xbZ FkhA gkVZ ds lHkh psECj [kkyh Fks rFkk yhoj] fdM+uh] vkSj is'kkc dh FkSyh isy iM+h gqbZ FkhA ckdh van:uh vax izR;ax lgh gkyr esa ik, x;sA iksLVekVZe dj rFkk vkaijsfVo uksVl~ mlds HkrhZ fVfdV o pksV izfrosnu dk v/;;u djus ds ckn eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk fd e`rd dh e`R;q dk dkj.k 'kjhj ij vkbZ pksV la[;k 1 o 2 ds dkj.k 'kksd esa tkuk ik;k x;k tks izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus esa i;kZIr FkkA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ izn'k ih0 4 ewjh dyeh gS bl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj o lh ls M+h esjh jk; vafdr gSA " In the cross examination, PW.1 gave following version, which reads as under: " ;g lgh gS fd e`rd ds iksLVekVZe ds le; isV o vkars [kkyh ikbZ xbZA ;g lgh gS fd pksV la[;k 1 o 2 ij Vkads yxs gq, Fks tks bZykt ds nksjku yxk, x;s Fks pksV la[;k 1 o 2 ds mij tks Vkads yxs gq, Fks mudh D;k vkd`fr Fkh D;k yEch pkSM+h Fkh eSaus ugha ukih eSaus iksLVekVZe fd;k rc pksV fjis;j dh gqbZ Fkh ltZu us bu pksVksa dks fjis;j djrs oDr c<+kok ?kVk;k gks rks eSa ugh dg ldrk gwaA ;g lgh gS fd pksV la[;k 5 o 6 pkdw ls ugha vk ldrh gSA ;g lgh gS fd 'kksd nks rjg ds gksrs gS ,d izkbZejh o ,d lSd.M+jh 'kksd gksrk gSA e`rd dh e`R;q 'kksd ls gqbZ FkhA izkbZejh pksV yxus dh rqjUr i'pkr gksrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd gkafLiVy esa HkrhZ gksus ds ikapos fnu e`R;q gqbZ FkhA " (G) Upon considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the opinion that although the incident has been proved by the prosecution but the reason that Mahendra died after five days of the incident and the injuries were not caused upon chest or other vital parts, and further there is no evidence of motive on record, it is obvious that the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court for the offence u/s 302 of IPC is not sustainable in the eye of law. (H) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arjun v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 506 held that if motive is absent and there was allegation of prosecution for inflicting one injury may be that too by force, then also no offence under Section 302 IPC is said to be made out because offence cannot travel beyond offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. The relevant para no.17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference: "17. Considering the background facts as well as the fact that there was no premeditation and the act was committed in a heat and passion and that the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted n a cruel manner and that there was a fight between the parties, we are of the view that this case falls under the forth exception to Section 300 IPC and hence it is just and proper to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and we do so." (I)The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sompal Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. Criminal Appeal No.147 of 2009, decided on 16.05.2014 reported in (2014) 7 SCC 316 has held as under:- "11. In appeal, the High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that appellant Kunwar Pal Singh and accused Sahaab Singh were responsible for causing injuries on the head of the deceased with "Kanta". The deceased survived for two days after receiving such incised wounds on his dead and died after three days of the incident and the common object of the unlawful assembly was to belabor the deceased. Considering the common object of the assembly it was not possible to draw an inference that there was no intention to murder the deceased or cause him such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Considering the common object of the assembly it was not possible to draw an inference that there was no intention to murder the deceased or cause him such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The force applied inflicting the injury was such that if it did not make the deceased even unconscious and he remained alive for three days prior to his death the victim was in physical and mental condition to dictate an FIR of the incident, and therefore it was not a case where the conviction of any of the accused could be affirmed under Section 302/149 IPC, rather it was a case for conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC simpliciter. Using sharp edged weapon on the head indicates that Kunwar Pal Singh and Sahaab Singh accused knew that death might ensue because of the assault made by them. 12. Undoubtedly, both the said injuries have been on the skull. The first injury is 7 Cm. away from the right ear, however, the second injury is 8 Cm. away from injury no.1. Much arguments have been advanced as what is the meaning of bone deep. In case, the injury is caused on the part of the body other than head, it can be measured as skin deep. If injury is deep to certain extent, it may cut muscles and then may go up to the bone. In case of head injury, if the injury remains superfluous, it is generally described as skull deep. On the head, there is hair which rooted to the skin with bulp. There are cartilages below the skin and then comes cranium. xxx 14. So far as the instant case is concerned, clauses sixthly and seventhly may be relevant. Nature of the injuries is to be determined taking into consideration the intense suffering to which it gives rise and the serious disability which it causes the sufferer. However, in clause seventhly, as the term "fracture" has been referred to, it may be necessary that the bone is broken. Mere abrasion would not amount to fracture. Even a cut that does not go across the bone cannot be termed as a fracture of the bone. But if the injury is grave even partial cut of the skull vault (root or chamber) may amount to a fracture. Mere abrasion would not amount to fracture. Even a cut that does not go across the bone cannot be termed as a fracture of the bone. But if the injury is grave even partial cut of the skull vault (root or chamber) may amount to a fracture. However, clause eighthly refers to the injuries which are not covered under any one of the above clauses firstly to seventhly of the section. However, it labels the injuries as grievous if it endangers life or it causes the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of 20 days unable to follow his ordinary pursuits and all the three clauses have to be read independently. This is a very thin and subtle demarcation line between "hurt which endangers life" and "injury as is likely to cause death". Therefore, sometimes it becomes very difficult as to whether a person is liable under Section 325IPC for causing grievous hurt or under Section 304 IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the injury results in the death of the victim. In the present case, the injuries nos. 1 and 2 are beyond "hurt which endanger life" and clearly falls in the category of "injuries as are likely to cause death" even though each injury may not be individually sufficient to cause death. 15. The High Court has set aside the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and the finding attained finality to that extent. There is ample evidence on record to draw the conclusion that the injury caused by the appellant was not sufficient to cause death independently. In such a fact-situation, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the High Court under Section 304 Part I IPC is upheld. However, in the facts of the case as the incident occurred about thirty four years ago, sentence is reduced to seven years. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification." 21. We have also considered the entire evidence of the present case in the light of aforesaid ratio, referred to supra, and in our opinion, the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is not sustainable in law but the conviction recorded for the offence u/s 458 IPC is proved by the prosecution. 22. We have also considered the entire evidence of the present case in the light of aforesaid ratio, referred to supra, and in our opinion, the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is not sustainable in law but the conviction recorded for the offence u/s 458 IPC is proved by the prosecution. 22. Consequently, the present criminal appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 13.12.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Udaipur, insofar as it records the conviction against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the appellant is held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for the offence under Section 458 IPC is hereby maintained. The accused appellant remained in custody for about eight years and seven months, therefore, his sentence is hereby reduced from life imprisonment to the sentence already undergone by him. The accused appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds are hereby discharged. 23. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon'ble the Supreme Court.Appeal partly allowed. *******