JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mukhtar Ahmad, J.—This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.1.1983 passed by Vth. Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1982, convicting the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case in nut shell is that an F.I.R. was got lodged by Jai Gopal (P.W.1) on 14.12.1981 at Police Station New Agra by stating that he is originally resident of Hanumangarhi, Hathras but presently residing in Mohalla Peepal Mandi, Police Station Chatta with his brother in law Ram Briksha Chimniwale; that he had friendship with Ahsok Kumar s/o Hari Shankar Sharma (deceased), resident of Peepal Mandi; that Vijai Nandan Srivastava- appellant was a tenant of Ashok Kumar and had not given rent for about seven months; that the house was kept locked by him though he was not residing therein and was residing in a rented house in Saraswati Nagar, Balkeshwar; that on the day of incident i.e. on 14.12.1981 at about 5.30 p.m. he along-with Ashok Kumar, Padam and Kali Charan went to the house of Vijai Nandan Srivastava to get the rent and key and when they reached at the door of his house he came out. Ashok Kumar demanded the rent and key from him but he asked “which rent and which key” and started abusing. Ashok Kumar too abused him on which Vijai Nandan Srivastava stabbed in his left side chest by knife and thereafter he ran away towards his house. Ashok Kumar fell down in the lawn and succumbed to the injury sustained. On their shouting people of nearby and police personnel came there. Vijai Nandau Srivastava was caught by the police. On this information an FIR (Ex Ka 2) bearing case crime No.509/81 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against accused appellant Viajy Nandan Srivastava by PW 1 Constable Krishna Baboo Chauhan. Entry in G.D. was also made by him. Investigation was entrusted to Inspector Baljit Singh (P.W.7). He reached on the spot, prepared site plan Ex. Ka 9. On the pointing out of the accused-appellant recovery of knife was made from his house and Fard Ex. Ka 2 was prepared. He also took blood stained and plain mud from the spot and and prepared fard Ex. Ka-8. Inquest of deceased was also conducted by him. He reached on the spot, prepared site plan Ex. Ka 9. On the pointing out of the accused-appellant recovery of knife was made from his house and Fard Ex. Ka 2 was prepared. He also took blood stained and plain mud from the spot and and prepared fard Ex. Ka-8. Inquest of deceased was also conducted by him. Clothes recovered from the dead body, knife, sample of blood stained and plain mud were sent for chemical analysis thereafter. Dead body was sent for postmortem through constable Mahipal Singh PW 3. Dr Sudhir Chandra PW 9 conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased. As per chemical analyst report, on all the articles there was human blood, however, blood group could not be ascertained on account of having been disintegrated. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After concluding investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against accused appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate concerned committed the case to the Court of sessions, where charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to bring home the charge of murder against appellant the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 Head constable 280 Mahi Pal Singh is the witness who after being relieved from the V.I.P. duty was going with constable Kamlesh Kumar. Hearing the shouting he had rushed to the spot just after the incident. He had caught the accused from his house. P.W. 2 Padam Chandra Sharma is the brother of the deceased. He is examined as eye-witness. P.W. 3 Constable 1324 Mahipal Singh had taken the dead body of the deceased in sealed cover to the Post Mortem House. P.W. 4 Jai Gopal is the first informant. He has also deposed an eye-witness account of the incident. P.W. 5 Narendra Singh is the witness of recovery of knife at the instance of the accused-appellant. P.W. 6 Kali Charan was also produced as an eye-witness of the occurrence. P.W. 7 Baljit Singh is the Investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. Constable Krishna Baboo Chauhan P.W. 8 is a witness who had made the G.D. Entry and lodged F.I.R. against the accused-appellant. Dr. Sudhir Chandra P.W. 9 is a witness who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the post mortem report Ex. Ka 16. 4. Constable Krishna Baboo Chauhan P.W. 8 is a witness who had made the G.D. Entry and lodged F.I.R. against the accused-appellant. Dr. Sudhir Chandra P.W. 9 is a witness who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the post mortem report Ex. Ka 16. 4. After concluding the prosecution evidence statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He admitted that he resided in the house of deceased as tenant but vacated the same. Though it was admitted that rent was due but he has specifically denied about putting the lock thereon. Except Padam presence of first informant Jai Gopal and Kalicharan on the place of occurrence was also admitted. He further stated that it was the deceased who had put open knife on his chest and demanded rent forcibly, then he caught the hand of Ashok Kumar in which he was having the knife and twisted it. Thereafter scuffling took place between them, in which the knife of deceased stabbed in his own left side chest, consequently he fell on the ground and scummed to the injuries sustained. Thereafter Jai Gopal and Kali Charan ran away from there. He denied from making recovery of knife on his instance. It was also stated that deceased Ashok Kumar was facing trial under Section 376 and 307 I.P.C, Kali Charan was also accused in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. and Jai Gopal was also an accused in a case under Section 307 and 324 I.P.C. As such all the three were history- sheeter criminals. D.W.1 Parinita Srivastava, wife of the accused was examined from the side of defence. 5. Learned Trial Judge relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and in particular, the deposition of the eye-witnesses found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and story set up by the defence was dis-believed. Aggrieved by that judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. We have heard Mr. Mewa Lal Shukla, amicus curiae for the appellant, Mr. Mahendra Bahadur Yadav, learned A.G.A. and gone through the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that it is a case where the happening of incident is more or less admitted. It is not disputed that appellant resided in the house of deceased as a tenant. 6. We have heard Mr. Mewa Lal Shukla, amicus curiae for the appellant, Mr. Mahendra Bahadur Yadav, learned A.G.A. and gone through the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that it is a case where the happening of incident is more or less admitted. It is not disputed that appellant resided in the house of deceased as a tenant. It is also not disputed that the accommodation was vacated by the appellant but as per the prosecution version it was locked by him while as per defence version no lock was lying thereon. There is also no dispute that seven months rent was due against the appellant. Place of occurrence and time of incident is also admitted. The defence has not denied the presence of the prosecution witnesses Jai Gopal PW4 and Kali Charan PW6 on the spot at the time of occurrence while presence of Padam PW2, brother of deceased has specifically been denied. It is also not in dispute that deceased died on the spot by sustaining injury of knife. The main dispute is that as per prosecution version appellant stabbed Ashok Kumar with knife on his left side chest which resulted in his death while as per defence version, the deceased, in scuffle with appellant sustained injuries from his own knife which proved fatal. 8. Challenge to the impugned judgment inter alia is primarily on the following grounds- (A) That eye-witnesses PW 4 Jai Gopal and P.W. 6 Kali Charan are close friends of the deceased as such these witnesses are highly interested witnesses but conviction is based merely on the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, which is not trust worthy and reliable, as such conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. (B) That P.W.2 Padam Chandra Sharma, brother of the deceased was not present on the spot otherwise he would be the first informant of the incident. Further, he was serving as Lower Division Clerk in Hindi Sansthan and was on duty on the date of incidence though he in his deposition before the Court has stated that he had taken half day leave on that day but no such proof is made is made available on record. (C) That the incident has not occurred as per prosecution version but deceased sustained injuries at his own. (C) That the incident has not occurred as per prosecution version but deceased sustained injuries at his own. (D) That no recovery of knife was made at the instance of the appellant and fact of bearing no signatures of accused on it is sufficient to prove the same as fake. 9. Learned A.G.A. has denied these arguments by saying that prosecution witnesses are natural and truthful and they have given the true version of the occurrence. The prosecution case is constant with the facts disclosed in the FIR. The accused was arrested from his own house and weapon of assault i.e. knife was recovered on his pointing out from his own house which was having blood stains. As per chemical examination report there was human blood on it; that P.W. 2 was also present on the spot and learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the prosecution evidence. It is also argued that recovery of weapon was proved by P.W. 5 and P.W.67and mere on the ground of non bearing signature of accused, the same cannot be disbelieved. 10. Admittedly the friendship and intimacy of P.W. 1 Jai Gopal and P.W. 6 Kalicharan and relationship of P.W.2 Padam Chandra Sharma being brother of deceased are not in dispute. But we are of the view that the evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely on such ground, of course much care and caution shall be required in scrutinizing their evidence. 11. The sequence of events and manner of occurrence are properly revealed by the evidence of following witnesses adduced on behalf of prosecution. 12. The prosecution has examined Head Constable Mahipal Singh PW1 as an independent witness, who in his deposition has stated that on 14.12.1981 he along-with constable Kamlesh Kumar was coming after being relieved from V.I.P. duty. They heard shouting by people “Chakoo Maar Diya Khoon Kar Diya” upon which they rushed towards the place of occurrence where he saw the deceased lying dead on the ground having a lot of blood. The culprit was said to be in his house and he caught him there from. 13. P.W.2 Padam Chandra Sharma, elder brother of the accused has stated that along-with Ashok Kumar Sharma (deceased) Kalicharan and Jai Gopal had gone to the house of the accused in Mohalla Saraswati Nagar to demand the arrears of rent and key of the tenamant. The culprit was said to be in his house and he caught him there from. 13. P.W.2 Padam Chandra Sharma, elder brother of the accused has stated that along-with Ashok Kumar Sharma (deceased) Kalicharan and Jai Gopal had gone to the house of the accused in Mohalla Saraswati Nagar to demand the arrears of rent and key of the tenamant. When Ashok Kumar demanded the rent and key from the appellant accused but he started abusing him upon which Ashok Kumar also abused him. Then accused stabbed by knife towards left side of the chest of the deceased and soon thereafter rushed to his house. Ashok Kumar Sharma succumbed to the injuries sustained. 14. PW 4 Jai Gopal, is the first informant and the eye-witness of the incident. He is permanent resident of Hathras but at the time of occurrence was living with his brother-in-law Ram Chandra in Agra. He happened to be a friend of the deceased. This witness showing his presence on the spot narrated that it was the accused who has committed the murder of the deceased by causing knife blow on his chest and rushed towards his house from where he was detained by the police. Blood stained knife was also recovered on his pointing out from the heap of piston and rings etc. lying in the lawn of his own house. He has also proved the F.I.R. which was got lodged by him. 15. P.W.5 Narendra Singh has stated that weapon of assault i.e. knife was got recovered by the accused on his pointing out from the heap of piston and rings etc. lying in the Court yard of his own house. He has proved the recovery memo of knife, Ex-Ka-8 prepared on the spot. 16. P.W.6 Kalicharan is also an eye-witness of the occurrence. He by showing his presence along-with Ashok Kumar and Padam Chandra Sharma at the place of occurrence has stated that Ashok Kumar Sharma demanded rent and key from the appellant but accused-appellant denied and abused Ashok Kumar upon which Ashok Kumar also abused him on which accused Vijai Nandau Srivastava committed murder of Ashok Kumar by causing knife blow in the left side of chest and after causing injury accused-appellant rushed towards his house. Ashok Kumar after running 2-3 steps fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. Ashok Kumar after running 2-3 steps fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. He has also stated that when accused caused knife blow on the deceased at that time Padam and Jai Gopal were also present. They all shouted on which two police constables came on the spot. We informed them that accused was inside his house on which he was detained by PW1 constable Mahipal Singh there from. He has also narrated that inquest of the dead body was conducted on the spot by the police. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he was arrested in a false case lodged by Ram Kishan Topiwala in which he was bailed out. He has denied that he was ever convicted in any case of pick-pocketing. He further stated in his cross-examination that it was wrong to allege that Ashok Kumar with a view to kill Vijai Nandau Srivastava attacked on him. 17. P.W.7 Baljit Singh, the Investigating Officer has narrated that after lodging of F.I.R. he arrived on the spot where inquest of dead by of Ashok was conducted on his dictation by S.I. P.P. Karnwal and has proved the inquest report and other papers prepared at that time. He has also stated that on interrogation by police accused had stated that knife by which he had committed murder of Ashok Kumar Sharma was hidden in the heap of piston and rings in his house and got recovered blood stained knife. According to him accused-appellant further stated that it was the knife by which he had caused injury to Ashok Kumar; that the blade of the blood stained knife was covered with cotton and thereafter it was sealed; that signature of witnesses were obtained on the Fard. He also stated that statement of witnesses were recorded and after concluding investigation charge-sheet was submitted. He has proved the charge-sheet. 18. P.W.9 Dr. Sudhir Chandra is the witness who has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He found following injury on the body of deceased : “Anti mortem incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm up to chest cavity deep 1.5 cm lat. and below the left nipple. Pericardium was punctured and full of clotted blood. Lower part Vessels of right Antrim and upper part of right Ventricle were cut down”. 19. He found following injury on the body of deceased : “Anti mortem incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm up to chest cavity deep 1.5 cm lat. and below the left nipple. Pericardium was punctured and full of clotted blood. Lower part Vessels of right Antrim and upper part of right Ventricle were cut down”. 19. It was stated by him that death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage on account of anti-mortem injuries. He has also proved post-mortem report. In his cross-examination he further stated that direction of injury was from upward to downward. It is also opined that heart of the deceased was also punctured due to the knife injury. 20. Defence case is that it was the deceased Ashok Kumar who puts open knife on the chest of the appellant on which appellant twisted his hand in which he was having the knife and during scuffle deceased sustained injury by his own knife. It would be proper to mention here that a suggestion of this effect was given to the eye-witnesses PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 that deceased himself was having a knife and tried to assault the appellant-accused, who twisted the hand of deceased in which it stabbed the left chest of deceased and all the witnesses denied from such happening. 21. D.W.1 Smt. Pranita Srivastava was produced to establish the defence version. She also admitted that they were tenant in the house of deceased Ashok Kumar but it was vacated unlocked, however rent for 7 months was due on them. As the deceased was criminal, he wanted to extract money in the garb of rent. She also stated that occurrence took place at about 6.00 p.m. After hearing the abuse, she came out from her house and saw that abuses were being exchanged between her husband and Ashok Kuamr,. That Ashok Kumar put opened knife on the chest of her husband and threatened him that he would recover the rent on the point of knife. Her husband twisted the wrist of Ashok Kumar in which he was having knife on which Kali Charan, Jai Gopal and two others made an attempt to pounce over her husband, in which Ashok Kumar fell down and his own opened knife entered into his left side chest. Thereafter she and her husband came into the room of their house. Her husband twisted the wrist of Ashok Kumar in which he was having knife on which Kali Charan, Jai Gopal and two others made an attempt to pounce over her husband, in which Ashok Kumar fell down and his own opened knife entered into his left side chest. Thereafter she and her husband came into the room of their house. It was also stated by her that Padam Kumar was not present on the spot. 22. Adverting to the ocular evidence of PW-4 Jai Gopal and PW-6 Kali Charan (even if the evidence of PW2 Padam Chand Sharma is ignored) coupled with the evidence of PW1 Constable Mahi Pal Sing and fact of recovery of weapon of assault, knife are sufficient to show that appellant-accused is the person, who caused injuries on vital part (chest) of the deceased, which proved fatal and the defense version that deceased sustained injury by his own knife does not appear to be believable. As per suggestion given to the eye-witnesses deceased sustained injuries by his own when his hand was twisted by the appellant-accused. There was nothing about scuffling or felling down of deceased. First time in the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant disclosed improved version that scuffling had taken place between appellant and deceased in which deceased sustained injury by his own knife then fell down but as per D.W.1 deceased fell down on open knife kept by him which entered in his left side chest. These three versions shows that defence set up by the appellant could have not been established. It cannot be disputed that the prosecution has to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt. If the prosecution succeeds in proving its case and defence has not succeeded in proving its case in that situation too the accused persons shall be held guilty. In this case presence of the witnesses of fact P.W. 4 Jai Gopal, first informant and P.W.6 Kalicharan is admitted. They have narrated the prosecution story and the way of causing injury by appellant and their evidence supported with other evidence inspire confidence. In this case presence of the witnesses of fact P.W. 4 Jai Gopal, first informant and P.W.6 Kalicharan is admitted. They have narrated the prosecution story and the way of causing injury by appellant and their evidence supported with other evidence inspire confidence. The statement of D.W.1 is not reliable as it is a changed and improved version of defence which has been tried to be established by D.W.1.The direction of injury was found downward from upward and doctor has suggested that such type of injury was possible to be inflicted by the knife, which was shown in the Court. Further the knife was recovered from the house of the appellant containing blood stains at his instance. The recovery of knife and disclosure statement in which appellant admitted his guilt, have been very well proved by PW5 Narendra Singh and PW7 Baljit Singh Investigating officer in their oral testimonies. 23. We shall now consider whether there is any merit in the argument that the Investigating Officer must obtain the signature of the accused in the recovery memo to make it admissible. In Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Cri LJ 3992, originally there was an observation by the Apex Court to the effect that the failure to obtain the signature in the disclosure statement affects the reliability of the same. The said case was decided on April 20, 1995. The Apex Court subsequently held that the observation contained to that effect in that decision was to be reviewed. Therefore, the registry was directed to post the case before the same Bench for suo motu review. It was heard on 25-4-1996. The Supreme Court issued a corrigendum, which is reported in Jackaran Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1998 J.V. (1) (Ker) pp 1 to 5). It reads as follows : Page Instead of Read Page 6 Line 8 to 17 does not bear the signatures or thumb impression of the appellant. Even, the recovery memo of the revolver and the cartridges, Ex. P-9/A, which is also attested by Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI does not bear either the signatures or the thumb impression of the accused. The absence of the signatures or the thumb impression of an of an accused on the disclosure of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement. P-9/A, which is also attested by Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh, ASI does not bear either the signatures or the thumb impression of the accused. The absence of the signatures or the thumb impression of an of an accused on the disclosure of the Evidence Act detracts materially from the authenticity and the reliability of the disclosure statement. was made long time after the appellant was taken into custody by the investigating agency and it is doubtful whether the same was voluntarily made by appellant 24. So, the legal effect is that there is no dictum laid down in Jackaran Singh’s case (supra) to the effect that the statement made by an accused to be admissible under Section 27 must contain his signature or thumb impression. These aspects were elaborately considered in Natarajan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, 2003 Cri LJ 2372. Further, in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, AIR 1999 SC 1776 , the Apex Court held that the Investigating Officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused. Since the Apex Court had suo motu reviewed the observations contained in Jackaran Singh’s case (supra), that decision is not an authority to hold that to accept a statement under Section 27, it must contain the signature or thumb impression of the accused. It only makes that part of such statement relevant and admissible in evidence as would fall within the ambit of that section. Further knife and clothes of deceased were sent for chemical analysis where from it is reported that the blood on all these articles was human blood. As such the submission advanced by learned counsel for appellant has no substance 25. In our view learned Trial Judge after thread bare analysis of the evidence of both sides and also taking into account the entire material brought on record arrived at a correct conclusion that it was the appellant-accused who stabbed the deceased resulting his death. The prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant. We have no reason to differ from the finding recorded by learned Additional Session Judge as such we also endorse the same view. 26. The prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant. We have no reason to differ from the finding recorded by learned Additional Session Judge as such we also endorse the same view. 26. Learned counsel for appellant has lastly contended that the natter in hand does not fall within Section 302 I.P.C. and considering single injury and all round facts, at the most it was a case under Section 324 I.P.C. But learned counsel for the appellant has failed to demonstrate as to how this case shall come within the ambit of Section 324 I.P.C. Hence we found no force in his arguments. 27. The question however still remains as to the nature of the offence committed by the accused and whether it falls under Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC. In the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1989)2 SCC 217 , the Apex Court has held as under : “7. To invoke this Exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv)The assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly.” (emphasis supplied) 28. Further in the case of Arumugam v. State, (2008) 15 SCC 590 at page 595 in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : “18. Further in the case of Arumugam v. State, (2008) 15 SCC 590 at page 595 in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : “18. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the ‘’fight’ occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression ‘’undue advantage’ as used in the provision means ‘’unfair advantage’.” 29. Thus, if there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of knowledge and not intention to cause murder and bodily injury then the same would fall under Section 304 Part II. We are inclined to accept the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the appellant/accused had any intention of causing the death of the deceased when he committed the act in question. We are inclined to accept the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the appellant/accused had any intention of causing the death of the deceased when he committed the act in question. The incident took place out of sudden fight and scuffling, hence the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 300 Exception 4 of IPC. 30. In this matter it is a fact that there was exchange of abuses and just there after sudden scuffling took place between appellant and deceased in heat of passion. Level of preparedness namely being armed with knife was not such that it could be called a premeditation attack, coupled with this fact also that appellant caused a single stab injury. Absence of any repetition of blow clearly reveals that the appellant did not take any undue advantage of his having been armed with knife or having acted in any cruel or unusual manner. Thus, in entirety, considering the factual scenario of the case on hand, the evidence on record and in the background of legal principles laid down by Apex Court in the cases referred to above, we are inclined to hold that the case of appellant comes under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. and as such, the appropriate conviction of the appellant would be under Section 304 Part II, IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. Consequently the conviction of appellant is modified from 302 IPC into one under Section 304 (II) IPC, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of (Rs. 20,000/-) rupees twenty thousand. In case of default of fine, he shall further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 31. The judgment and order impugned is modified up to the extent indicated above. 32. Accordingly the appeal is hereby partly allowed. ——————