JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th March, 2003 and 12th March, 2003, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Pakur in connection with Sessions Trial No.129 of 2002/140 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.335 of 2002, arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No.28 of 2002, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The fact, emerging from the Fardbeyan of Karmi Murmu, recorded on 26th June, 2002, at 14:15 hours, is that during previous night, at about 2:00 a.m., the informant woke up on hearing alarm raised by Merang Maie Tudu (deceased). It is disclosed that the informant has adopted the appellant-Sual Hembrom as her son and the appellant was living with his wife-Merang Maie Tudu with the informant. After the informant woke up, she saw the appellant causing assault to his wife-Merang Maie Tudu by means of club. When the informant wanted to intervene, she was threatened. Somehow the informant escaped from the place and collected the villagers to save the life of Merang Maie Tudu, but till then the appellant bolted the house from inside. When the villagers assembled and wanted to extend help to Merang Maie Tudu, the appellant jumped out of the window and fled away. On the basis of Fardbeyan of Karmi Murmu, Littipara P.S. Case No.28 of 2002 dated 26th June, 2002 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was registered. The police after due investigation submitted charge sheet and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.129 of 2002. 3. Charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant was framed to which he pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, has examined eight witnesses, including the doctor, Investigating Officer and the informant. Learned Trial Judge considering the evidences and documents available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and inflicted sentence as indicated above. 4. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that informant is not an eye-witness and she had not seen the occurrence of assault. Learned Trial Judge considering the evidences and documents available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and inflicted sentence as indicated above. 4. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that informant is not an eye-witness and she had not seen the occurrence of assault. On finding out Merang Maie Tudu lying dead in the room, she had collected the villagers and cooked up a story that appellant has killed his wife by causing injury to her by means of club. P.W.1 has not supported the prosecution case and rest of witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3 to 6 are hearsay witnesses. Entire prosecution case hinges on the evidence of informant and she is not a reliable witness. One of the witnesses has said that the informant was inside the house when he reached to the place. Had it been so the informant had no occasion to collect the villagers to witness the occurrence. According to prosecution case, the villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence while the appellant was inside the room and according to them he jumped out of the window and fled away, but no witness had chased to apprehend him and this does not appear to be a natural conduct. Learned Trial Judge has committed gross error while holding the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC. The contention made in the Fardbeyan cannot be relied upon because the informant herself has admitted that she does not know Hindi. No interpreter was appointed before recording of the Fardbeyan and there is no attesting witness to the Fardbeyan. Therefore, it is not a reliable piece of evidence. The club allegedly used for committing murder was seized from the place of occurrence, but it was not sent for chemical examination. Last but not the least, the evidence on record, including postmortem report, does not bring the case within the purview of Section 302 IPC. The evidence on record speaks that during night the husband (appellant) and the wife (deceased) quarreled with each other and in course of that the appellant gave blow by means of club which resulted into death of the deceased. No lethal weapon was used. The appellant had all opportunities to cause further injuries on the person of the deceased, but he did not do so. The appellant has already remained in jail for more than 13 years. No lethal weapon was used. The appellant had all opportunities to cause further injuries on the person of the deceased, but he did not do so. The appellant has already remained in jail for more than 13 years. He has sufficiently been punished and, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 IPC may be converted to one under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 5. Learned APP has opposed the argument and submitted that the informant is an eye-witness and it would not make any difference, if name of interpreter is not appearing in the Fardbeyan. The informant did not deny the contention made by her in her Fardbeyan, rather she has fully supported it in her deposition in Court. The contention made by the informant finds support from other witnesses, who are villagers and independent witnesses i.e. P.Ws.4, 5 & 6. Though P.W.3 happens to be son of the deceased and hearsay witness, but he has supported the prosecution case. The doctor had found fracture injury on the head of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has supported the investigation done by him. The Trial Judge has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and that need no interference. 6. After hearing rival submissions extended from both sides, we have examined the case record, evidences and documents available on record. We have also gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. The admitted case of prosecution is that quarrel between spouses had taken place during night at 2:00 a.m. the appellant, who is husband, had been raising his grievance against movement of the deceased and that was objected by her. At that moment, the appellant took out a club and caused injury to the deceased, by that time, the informant woke up. When she wanted to intervene, she was threatened, whereafter she ran out of the house and informed the villagers. The villagers assembled after which the appellant fled away from the house. The matter was brought to the notice of police after which they entered in the room where the deceased was lying and she was having injury on her head. Further investigation was carried out. The informant has been examined as P.W.2 and she has supported this fact in her deposition in Court. The matter was brought to the notice of police after which they entered in the room where the deceased was lying and she was having injury on her head. Further investigation was carried out. The informant has been examined as P.W.2 and she has supported this fact in her deposition in Court. The informant had not stated that repeated blows were hurled on the person of the deceased by the appellant. No other witnesses except the informant had seen the occurrence of assault, rather they had assembled when the appellant bolted the house from inside. No witness has deposed that further assault by the appellant was caused to the deceased. 7. Considering all these aspects of the matter we feel inclined to convert the conviction and sentence of the appellant from offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one Section 304 Part-II IPC. Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment passed under Section 302 IPC is converted to one under Section 304 Part-II IPC and the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 8. It reveals from the record that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than 13 years, which indicates that he has already served out the sentence as modified by this Court in this appeal. 9. In the circumstances, the appeal stands partly allowed. The appellant, who has already served out the sentence, in connection with Sessions Trial No.129 of 2002/140 of 2002, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case and for that the convicting/successor court shall issue appropriate direction, if needed. Appeal partly allowed.