JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th June, 2007 and 4th July, 2007, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in connection with Sessions Trial No.175 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.444 of 2002, arising out of Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No.56 of 2002, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of making payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and one month, respectively. 2. The fact, emerging from Fardbeyan of Kali Pado Singh, recorded on 15th December, 2002, at 21:30 hours, at village Kanas, within Dhalbhumgarh Police Station, is that the appellant quarreled with his wife-Shanti Singh in the market. When they returned home, Shanti reported the incident to her mother (deceased). After receiving such complain, the deceased-Shrimati asked the appellant as to why he has quarreled with his wife in the market. While the deceased was trying to make the appellant convinced, he became furious and suddenly inflicted blow by means of knife on the back of the deceased. In the meantime, the informant intervened, but the appellant also inflicted injury to him and fled away. On the basis of Fardbeyan of Kali Pado Singh, Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No.56 of 2002 dated 15th December, 2002 under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was registered. The investigation was carried out and charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.175 of 2003. 3. Charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC against the appellant were framed to which he pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, including the doctors, Investigating Officers and the informant. Learned Trial Judge, placing reliance on the evidences and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and inflicted sentence as indicated above. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, including the doctors, Investigating Officers and the informant. Learned Trial Judge, placing reliance on the evidences and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and inflicted sentence as indicated above. 4. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the informant and his daughter Shanti Devi have supported the prosecution case as eyewitnesses, but Narayan Singh (P.W.3), who happens to be son of the deceased, though present outside the house at the time of occurrence, did not throw light on the occurrence of assault, rather he says, when he entered in the room, he found his mother lying dead, having injury on her person. No independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. As a matter of fact, on a petty cause for not purchasing slipper, Shanti Devi (P.W.4), who happens to be wife of the appellant, got annoyed and exchange of hot words had taken place between the spouse in the market. Shanti Devi complained aforesaid incident to her mother Shrimati, who asked the appellant as to why he has done so and that provoked the appellant and under that provocation he took out a knife and inflicted a blow on the back of his mother-in-law Shrimati and that injury proved fatal. So far as injuries caused to the informant are concerned, admittedly those injuries had been sustained during scuffle while the informant was trying to catch hold the appellant. It could not be said that the appellant with an intention to commit murder had either caused injury to his mother-in-law or father-in-law. By referring the evidence of Dr. Pratik Tete (P.W.5), it is further pointed out that the appellant had also sustained injury on his person and that indicates that some altercation had taken place between the appellant and his in-laws. Therefore, sudden fight which occurred on a petty cause provoked the appellant and he had inflicted a single knife blow on the person of the deceased. It is submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than 13 years. Therefore, sudden fight which occurred on a petty cause provoked the appellant and he had inflicted a single knife blow on the person of the deceased. It is submitted that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than 13 years. If the evidences of P.Ws.2 and 4 are admitted to be true, the appellant is liable to be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and he has already served out the sentence by remaining in jail for more than 13 years. 5. Learned APP has opposed the argument and submitted that penetrating wound by means of a dagger was inflicted with such a force that it caused through and through injury causing damages to internal organs, like heart and lung. Not only that, the appellant inflicted further blows to father-in-law when he intervened and tried to catch him hold. The injuries caused to the informant find support from the evidence of Dr. Pratick Tete (P.W.5). Dr. Yogendra Nath (P.W.9) had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Shrimati and he has proved the postmortem report (Ext.8) and described the injuries inflicted. Since the occurrence took place within the house of the informant, question of examination of independent witness on the point of occurrence does/do not arise at all. The appellant has rightly been held guilty and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence need no interference. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the case record. The prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant had inflicted knife blow to his mother-in-law Shrimati, as a result she died. When the informant intervened, he was also assaulted by means of knife and he too sustained injuries, which find support from the evidence of P.W.5. Now the question arises, whether the conviction recorded against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code can be converted to one under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code? On perusal of the evidences available on record, we are of the conclusive opinion that the informant was not having intention to commit murder and single knife blow was inflicted on the person of the deceased on sudden provocation when the deceased questioned about the behaviour of the appellant towards his wife. On perusal of the evidences available on record, we are of the conclusive opinion that the informant was not having intention to commit murder and single knife blow was inflicted on the person of the deceased on sudden provocation when the deceased questioned about the behaviour of the appellant towards his wife. It reveals from the evidences of P.Ws.2 and 4 that the appellant with his wife quarreled in the market. After they returned home, Shanti Devi reported the incident to her mother-Shrimati. Thereafter, Shrimati asked the appellant as to why has quarreled with his wife in the market. The intervention made by the deceased provoked the appellant and under that provocation he had inflicted single knife blow on the person of the deceased-Shrimati. The informant has also admitted that he had sustained injuries when he was trying to catch hold the appellant and the injuries caused to him are all simple in nature. 7. Considering all these aspects of the matter and the evidence available on record, we feel inclined to convert the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/-to one Section 304 Part-I IPC. Accordingly, the sentence of life imprisonment passed under Section 302 IPC is converted to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The conviction and sentence recorded under Section 307 IPC is hereby upheld. 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. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal stands partly allowed. The appellant, who has already served out the sentence, as modified by this Court, 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.