JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Ghasia Sundu Mura has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of incident was Bilasmani, aged about 25 years. She was the wife of appellant. 3. The prosecution case that has been proved against the appellant is that on the night of 16.5.2010 around 11 p.m. he committed the murder of his wife by causing injuries to her with an iron rod. The incident took place as a result of sudden quarrel because Bilasmani who was in a drunken state did not cook and serve meal to the appellant when he asked for it. Ejahar exhibit 1 of the incident was lodged by Ranjit Tanti, Line Chowkidar (PW-1) at Police Station Doomdooma. In the ejahar, Ranjit Tanti categorically named appellant as an assailant of Bilasmani. The injured dead body of Bilasmani was admittedly found in the house of appellant where both of them lived together. The post mortem examination report exhibit 4 prepared by Dr.Gauri Sankar Gogoi (PW-7) confirmed that Bilasmani died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries caused to her. The doctor also opined that the injuries were ante mortem and her death was homicidal in nature. The trial court therefore having regard to the overwhelming evidence against the appellant held that he alone was the perpetrator of the crime and disbelieved his defence that Bilasmani died by falling in a drunken condition. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded before us that there is ample evidence against the appellant to connect him with the homicidal death of Bilasmani. We therefore confirm the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, argued that even accepting the prosecution case in totality, it cannot be said that appellant had the intention to murder his wife Bilasmani and as such, the offence will not be under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. We find sufficient force in this submission. The post mortem examination report reveals that Bilasmani had total three injuries on her body. We find sufficient force in this submission. The post mortem examination report reveals that Bilasmani had total three injuries on her body. Out of these three injuries, only one lacerated injury was on the head whereas the other two injuries were on right hand and right leg with fracture of bone. As mentioned above, the incident took place after a sudden quarrel between the appellant and Bilasmani when the latter could not prepare and serve him meal as she was in a drunken state. The appellant then without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel dealt three blows on Bilasmani with an iron rod kept in the house. One blow unfortunately landed on her head and she died. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the act committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him thereunder and instead, convict him under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and award a sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is however affirmed. The appellant is in jail and he be released on his undergoing the jail sentence awarded by us. 7. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed.