JUDGMENT : K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. 1. The accused/appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2014, passed in S.C. No. 19/2010 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, sitting at Virajpet, wherein, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. We have heard the arguments of Sri K.S. Chandrakanth Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP for the State. 3. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Trial Court and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. 4. The brief factual matrix that is unfolded in the prosecution story is:- That the deceased by name Ravi was none other than the brother-in-law of the accused i.e. his wife’s brother. The said Ravi was residing along with PWs. 1 and 2 namely, Seethe and Belliappa at Kedamallur village in Virajpet Taluk. The accused and his wife Seethe, along with their daughter by name Padma, were residing in a house situated at some distance from the house of the deceased Ravi. The deceased was often visiting the house of the accused, as the wife of the accused is none other than the full-blood sister of the deceased Ravi. 5. In the above said background, it is the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident that is on 03.11.2009, the deceased as usual went to the house of the accused and in fact there was some dispute between the accused and the daughter of the accused with the deceased. It is the allegation that the deceased Ravi has assaulted PW-17 Padma, due to which, some quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased Ravi. In that context, it is alleged that the accused took out the chopper and assaulted from its hind side on the head of the deceased, kicked on his abdomen and also torn the shirt of the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that having sustained those injuries to the head and also to the abdomen, the deceased Ravi went back to his house where PWs. It is the further case of the prosecution that having sustained those injuries to the head and also to the abdomen, the deceased Ravi went back to his house where PWs. 1 and 2 were there and he disclosed the same to them and told them that he did not want to have dinner, but he would like to sleep. Accordingly, he went to sleep on that night, in their house. In the morning, it appears that PWs. 1 and 2 tried to wake-up the deceased, but they found that he was not in a position to get up immediately, they informed the same to the owner of their house. Thereafter, they came to know that the deceased died due to the injuries. Thereafter PW-1 had been to the Police Station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P-1. On the basis of the above-said complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No. 203/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and thoroughly investigated the matter and submitted a charge sheet against the accused. 6. The accused was arrested in connection with this case on 04.11.2009 and since then, it appears that, he has been in custody and nine years have already been elapsed. The Trial Court after securing the presence of the accused, framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, he was tried for the said offence. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 22 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.28. Exs.D.1 and 2 were also marked during the course of cross-examination of PW-4. Material Objects M.Os.1 to 8 were also marked. 7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, and after providing an opportunity to the accused to enter into the witness box to lead evidence, if any, as the accused did not choose for the same, the Trial Court, after hearing both sides, recorded the judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused accordingly, as referred to supra. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends before this Court that, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends before this Court that, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the circumstances under which the incident had happened and no benefit of doubt has been given to the doubtful circumstances in the case. He points out that there are injuries to the head of the deceased, but those were small injuries which themselves were not sufficient to cause the death of a person. However, the deceased died due to Neurogenic shock having suffered those injuries. He also points out that even after sustaining the injuries, the injured was able to go back to his house on his own. That shows that the injuries were not so dangerous to his life. He felt that he will be alright on the next day morning. Therefore, without taking food, he went to sleep. Further, the Trial Court has not considered that the evidence of PW-17 Padma coupled with other evidence, which shows that there was a quarrel on that particular day between the accused and the deceased perhaps may be the reason because the deceased has assaulted PW-17 Padma, who is none other than the daughter of the accused and having enraged with that, in a heat of passion, the incident might have happened. Therefore, even accepting the entire case of the prosecution, the Trial Court has not bestowed its attention as to whether the said act of the accused falls under Exception to Section 300 IPC and thereby falls under Section 304 Part I or II of IPC. Such a finding was not given. Therefore, for all these reasons, he submitted before this Court that the accused deserves to be acquitted or else the offence committed may be reduced to Section 304 Part-I or II and as the accused has already been in custody for more than nine years, he may be given set off. 9. Such a finding was not given. Therefore, for all these reasons, he submitted before this Court that the accused deserves to be acquitted or else the offence committed may be reduced to Section 304 Part-I or II and as the accused has already been in custody for more than nine years, he may be given set off. 9. Per contra, learned Additional SPP submits that on overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution had been able to establish that the accused and deceased quarreled with each other and the accused assaulted twice selecting vital part on the body of the deceased, having specific knowledge that his act would definitely cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, intention on the face of the record is established and the act of the accused attracts Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. Though there are minor discrepancies, contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution case, but the core of the prosecution case has not been disturbed even after accepting the cross- examination of the witnesses. In the evidence of some of the witnesses, the presence of the accused holding the chopper and sustaining of injuries by the deceased were all admitted. Therefore, in the above said facts and circumstances, the appeal is devoid of merits and he submitted that the same has to be dismissed. 10. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP, we would like to re-examine the entire evidence on record to find out whether the Trial Court has committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused as noted supra. 11. A cursory look at the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which discloses that PWs. 1 and 2, who are the father and mother of the deceased, have stated that they were not the eyewitnesses to the incident, but stated that on the date of the incident, the deceased came back from the house of the accused sustaining injuries to his head and informed them that the accused has assaulted him as there was a quarrel between himself and the accused. The deceased did not take any food on that night and went to sleep; but on the next day, they found him dead in the house and also PW-1 has stated about lodging of the complaint as per Ex.P-1. In the course of cross-examination, in fact, nothing worth has been elicited from the evidence of these two witnesses. On the other hand, it is elicited that the pronunciation of the words or the talking version of the deceased was not so elegant so that one can understand what exactly the deceased was speaking. Except that nothing is suggested that the deceased has not at all sustained any injury, but on the alternative, it is suggested that he was in the habit of consuming alcohol, therefore, due to fall, he might have sustained injuries. Therefore, what can be gathered from the evidence of these two witnesses is that there is no dispute with regard to the deceased going to the house of the accused and coming back sustaining injuries and also died on the next day. 12. PW-3 Shankar is the inquest pancha. He has spoken about the injuries sustained by the deceased. He identified the dead-body as that of the deceased and admitted that he has put his signature to Ex.P.3. 13. PW-4 is the material witness. Virtually he has supported the case of the prosecution and he has given full version as to what he actually saw on that particular day. He has stated that on the date of the incident, at about 9.00 p.m. when he was in his house, the wife of the accused by name Seethe had been to the house of this witness and called him to go over to her house on the ground that the deceased Ravi had assaulted on the head of PW-17 Padma, the daughter of the accused, and she suffered bleeding injuries. On hearing the same, this man had been to the house of the accused and saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other. Seethe was abusing and scolding the Ravi. Ravi also sustained injuries and he had bleeding over his face. On enquiry, the said Ravi told that the accused assaulted him. There was no shirt on his body and he was wearing a pant only and the accused was holding chopper in his hand. Seethe was abusing and scolding the Ravi. Ravi also sustained injuries and he had bleeding over his face. On enquiry, the said Ravi told that the accused assaulted him. There was no shirt on his body and he was wearing a pant only and the accused was holding chopper in his hand. Thereafter, this witness consoled the deceased Ravi not to stay back there and to go back to his house. Accordingly, the said Ravi went back to his house, on the next day morning he came to know that the said Ravi died in his house. He has also stated that the Police have visited the spot on the next date and seized a shirt and chopper under Ex.P.4 Mahazar. He has also stated that he can identify the chopper which was in the hands of the accused on that day. He identified MO.4 as the same chopper. MOs.1 to 2 are the sample mud and blood mixed mud collected by the Police. 14. From Exs.D.1 and 2, what was elicited from the mouth of this witness creates some doubt as to whether this witness was very much present at the time of the incident. But, in the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that the accused was very much present in the spot and the deceased also had sustained injuries when he was standing in the spot. Even though under Exs.D.1 and 2, he has stated that he had not actually witnessed the incident that the accused assaulted on the head of the deceased Ravi and quarreled with him as per Exs.D.1 and 2, nevertheless, the overall evidence discloses the presence of the accused holding a chopper and also the deceased sustaining injuries on his head. In the course of cross-examination, it is virtually admitted that this witness is also a panch to the recovery of the clothes of the accused as well as the chopper from the accused, which will be discussed a little later under that particular circumstance. 15. PW-5 Ashok Uthappa is the landlord of PWs. 1 and 2. He was examined before the court in order to establish that PWs. 1 and 2 immediately after they came to know about the death of the deceased had gone to this witness and informed the same. 15. PW-5 Ashok Uthappa is the landlord of PWs. 1 and 2. He was examined before the court in order to establish that PWs. 1 and 2 immediately after they came to know about the death of the deceased had gone to this witness and informed the same. He admitted the same, but he turned hostile so far as the recovery of incriminating articles of clothes and chopper at the instance of the accused. Learned SPP has cross-examined this witness. Even in the course of cross-examination, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. PW-6 Subbaiah is also another panch witness to Ex.P.5 under which, some plastic belt and Jeans pant of the deceased were seized by the Police. This witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 17. PW-7 Dr. K.R. Muralidhar is the person who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased Ravi and issued Post-Mortem Report as per Ex.P.6. He has also examined the chopper and gave his opinion that the injuries found on the dead-body of the deceased could also be caused by assaulting with the help of MO.4-chopper. Accordingly, he gave his opinion as per Ex.P.7. There is no cross-examination so far as the death of the deceased and the injuries being sustained by the deceased, but it was suggested to this witness that if a person falls on a sharp edged surface on the floor, he may also sustain such injuries. The Doctor has accepted the same. 18. Looking to the above said evidence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the inquest report drawn by the Investigating Officer and also the Post Mortem examination report, it is clear that the deceased died a homicidal death. PW-3 Shankar has also stated about the inquest proceedings as we have noted and he has also identified the injuries on the dead-body of the deceased. The death of the deceased as could be seen from the evidence of the Doctor has not been denied, but homicidal death is denied because the Doctor has specifically stated that due to Neurogenic shock the deceased died. Therefore, we can conclude that the deceased died a homicidal death and whether the accused is responsible for the same is the question to be answered. 19. Therefore, we can conclude that the deceased died a homicidal death and whether the accused is responsible for the same is the question to be answered. 19. PW-8 Sathish is also a panch witness to Ex.P.8 under which the Police have seized a sky-blue coloured Jeans pant, one blue, black, yellow and ash coloured shirt and a chopper produced by the accused before the Police, but this witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 20. PW-9 Ponnappa is also another panch witness to inquest. There is no need to discuss the said evidence once again. 21. PW-10 Sathish is the Photographer, who photographed the dead-body of the deceased, as per Exs.P.9 to 13. There is no cross-examination so far as this particular aspect is concerned. As the death itself is not denied, taking of photographs of the deceased becomes insignificant. 22. PW-11 Gangaiah is a witness to Ex.P.4. He also turned hostile to the prosecution. He denied that the Police have collected the blood stained articles from the spot and unstained mud from the spot. 23. PW-12 Ramanna Gowda is the person who gave Ex.P.14. It is the spot sketch drawn by him. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the place of incident or the place of death of the deceased in this particular case. Therefore, the evidence of this witness loses its importance. 24. PW-13 Poovamma was working as a Grama Panchayat Secretary. She gave a residential certificate copy, of the house pertaining to the deceased Ravi and as well as the accused as per Exs.P.15 and 16. The accused and the deceased have been residing separately and there is no dispute with regard to this particular aspect is concerned. As we have referred to the evidence of PW-4, the presence of the accused and the deceased in the house of the accused even according to the evidence of PW-7 which we are going to discuss later, there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the house of PW-1 as well as the accused. 25. PW-14 Ponnappa, is the person who was examined to prove the recovery of pant and shirt and a chopper at the instance of accused which are marked at MOs.5 and 6. 25. PW-14 Ponnappa, is the person who was examined to prove the recovery of pant and shirt and a chopper at the instance of accused which are marked at MOs.5 and 6. This witness has supported the case and submitted that the accused in the year 2009 has taken the Police and the witnesses to his house and produced one pant, shirt and one chopper and the same were seized under Mahazar Ex.P-8. In the course of cross-examination, this witness has stated that he do not remember who are all the other persons signed. He has admitted that he put his signature on the request of the Police. But it is not questioned in the cross-examination that no Mahazar was drawn at the spot. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. Therefore, from the evidence of this witness coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution has also established that there was recovery of MOs.4, 5 and 6 at the instance of the accused. We would like to refer the same along with the FSL report with reference to its recovery. 26. The Investigating Officer PW-21 H.M. Shailendra, Circle Inspector of Police, has stated about the receipt of the FSL report which is marked at Ex.P-24. On perusal of Ex.P-24, it is clear that, item Nos. 4 & 5 which are the pant and shirt of the accused were stained with blood and Serology report is marked at Ex.P-28, also discloses that these articles contain ‘O’ Group blood. The other items i.e. item Nos.7 & 8 one pant and belt, blood stained mud and sample mud collected by the Police are seized under Mahazar Ex.P4 which are the clothes of the deceased and it also contained ‘O’ Group blood. Therefore, the blood stains contain on the clothes of the deceased and the accused, the grouping of blood matches with each other. There is no explanation by the accused so far as this aspect is concerned. 27. Therefore, the blood stains contain on the clothes of the deceased and the accused, the grouping of blood matches with each other. There is no explanation by the accused so far as this aspect is concerned. 27. However, from the evidence of the above said witnesses and the Investigating Officer, though there is recovery of a chopper at the instance of the accused which was also sent to FSL, but it did not contain any blood stains as such and further, the evidence of PW-4 creates a serious doubt as to whether the same chopper was seized which was alleged to have been used by the accused person. PW-4 has stated in the course of cross-examination, that, on that particular day, when the accused took them to his house, after he was traced near a wine shop, the Police went to the house of the accused which was locked and the lock was removed by the Police and the Police brought two choppers from the house and the said chopper MO4 appears to be new one and it contains the seal of the shop. Therefore, this creates a serious doubt whether the said chopper was actually used by the accused for commission of the offence or not. Nevertheless, merely because the weapon which was actually used was not recovered, it will not completely demolish the case of the prosecution. The other evidence which are available has to be looked into by the court, whether on the basis of the same, the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 28. PW-15 Razak is another witness to Ex.P-5. But he has also turned hostile to the prosecution. 29. PW-16 Subramani is the person who carried the FIR to the jurisdictional court. 30. PW-17 Padma, is another important witness to the incident. She is no other than the daughter of the accused. She has stated that she was in their house on the date of incident. She has deposed that the deceased is her uncle. Deceased had been to the house of this witness on that day. While the deceased in their house at about 7.00 p.m. the deceased assaulted on the hand of this witness due to which there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused. She has deposed that the deceased is her uncle. Deceased had been to the house of this witness on that day. While the deceased in their house at about 7.00 p.m. the deceased assaulted on the hand of this witness due to which there was quarrel between the deceased and the accused. During that particular quarrel, the accused took out a chopper and then she went inside the house, she do not know who actually assaulted the deceased. Even in the course of cross-examination, she has stated that she do not know anything about the incident happened, and the Police have not recorded her statement at all. It is further in the re-examination, that when the deceased has assaulted her, the accused brought the chopper and thereafter, she went inside. Though, the evidence of this witness is little bit distorted, nevertheless she has supported the case of the prosecution to some extent that, on that particular day, the deceased had been to their house and there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased and thereafter the deceased died in their house on the next day. 31. PW-18 H.M. Uday, is the person who carried the articles to the FSL. 32. PW-19 H.C. Sannaiah, is the person who apprehended the accused and arrested him on 4.11.2009. There is no much dispute so far as these aspects are concerned. 33. PW-20 M.M. Vasantha, PC No. 339 has deposed that, on that day he was on duty and on the direction of the Circle Inspector of Police, he has shifted the dead-body for the Post Mortem and thereafter, he has handed over the dead-body to the father of the deceased. There is no dispute on the above aspect. 34. PWs. 21 and 22 H.M. Shailendra and P.P. Santhosh are the Investigating Officers. They have stated about the procedure followed by them and what investigation they have done and filing of the charge sheet. 35. On overall re-evaluation of the entire materials on record, it is crystal clear from the evidence of PWs. 2, 3, 4 and 17 that on the ill-fated day, the deceased had been to the house of the accused and there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased for the reason that the deceased has touched the hand of PW-17, who is none other than the daughter of the accused. 2, 3, 4 and 17 that on the ill-fated day, the deceased had been to the house of the accused and there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased for the reason that the deceased has touched the hand of PW-17, who is none other than the daughter of the accused. Perhaps the quarrel taken place between the accused and the deceased might not have been seen by anybody but it is clear from the evidence of PW-4, that he has actually seen that the accused was holding chopper in his hand and also the deceased sustaining injury to his head and he actually assaulted the deceased and sent him back to his house. PW-17 also to some extent supported and corroborated the evidence of PW-4. 36. The witnesses have not denied in the course of cross-examination that no such incident has happened and he has not suggested anywhere that the deceased did not go to their house at all on that particular day. Therefore, what emerges from the entire evidence on record, is that the happening of the incident and accused assaulting the deceased and also recovery of one pant and shirt at the instance of the accused and the blood stains on the said clothes tallied with the blood stains of the deceased as we have already narrated. Therefore, it clarifies the situation that the prosecution has proved the happening of the incident beyond reasonable doubt in the house of the accused. 37. Now, the question arises as to whether the offence committed by the accused falls u/s.302 of IPC or it falls u/s.304 part I or II of IPC. 38. As we have already quoted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the said submissions and on re-looking into the entire materials on record, it is clear from the evidence of PW-7 and also PW-4 that the wife of the accused had been to the house of PW-4 on that day and told that the deceased has assaulted PW-17 and therefore, she called PW-4 to go over to the house of the accused. 39. 39. PW-17 has deposed before the court in her examination in chief itself that on that particular day, the deceased had gone to their house and assaulted on the hand of PW-17 and there was quarrel taken place between the accused and the deceased and in that context, during the course of quarrel itself, the accused brought a chopper. 40. Though PW-17 has not stated about any assault made by the accused on the deceased, but it goes without saying that the deceased having sustained injuries, immediately went back to the house and told PWs. 1 & 2 that the accused assaulted on his head with the help of a chopper. The evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 also discloses that, the deceased told before them that the deceased and the accused quarreled with each other and in that context, the accused has assaulted him. 41. Therefore, from the above said evidence, prior to the deceased going to the house of the accused and even soon after he entered into the house, there was no quarrel and there was no pre-meditation in the mind of the accused to do away with the life of the deceased or to assault him and he was not prepared with any weapons soon after the deceased entered into the house. 42. The evidence of PW-7 clearly discloses that only during the course of exchange of galata or quarrel between the deceased and the accused, the accused took out a chopper and assaulted the deceased, from the said portion. Therefore, in our opinion, it exactly falls under exception to the murder i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder falls under 4th exception to Sec. 300 of IPC which says that: “Exception 4 - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 43. The court has to see whether the accused has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner because we have observed that there was no premeditation and there was a sudden fight and sudden quarrel between the deceased and the accused, and the accused used only the hind portion of the chopper and not the sharp portion. 44. The court has to see whether the accused has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner because we have observed that there was no premeditation and there was a sudden fight and sudden quarrel between the deceased and the accused, and the accused used only the hind portion of the chopper and not the sharp portion. 44. The nature of injuries sustained by the deceased clearly discloses that even after sustaining those injuries, he talked with PW-4 and informed him that the accused had assaulted him and he was there for some time till PW-4 consoled him and sent him back and even after he came back to the house, he did not feel that he has sustained so much dangerous injuries and on account of the injuries, he may die. Therefore, he told PWs. 1 & 2 that, he would like to go to sleep. 45. Considering the length, width and depth of the injury as stated by the doctor, we are of the opinion that the accused might have knowledge that deceased may die due to such injuries, but he might not have any intention to cause such injuries and to cause the death of the deceased. Further, using of the hind portion of the weapon was not with such force, because, it did not cause any deep cut injury to the head. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances, it is just and necessary for us to hold that the prosecution though established the incident, but not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC, but it falls u/s.304 part I of IPC. 46. In this context, it is also worth to refer here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lavghanbhai Devjibhai Vasava vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 (1) LAWS (SC) 103 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines as to whether the offence falls u/s. 300 of IPC or 304 of IPC. Broadly the guidelines are that the court has to consider the circumstances for the purpose of ascertaining the question as to whether a case falls u/s. 302 IPC or 304 IPC. The said guidelines reads thus: (a) The circumstances in which the incident took place. (b) The nature of weapon used. (c) Whether the weapon was carried or was taken from the spot. The said guidelines reads thus: (a) The circumstances in which the incident took place. (b) The nature of weapon used. (c) Whether the weapon was carried or was taken from the spot. (d) Whether the assault was aimed on vital part of body. (e) The amount of the force used. (f) Whether the deceased participated in the sudden fight. (g) Whether there was any previous enmity. (h) Whether there was any sudden provocation. (i) Whether the attack was in the heat of passion. (j) Whether the person inflicting the injury took any undue advantage or acted in the cruel or unusual manner. 47. It is relevant to note here that, some of the above said circumstances, do present in this case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the accused is only liable to be punished for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I of IPC. 48. The next question arises as to what is the punishment which commensurate with the act of the accused? It is an undisputed fact that the accused was arrested on 4.11.2009 and he has been in Judicial Custody for more than 9 years. For the offence punishable u/s. 304 part I of IPC is punishable with life or imprisonment for 10 years, and with fine, or with both. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the accused shall be punished with appropriate punishment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that whatever the punishment which had already undergone by the accused i.e. more than nine years, is sufficient to hold that the same can be treated as punishment to him. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is partly allowed. 2. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2014 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri District, sitting at Virajpet in SC No. 19/2010, under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside. However, the same is modified and the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-I of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone by him (i.e. 9 years and odd). The same shall be treated as punishment imposed upon him for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-I of IPC. 3. Further, the accused was directed to pay fine of Rs. The same shall be treated as punishment imposed upon him for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-I of IPC. 3. Further, the accused was directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year, is also modified regarding default sentence to the extent of imprisonment for a period of 28 days, which he has already undergone. Therefore, set off is given for the period already undergone. Hence, the accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 4. Registry is hereby directed to communicate the operative portion of this Judgment to the concerned jail authorities for release of the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.