ORDER 1. The accused appellant who has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life is in appeal before us. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 26th August, 2002 a religious ceremony was conducted in the house of one Arjan Singh and there was a dispute that had occurred over the use of the loudspeaker between the son of Arjan Singh one Gogia and the accused appellant who was a member of the Committee which was constituted to supervise the event. It is the prosecution case that Gogia had approached one Jagir Singh, a Panchayat member with the allegation that the accused appellant had assaulted him. According to the prosecution, Jagir Singh (complainant) had advised Gogia that the matter should be taken up in the Panchayat in the next morning and that if he so liked he could report the matter to the Police. It is further case of the prosecution that when Gogia had gone to the market to purchase papers for writing/making of the complaint to the police, once again he was assaulted by the accused appellant and other persons. Apparently, on hearing the commotion the complainant and his sons including the deceased Jaswant Singh reached the spot and rescued Gogia from the clutches of the accused appellant. 3. The prosecution has alleged that the accused party got enraged at the conduct of the complainant and his sons in rescuing Gogia and, as a result, stone pelting between the complainant party and the accused party took place at about midnight of 26th August, 2002. It may be noticed at this stage that the complainant and the accused were neighbours and the house of the accused was situated across the street and at a lower level than the house of the complainant. The prosecution has further alleged that while the stone-pelting was going on the accused appellant had gone back to his house and brought out a licensed gun of his father and had started firing as a result of which Jaswant Singh, son of the complainant, died. 4. The accused appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 admits that he had fired the shot from the gun which had killed Jaswant Singh. 4. The accused appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 admits that he had fired the shot from the gun which had killed Jaswant Singh. But what is urged by the accused appellant in his said statement is that he was compelled to do so in his self-defence and that he had no intention to cause death of the deceased. 5. It is in the aforesaid limited context that the culpability of the accused will have to be judged once he has admitted firing the shot. 6. We have perused the site plan in original which is available in the original record in the custody of this Court. The firing from the gun of the accused took place from point 'C' to point 'A' as marked in the site plan. Point 'C' is the house of the accused which is at the lower level than point 'A' which is the house of the complainant where the deceased was shot at. The distance between point 'C' and point 'A' appears to be about 50 ft. The incident took place at midnight. 7. In the totality of the facts stated above; having regard to the time of the incident; the distance between point 'C' and point 'A'; and the level of the two houses i.e. the house of the accused and the house of the complainant from where the dead-body was recovered we are of the view that the accused appellant could not have been intended to have caused the death of the deceased Jaswant Singh. Rather, according to us, the possibility of the deceased firing without any motive or intention to cause death and purely as an act of vengeance and to secure away the complainant party who were also pelting stones at the party of the accused cannot be ruled out. It is our considered view that the offence that can be attracted and for which the accused appellant can be held liable would more appropriately fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. Accordingly, we alter the conviction of the accused appellant recorded under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, we alter the conviction of the accused appellant recorded under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment. If the accused appellant has undergone the said period of sentence we direct the concerned Jail Authority to forthwith release him unless such custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. Consequently and in the light of the above, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.