JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 27/28.2.2013 passed by the Fast Track and Sessions Judge-VII, Bangalore in S.C.No.583/2010, wherein the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and other offences and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments Ex.P1 are that, one Mahadevamma has lodged the complaint on 13.5.2009 stating that she is residing in the address mentioned in the complaint with her children and is doing coolie work for her livelihood. She is the native of Byluru village. Her husband expired about 15 years back. Thereafter, she came to Yelahanka and residing at Ambedkarnagar. She is having three daughters and one son from her husband. Since 10 years she came in contact with one Bheemaraya (appellant herein) and was leading her life with him. On 12.5.2009 at about 9.30 p.m. the complainant, Souramma (deceased) and one Anjaneyalu (P.W.21) in order to go to Ambedkarnagar were sitting near house No.307 situate by the side of the road at 15th Main road and were talking to each other, at that time, accused Bheemaraya by consuming alcohol came to the said place and picked up quarrel with the complainant and abused her in filthy language asking her as to what work she is having with the said Souramma and Anjaneyalu and assaulted her with hands and also with stone which was lying there and also pulled her hair. At that time, Souramma and Anjaneyalu came to her rescue and he has abused them also in filthy language and took out the same stone and caused bleeding injury to Souramma. Souramma fell down and in the meanwhile, people gathered there and at that time, accused left the place. As such, the complainant has requested the police to take action against the accused for having abused her in filthy language and also for assaulting her, Anjaneyalu and Souramma with stone. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.128/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of IPC. As such, the complainant has requested the police to take action against the accused for having abused her in filthy language and also for assaulting her, Anjaneyalu and Souramma with stone. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.128/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of IPC. Thereafter, on the demise of Souramma due to the injuries and as per the requisition by the police, the offence under Section 302 of IPC was also added in the case. The investigating officer, after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 302 of IPC. After hearing both sides and after considering the materials on record, the learned Fast Track Judge framed charges against the accused. When the charges were read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Accordingly charge was framed and plea was recorded and matter was set down for trial. In support of its case the prosecution, in all, has examined 21 witnesses and got marked 19 documents with sub-markings and also got marked three material objects as M.Os.1 to 3. Thereafter, accused has been examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating materials were read over to him by way of questionnaire and answers given by the accused were recorded in the said statement. On the side of defence one witness has been examined as D.W.1, but no documents were got marked. After hearing the arguments of both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Fast Track judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused person for the said offences and held him guilty and accordingly, he was sentenced. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, on the grounds as mentioned at ground Nos.7 to 21 of the memorandum of appeal, the appellant-accused is before this Court. We have heard the arguments of learned Amicus-Curiae on behalf of the appellant, so also heard the arguments of learned Additional SPP for the respondent/State. 3. We have heard the arguments of learned Amicus-Curiae on behalf of the appellant, so also heard the arguments of learned Additional SPP for the respondent/State. 3. Learned Amicus-Curiae made the submission that as per the case of the prosecution, PWs-2 and 21 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident, but he submitted that looking to their evidence, PW-2 though stated that she has also sustained injuries from the accused, she has not taken any treatment and no documents are produced to show that she has sustained injuries. Therefore, this it self clearly goes to show that in order to falsely implicate the accused in this case such allegations are made as against him. He also submitted that so far as another alleged eye witness, PW.21-Anjaneyalu, is concerned in the evidence of PW.2 throughout her examination-in-chief at the first instance, no where it is stated that he was also present when the incident was going on. It is only in further examination it is stated that PW.21-Anjaneyalu was also present at the spot. Hence, learned counsel submitted that this also raises reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the presence of PW.2 as well as PW.21 and about the alleged incident of assault. He made a submission that the statement of PW.21 came to be recorded after the long lapse of nearly three months. Hence, he submitted that this also raises doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether really he had sustained injuries in the alleged incident as contended by the prosecution. Learned Amicus-Curiae further made a submission that looking to the prosecution material that there was darkness as deposed by the witness, if that is so, how they identified the accused person is also an important fact for which there is no acceptable material placed by the prosecution. It is also his submission that the conduct of the accused is most material. He further submits that PW.16, Doctor deposed in his evidence that the injured Anjaneyalu was brought to hospital by the accused. Hence, he submitted that if really he is the person who caused the injuries and involved in the incident, he would not have accompanied the injured to the hospital. This aspect is ignored by the Trial Court while convicting the appellant-accused. Hence, he submitted that if really he is the person who caused the injuries and involved in the incident, he would not have accompanied the injured to the hospital. This aspect is ignored by the Trial Court while convicting the appellant-accused. Hence, referring to all these materials, learned counsel submitted that the evidence of PWs.2 and 21 is not worth believable and it is not safe to rely upon their evidence to convict the appellant/accused which has been done by the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court by acquitting the appellant/accused from the charges. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae alternatively also made a submission that in case if this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that there is material to show the involvement of the appellant/accused in the alleged incident, the alleged act is not intentional and it is not premeditated. After hearing the galata between the deceased Souramma and Mahadevamma, he came to the said place and he was questioning the complainant as to why she had come there and what is the work she is having with the deceased and then he took the stone which was lying by the side and said to have assaulted deceased Souramma. Hence, learned Amicus-Curiae made a submission that it is not intentional or deliberate act on the part of the accused. Hence, he contended that as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, all the three were drunk including the accused. Hence, he submitted that the offence will not fall under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, but at the most it may fall under Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code. Hence, he submitted that the appellant accused is already in custody from nearly eight and half years. Hence, learned Amicus Curiae made a submission that whatever the period of custody he has already undergone is sufficient. Accordingly, sentence may be modified. 5. Per contra, learned Additional SPP made a submission that, there are two eye witnesses to the incident i.e.,PWs.2 and 21. The accused assaulted deceased Souramma with a stone on the head portion, so also, the witnesses have deposed that he has also assaulted PW.21-Anjaneyalu with a stone and caused bleeding injuries. Accordingly, sentence may be modified. 5. Per contra, learned Additional SPP made a submission that, there are two eye witnesses to the incident i.e.,PWs.2 and 21. The accused assaulted deceased Souramma with a stone on the head portion, so also, the witnesses have deposed that he has also assaulted PW.21-Anjaneyalu with a stone and caused bleeding injuries. While referring to their evidence, learned Additional SPP fairly made a submission that there may be some minor discrepancies in the evidence but so far as the main event of assault on deceased and assault on PW21 Anjaneyalu is concerned, there is consistency in the evidence of the eye witnesses. He also submitted that the oral evidence of PWs.2 and 21 is also supported by medical evidence i.e., post mortem report and the cause of death of the deceased and also the oral evidence of the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Souramma and the Doctor who identified his signature on the report. Hence, it is his contention that when the medical records are also supporting the case of the prosecution and the contention of PW.21, injured witness, so also Mahadevamma that the accused assaulted deceased even on the head portion gains support from the post mortem report. Hence, he submitted that looking to the medical evidence also, it clearly goes to show the involvement of accused in committing the alleged offences. Hence, learned Additional SPP made a submission that the Investigating Officer who has conducted investigation also clearly deposed about the investigation that he has done in the matter and collected the information to show the involvement of the appellant/accused in committing the said offence. Hence, he submitted that when the appellant/accused assaulted two persons wherein, Souramma died and PW.21-Anjaneyalu sustained grievous injuries and there is also allegation that he has also assaulted the complainant, Mahadevamma also. It cannot be said that it is not a deliberate or intentional act of the accused. Therefore, there was a clear intention on the part of the appellant/accused to eliminate the deceased, so also to cause injuries to the PWs.2 and 21. Hence, he submitted that the learned Sessions Judge rightly confirmed the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and rightly convicted the accused for the said offence. Therefore, there was a clear intention on the part of the appellant/accused to eliminate the deceased, so also to cause injuries to the PWs.2 and 21. Hence, he submitted that the learned Sessions Judge rightly confirmed the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and rightly convicted the accused for the said offence. Hence, learned Additional SPP submitted that the contention of the appellant that the offence falls under Section 304 part I of Indian Penal Code may not be accepted. On these grounds, he submitted that the learned Sessions Judge taken all these aspects into consideration and has rightly came to the conclusion in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. We have perused the grounds mentioned in the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below and also perused the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, so also the documents produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. We have also perused the defence evidence i.e, the evidence of DW.1, Doctor, who was examined on the side of the accused and we have also considered oral submissions made by learned counsel on both sides at the Bar. 7. The case of the prosecution is that there are two eye witnesses to the incident i.e., PW.2 and PW.21 who is the injured witness. Their evidence goes to show that so far as PW.2 Mahadevamma is concerned, she lodged a complaint before the Police about which PW.1, police official deposed in his evidence that on 13.05.2009 at 12.10 a.m., CW.1 Mahadevamma came to the police station and she had lodged an oral complaint. He reduced the same into writing and obtained her thumb impression on it. It was identified by the witness PW.1 as Ex.P-1 and his signature as Ex.P-1(a). He also deposed that immediately after lodging the complaint, he registered the FIR and in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. he visited the spot and in the presence of CW.2 Anjanappa and CW-3 Bannappa, conducted spot mahazar and the spot was shown by the complainant, Mahadevamma. He also deposed that immediately after lodging the complaint, he registered the FIR and in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. he visited the spot and in the presence of CW.2 Anjanappa and CW-3 Bannappa, conducted spot mahazar and the spot was shown by the complainant, Mahadevamma. The spot mahazar is marked as Ex.P-3, wherein from the spot, blood stained mud, sample mud and one stone having blood stains were seized in presence of panch witnesses and even he has identified MOs.1 to 3 before the Court. During the course of cross examination of PW.1, he deposed that on that night, the complainant gave the complaint and as it was 12.00 midnight and there was darkness and as he was the SHO in the police station, on the next day morning at 9.00 a.m., he visited the spot. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P-3 has been prepared in the police station and not at the spot. 8. Coming to the evidence of PW.2 Mahadevamma, who is the complainant and eye witness, she has deposed in her evidence that deceased Souramma was staying in the hut by the side of her house. The accused by consuming alcohol was assaulting her and about two years back during night at 9.30 herself and deceased Souramma were coming on the road talking and accused came from behind and started to assault the complainant. At that time, Souramma objected for the same and came to rescue PW.2., at that time, the accused lifted a stone and had assaulted on the head of Souramma. Souramma sustained bleeding injuries and she fell on the ground and became unconscious. Thereafter wards, she regained conscious and at that time, Souramma was in the said place itself. She went to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P-1. In the cross examination, she admitted the suggestion that Souramma had quarrel with Sabamma and she came and she was staying in the house of the complainant. On the day of the alleged incident, herself and Souramma as usual went from the house in the morning to attend the work. They were attending the coolie work in Housing Board and as the work completed at 6.00 p.m., they came back. When it was suggested that Souramma was consuming alcohol, the witness admitted the suggestion as true. On the day of the alleged incident, herself and Souramma as usual went from the house in the morning to attend the work. They were attending the coolie work in Housing Board and as the work completed at 6.00 p.m., they came back. When it was suggested that Souramma was consuming alcohol, the witness admitted the suggestion as true. Even she has admitted that she also consumes alcohol and it is further deposed that at 6.00 p.m. after coming back to the house after attending the work, she went towards the housing board, the spot is by the side of the road. In order to consume alcohol, she went to Monarch Shop at 6.15 and within 10 to 15 minutes she came back. Souramma was sitting in the way where this complainant was coming back and they both were talking together for about half an hour. When they were talking, accused came nearby both of them and he started to drag the complainant. When they were talking, Souramma asked the complainant to pay back Rs.200/-and complainant told Souramma that she will pay the amount on the next day. But the witness deposed that in connection of payment of money, Souramma has not at all made any galata with her. She further deposed that the accused firstly assaulted her with a stone, she fell down and about after 15 minutes she woke up and thereafter wards the accused thinking Souramma as herself assaulted her with a stone and then she went to the police station. She denied the suggestion that when the incident was going on Souramma was not with her and she had slept in the house and when police came and enquired with her about murder of Souramma and as she was staying with the complainant she was frightened and because of the said reason and in order to falsely implicate the accused in the case she has given false complaint against the accused. In further examination-in-chief she has also deposed that on the day of the incident, the accused assaulted complainant, Souramma and Anjaneyalu. He assaulted Souramma and Anjaneyalu with a stone. She was further cross examined by the defence and deposed that when the incident took place, Souramma and Anjaneyalu were talking by sitting at the said place and they were talking for about half an hour. Their talks were in connection with Rs.200/-. He assaulted Souramma and Anjaneyalu with a stone. She was further cross examined by the defence and deposed that when the incident took place, Souramma and Anjaneyalu were talking by sitting at the said place and they were talking for about half an hour. Their talks were in connection with Rs.200/-. She denied the suggestion that on the date of incident, the accused has not at all abused her by filthy words and not at all questioned why she is sitting at the said place. She also denied the suggestion that she has given false complaint against accused person. 9. Coming to the evidence of PW.21, another injured person, Anjaneyalu, he deposed in his evidence, in examination-in-chief that on 12.05.2009 at 9.30 p.m. he was nearby crossing circle of Ambedkar Nagar, at that time, no other persons were present with him. The accused and complainant -Mahadevamma and deceased Souramma were making galata and he asked what is the galata with the woman. At that time, the accused assaulted him with a granite stone near his right ear portion. He fell down as he sustained bleeding injury and with the same stone the accused assaulted on the head of Souramma and caused injury, she also fell down. At that time, his wife came from Ambedkar Nagar and shifted him to K.K. Hospital and Souramma was taken to Government Hospital by somebody. Further he deposed that Souramma was taken in a vehicle by Muniyappa. The witness further deposed that when Souramma was taken to the hospital, the doctor declared that she is dead. The accused assaulted him first and at that time Souramma came asking why he is assaulting and at that time, the accused assaulted Souramma also. Souramma died because of the assault of the accused by stone. He can identify the stone shown to him and accordingly, he identified MO.1 stone. He further deposed that after three months, police have recorded his statement. It took two months for him to recover and when he regained his consciousness, he was in K.K. Hospital. In the cross examination, he deposed that he saw the incident from cross which was at a distance of about one kilometer. PW.2 Mahadevamma, deceased Souramma and the accused were shouting and they were abusing each other. Hence, he went to the spot. He saw the incident at a distance of five feet. In the cross examination, he deposed that he saw the incident from cross which was at a distance of about one kilometer. PW.2 Mahadevamma, deceased Souramma and the accused were shouting and they were abusing each other. Hence, he went to the spot. He saw the incident at a distance of five feet. He deposed that he cannot say what are the abusive words used in between them and from the place where he stood asked the accused person, Bheemaraya as to why he was giving ill treatment to them, for that the accused came nearby him and accused by standing in front of him assaulted on the right side and he fell down. When it was asked to the witness whether Souramma came from right side or from the left side of accused, the accused answered that she came from front side. He also deposed that when the accused assaulted him, he lost his conscious, his wife came after half an hour and he was shifted to the hospital. He did not say anything before the medical officer and he also did not know what the doctor told him. He might have taken to the hospital in a tempo within five minutes after the incident. He denied a suggestion that on that day, he has not at all met the accused, Souramma or PW.2 and he has not at all sustained any injury near his right ear and also near eye portion. It is mentioned by the Court (while recording the deposition of this witness) that the witness turning towards the Presiding Officer shown his right ear and also the eye portion and he was telling that there are marks of the injury. For this, the Advocate for the defence told that it is a sign of the mark of a small size injury and the learned Public Prosecutor also submitted before the Trial Court whether it is minor or major, it will be ascertained based upon the injury certificate. He denied the suggestions that no galata took place, accused has not at all assaulted him and he is giving false evidence. 10. He denied the suggestions that no galata took place, accused has not at all assaulted him and he is giving false evidence. 10. Looking to the evidence of these two witnesses, no doubt there are some minor contradictions here and there in their evidence, but as it is rightly argued by the Additional SPP that so far as the main event of the assault on the deceased, so also on Anjaneyalu is concerned, there is consistency in the evidence of these two witnesses and their evidence is also supported by the injury certificate given in respect of PW.21, wherein the certificate goes to show that he has sustained four injuries which were noticed at the time of examination. The doctor mentioned the following injuries: 1. Is semi conscious. 2. Laceration over scalp and face 3. Fracture of 5th, 6, 7 rib on right side. 4. Head injury 11. Now coming to the post mortem report under Ex.P-15, so far as the deceased Souramma is concerned the doctor noticed the external injuries, which are mentioned as ‘fracture right mandible and fracture right orbital fracture’. It is also mentioned so far as the internal injuries, skull vault and base, it is mentioned as “sub glacial haemotama right temparo parietal ¼” thick full”. The opinion as to the cause of death, the doctor gave his opinion “severe head injury”. Therefore, the opinion of the doctor regarding cause of the death is consistent with the oral evidence of PWs.2 and 21 and that they have stated in their oral evidence, the accused assaulted Souramma with a stone on her head portion. Therefore, perusing the oral evidence of PWs.2 and 21 along with wound certificate at Ex.P-14 and post mortem report at Ex.P-15, the prosecution is able to establish the factum of assault on the deceased Souramma as well as assault on PW.2. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-accused that the accused has not at all assaulted nor committed the alleged offence cannot be accepted. 12. Now, coming to the defence evidence, Dr. Rajiv Sharma who came to be examined as DW.1, wherein in the examination-in-chief he deposed that after conducting the post mortem it is noticed that on the right side of the head portion there was a thin blood clotting and there was haemotama also. However, the doctor has deposed that thin haemotama cannot cause the death of a person. Rajiv Sharma who came to be examined as DW.1, wherein in the examination-in-chief he deposed that after conducting the post mortem it is noticed that on the right side of the head portion there was a thin blood clotting and there was haemotama also. However, the doctor has deposed that thin haemotama cannot cause the death of a person. But he further deposed that he has seen the material object MO.1 with the help of such material object there is possibility of sustaining the injuries noticed on the dead body of Souramma. He also deposed the possibility that if a person hit another with MO-1 on the face, the consequences are that there may be injuries up to the skull. He further deposed that if a person is assaulted on the face with MO.1, there may be injuries on the face and because of its consequences there is possibility of clotting of blood in the head portion and there is also possibility of impact of said injuries. In the cross examination, he deposed that if a person is assaulted with MO.1 on face and also the hind portion of the head, there is possibility of sustaining the injuries on the face as well as the head and there is possibility of death. Therefore, perusing the evidence of DW-1, it supports the case of prosecution that the assault was made with the object MO.1 and even DW.1 also admitted possibility of sustaining such injuries by the deceased. 13. The other prosecution witnesses have also deposed regarding mahazar. The spot mahazar was conducted in their presence and also the police witnesses deposed about the apprehension of the accused. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge taking all these aspects into consideration and has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution extensively and rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant/accused is involved in the assault of the deceased as well as injured, PW.21 Anjaneyalu. 14. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge taking all these aspects into consideration and has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution extensively and rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant/accused is involved in the assault of the deceased as well as injured, PW.21 Anjaneyalu. 14. Looking to the injury certificate of PW.21, Anjaneyalu, it is mentioned by the doctor in Ex.P-14 that the injuries are grievous in nature and in that connection also the prosecution examined PW.16 who is the doctor who deposed in his evidence that on 13.05.2009, at 1.00 a.m. CW.8 Anjaneyalu, injured person was brought by Bheemaraya for treatment and when he examined the injured he was in a semi conscious state and he sustained injuries on the head portion as well as on the face. There were lacerated injuries and also the right side, rib 5, 6 and 7 were fractured. There was one injury on the head. He gave treatment to the injured. The injuries are grievous in nature. In this connection, he issued a wound certificate under Ex.P-14. In the cross examination, he deposed that he has mentioned the reasons as to cause of assault and injuries. He also deposed that the injuries on the ribs portion are possible with the blunt force assault, that there is fracture of ribs. The witness admitted the suggestion as true that if a person falls from height with head downwards on the sharp edged stone and if he is assaulted, there is possibility of sustaining such injuries. 15. Perusing the evidence of doctor, PW.16, even in his cross examination, the doctor deposed that such injuries are possible if a person falls from the height with the head downwards but the defence has also not disputed the injuries sustained on the head portion but so far as the rib portion is concerned, though it is contended that the injured, Anjaneyalu has not at all deposed in his evidence about these injuries, but the doctor who is an expert in this field, after examining the injured Anjaneyalu, he issued wound certificate under Ex.P-14 mentioning three fractures of ribs on the right side. Therefore, so far as the offence under Section 326 as against Anjaneyalu is concerned, the prosecution placed acceptable material. Therefore, so far as the offence under Section 326 as against Anjaneyalu is concerned, the prosecution placed acceptable material. Therefore, even with regard to that also, learned Sessions Judge has considered these aspects and held that the accused has committed the offence under Section 326, so also under Section 323 and as the material also goes to show that for committing alleged offence under Section 341 the prosecution has produced the material through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The deceased Souramma as well as the injured were wrongly restrained as deposed by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence and the presence of the witnesses cannot be doubted and more particularly so far as PW.21 Anjaneyalu is concerned, he has sustained injuries and it is no doubt true that learned Amicus-Curiae made submission that in the evidence of PW.2 there is an admission that there is difference of opinion and enmity between herself and the accused person and he contended that because of which there is likelihood of false implication of the accused. Even for the sake of appreciation it is accepted, but so far as the another injured Anjaneyalu is concerned, who is totally a stranger and unconnected with the accused, no such case is made out as to why he has deposed falsely against the appellant/accused and so far as the injured witnesses are concerned, they will not leave the real culprit by substituting another person. Therefore, considering these aspects of the matter so far as the order of conviction passed by the Court below, under Sections 323, 326 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby confirmed. In so far as the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, the submission of learned Amicus-Curiae that even if the prosecution material is accepted, the accused person has not at all come to the said place by holding any weapon in his hand with the intention to commit murder of Souramma and it is also the contention of learned Amicus-Curiae that when Souramma and the complainant, Mahadevamma were quarreling with each other, after hearing the sound, wherein the accused was also present, he came to the said spot and at that time the accused took the stone and said to have assaulted Souramma as well as Anjaneyalu. Therefore, looking to the evidence on record and also looking to the conduct of the accused person as deposed by PW.16 that injured Anjaneyalu was brought by one Bheemaraya, who is none other than the accused and in the heat of passion while he was dragging the complainant and when Souramma came in the middle, he took the stone lying there and assaulted Sowrramma and caused the injuries on the head. Ultimately, it resulted into the death of Souramma. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that at the most the offence will fall under Section 304 part I of Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. This aspect is not properly and correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge and came to the conclusion holding that charge under Section 302 has been proved by the prosecution. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. Though we are confirming the conviction of the appellant-accused for all the offences alleged against him (except the offence under Section 302 of IPC), and in so far as the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge is considered. In view of the above discussion, we modify the conviction holding that the offence falls under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned AmicusCuriae, so also by learned Additional SPP that the appellant-accused is in custody for nearly eight and half years. Hence, whatever the custody period of nearly eight and half years which the accused has already undergone, is the sentence imposed on him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code and rest of the judgment is confirmed in so far as the other offences are concerned. Since the accused has already completed custody of nearly eight and half years, the concerned Prison Authorities are hereby directed to release the accused if he is not required in any other cases, subject to deposit of fine amount. We appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by learned Amicus-Curiae in hearing the matter. Hence, we direct the Registry to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the learned Amicus-Curiae as honorarium.