JUDGMENT : Mir Alfaz Ali, J. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Dev, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This appeal from jail is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-08-2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (First Track Court), Karbi Anlong, Diphu, in Sessions Case No.255/17, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with default stipulation. 3. According to prosecution on 30-10-2016, the accused Reshka Rahut inflicted injuries to the deceased with a 'dao' in his courtyard. Immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to hospital for treatment. However, he succumbed to the injuries. Father of the deceased Dhesua Hasda(PW-1) lodged an FIR on the basis of which, police registered Chowkihola PS Case No. 9/2016 u/s 302 IPC and commenced investigation. During investigation, statement of the witnesses was recorded, inquest was done and the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. 4. Dr. Pradip Kumar Medhi(PW-8), who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased found a compound fracture of the scalp with brain matter coming out of the scalp cavity on right fronto parietal with underlying brain haematoma. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was ante mortem and the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as well as the injuries sustained by the deceased. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant and eventually he stood trial for the offence u/s 302 IPC. 5. In course of trial, the appellant denied his guilt. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses to establish the charge against the accused/appellant. 6. Pw-1, who lodged the FIR, stated that he did not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. PW-2 Philip Hazda deposed that at about 7 pm on the day of occurrence, when his brother Jantu Hazda went to search for their cow, the accused assaulted him with a 'dao'. Hearing 'hulla' (hue and cry), he arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the accused assaulting his brother with a 'dao'. He also stated, that initially he took the injured to the police station, wherefrom he was shifted to the hospital for treatment and after two days, he died. 7. Hearing 'hulla' (hue and cry), he arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the accused assaulting his brother with a 'dao'. He also stated, that initially he took the injured to the police station, wherefrom he was shifted to the hospital for treatment and after two days, he died. 7. Pw-3 stated that hearing hue and cry, he came out and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with a 'dao' and after one month of the occurrence he died. It was elicited during his cross-examination, that the victim remained in the hospital and thereafter, he was released and taken to his residence, where he died after one month. 8. Pw-4 stated, that having come to know about the occurrence from the brother of the deceased, he came and found the deceased lying with injuries. During cross-examination, he deposed that the victim died due to lack of treatment. PW-5 deposed that when he met the victim at the hospital, he stated that the accused person assaulted him with the 'dao'. He also stated in his cross-examination that the death of the deceased was due to lack of proper treatment. 9. Relying on the above evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. 10. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the death of the deceased was caused as a result of the injuries inflicted by the appellant has not been seriously contested by the learned Amicus Curiae. The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no conviction of could have been recorded u/s 302 IPC. At best, a conviction u/s 304 Part-II IPC could be recorded, inasmuch as, there was no intention on the apart of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, submits learned Amicus Curiae. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded to the submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae. 11. From the evidence and materials brought on record, it appears that the occurrence took place on 30-10-2016, on which date, the appellant inflicted the injuries to the deceased with a dao. Evidently a single blow was given and immediately the victim was taken to the hospital and after few days he was released from the hospital. While he was staying in his home, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Evidently a single blow was given and immediately the victim was taken to the hospital and after few days he was released from the hospital. While he was staying in his home, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is also in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 that the victim died due to lack of treatment. Evidently the FIR was lodged only after the death of the deceased, i.e., after about a month. The fact, that after initial treatment in hospital, the deceased was released from hospital and taken home, and that no FIR was lodged till death of the victim clearly suggests, that the deceased and other inmates of the family perhaps, did not take the injury so seriously and therefore, after release from the hospital, he was taken to his residence and did not feel the necessity of providing further treatment. When the deceased survived for one month after receiving the injury without any further treatment after release from hospital, it is also difficult to hold for certain that some other factor did not contribute to the cause of death. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view, that had the deceased been provided with necessary treatment, perhaps the death could have been avoided. 12. Giving a single blow to the deceased was evidently not sufficient to cause instantaneous death and leaving the place without giving any further blow also demonstrates that the appellant did not have the intention to cause death. Had the appellant harboured the intention to cause death, he could have inflicted further injuries to ensure the death of the victim. Thus, having regard to the fact that only a single blow was given and the deceased survived for one month and the probability of the death being the result of not providing proper medical intervention, we are of the considered opinion that the accused/appellant did not have the intention to cause death or to cause such injuries as is likely to cause death. However, having regard to the nature of the injury, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have the knowledge that the injury caused by him was likely to cause death. Therefore, the conviction u/s 302 IPC cannot be sustained. However, having regard to the nature of the injury, it cannot be said that the appellant did not have the knowledge that the injury caused by him was likely to cause death. Therefore, the conviction u/s 302 IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 302 IPC, instead, we convict him u/s 304 Pt-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. However, we do not interfere with the sentence of fine and the default imprisonment awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. 13. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence, we partly allow the appeal. 14. We have taken note that the learned Sessions Judge has not passed any order pertaining to compensation u/s 357 A of the CrPC. In that view of the matter, we direct that the matter may be placed before the District Legal Services Authority, who shall examine the necessity of providing compensation to the dependant of the deceased, if any. 15. Send back the record.