JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2014 and 31.7.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolpur, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No.2 (June), 11 arising out of Sessions Case No.67 of 2010 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 12.11.2007 appellant had kept fertilizer on the land of Sk. Keramat (P.W. 6). When Sk. Keramat requested the appellant to remove the fertilizer a quarrel ensued amongst themselves around 1:00 p.m. In the course of quarrel, other accused persons arrived at the spot being armed with various weapons and attacked Sk. Keramat. Wife and son of Sk. Keramat (P.W.s 9 and 2), his brother Sk. Samsul (P.W. 1), his son (P.W. 8) and wife (the deceased) rushed to the spot to help Keramat. A free fight ensued. Sk. Samsul and others suffered injuries. In the course of fight, appellant assaulted Manora Bibi, wife of Sk. Samsul, with a sabal on the head resulting in her death. Samsul and others were treated at Illambazar Primary Health Centre and thereafter at Bolpur Sadar Hospital. On the written complaint of Samsul, Illambazar Police Station Case No.83 dated 12.11.2007 under Sections 147/149/323/325/304/308 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and seven others viz., Sk. Montu, Sk. Jhanai, Sk. Amirul, Sk. Ayas, Sk. Dukhlal, Mohana Bibi and Najma Bibi. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the instant case and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bolpur, Birbhum for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 148, 326, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, trial judge by judgment and order darted 30.07.2014 and 31.07.2014 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. By the selfsame judgment and order, however, other accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 4. Defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, trial judge by judgment and order darted 30.07.2014 and 31.07.2014 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. By the selfsame judgment and order, however, other accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution case suffers from various inconsistencies and contradictions. Place of occurrence has not been proved. It was also argued that the manner and course of assault as narrated by ocular witnesses is not supported by post-mortem doctor, P.W 14. He accordingly prayed for acquittal. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses unequivocally establishes the prosecution case that the appellant hit the victim on her head with a sabal. Intention of the appellant to murder the victim is clear. Ocular evidence of eyewitnesses is corroborated by the evidence of post-mortem doctor, P.W. 14. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. P.W.1, Sk. Samsul, is the brother of the deceased. He is also the de facto complainant in the case. He deposed on the fateful day around 1:00 p.m. his brother Sk. Keramat (P.W. 6) asked Sk. Anarul and Sk. Ayes to remove the manure from his land. Over this issue the accused persons started assaulting Sk. Keramat (P.W. 6). He and his wife, Monara Bibi, his son Sk. Halim (P.W. 8) Unmesara Bibi, wife of Sk. Keramat (P.W. 9) rushed to the spot to save Sk. Keramat. They were assaulted by the accused persons. He along with Sk. Halim and Sk. Sarif (P.W. 2) were assaulted. Anarul hit his wife Monara Bibi with a sabol on her head. Complaint was scribed by Sk. Mojai as per his direction. He signed on the complaint. Police sent them to Illambazar hospital. He was released from the hospital. Others were treated at Sian hospital. Police held inquest over the dead body. Police also seized sabal, bamboo and shirt from the place of occurrence. He put his signature on the seizure list. 7. In cross-examination he stated that the quarrel commenced over keeping manure and it continued for one hour. Anarul arrived at the spot first. He was carrying sabal. Other accused persons arrived later. Evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the other witnesses. 8. P.W.2, Sk. He put his signature on the seizure list. 7. In cross-examination he stated that the quarrel commenced over keeping manure and it continued for one hour. Anarul arrived at the spot first. He was carrying sabal. Other accused persons arrived later. Evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the other witnesses. 8. P.W.2, Sk. Sarif, deposed in the course of quarrel Anarul hit his aunt with sabal on her head. As a result she died. His father Sk. Keramat, cousin Halim and his mother Unmesara Bibi also suffered injuries. 9. P.W.6, Sk. Keramat deposed in the course of quarrel Sk. Anarul struck a blow of sabal on the head of Monara Bibi and she fell on the ground. He embellished the prosecution case by claiming that other accused persons had also hit Manora Bibi after she had fallen down. He was also assaulted and treated at Illambazar hospital. 10. In cross-examination, he stated quarrel commenced when Sk. Anarul stacked manure on his land. Panchayet had not demarcated the land. 11. P.W. 8, Sk. Halim, is the son of Sk. Samsul, P.W. 1, and is another eyewitness. He deposed on hearing the sounds of quarrel he came to the spot and was hit on the belly with a sabal. His mother was also hit by Anarul with a sabal on her head and died at the spot. 12. P.W. 9, Unmesara Bibi is also an injured witness and has corroborated the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. 13. Ocular version of the said witnesses finds corroboration from P.W. 14, postmortem doctor. He deposed on examination of the dead body of Manora Bibi he opined that cause of death was due to head injury which was ante-mortem in nature. 14. In cross-examination he stated that he found no external injury on the dead body except the scalp injury. Scalp injury was on the central part of the frontalparietal region. He opined such injury may happen if any brick like material hits on the head. 15. P.W. 16 is the investigating officer. He deposed on 12.11.2007 he was attached to Ilambazar Police Station. He arrived at the spot and found one female was lying dead. He prepared rough sketch map of the incident. He held inquest over the dead body. He seized one full sleeve shirt and one crowbar. He sent the injured persons for treatment. 16. He deposed on 12.11.2007 he was attached to Ilambazar Police Station. He arrived at the spot and found one female was lying dead. He prepared rough sketch map of the incident. He held inquest over the dead body. He seized one full sleeve shirt and one crowbar. He sent the injured persons for treatment. 16. From the aforesaid evidence it appears on the fateful day a dispute cropped up between the appellant and Sk. Keramat (P.W. 6) over keeping of manure. The quarrel continued for sometime and family members of the appellant joined in the quarrel. They were variously armed and assaulted Sk. Keramat. On hearing sounds of quarrel, Sk. Samsul, brother of Sk. Keramat, (P.W. 1), Sk. Sarif (P.W. 2), Sk Halim (P.W. 8), Unmesara Bibi (P.W. 9) and the victim Manora Bibi rushed to the spot. In the course of fight, appellant hit Manora Bibi on the head with a sabal. As a result of such assault Manora fell down and died. 17. In view of the consistent ocular version with regard to the cause of injury on the deceased, I am not convinced with the submission made on behalf of the appellant that Manora Bibi may have suffered injury due to throwing of brickbats. Evidence of the witnesses including I.O. (P.W. 16) has established the place of occurrence as the land between the houses of the appellant and Sk. Keramat (P.W. 6) beyond doubt. However, as the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel and appellant had not acted in a cruel and unusual manner, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant may be scaled down from one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 18. In the light of the aforesaid alteration of conviction, sentence of the appellant is also reduced. He is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 19. With the aforesaid modification of conviction and sentence, the appeal is disposed of. 20. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentences imposed upon him in terms of section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. 19. With the aforesaid modification of conviction and sentence, the appeal is disposed of. 20. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentences imposed upon him in terms of section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once. 22. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities. 23. I agree.