JUDGMENT A. K. Mishra, J. - In this appeal under Sec.383 Cr.P.C. the sole appellant has assailed his conviction U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the I.P.C.') and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela in his judgment dtd.09.01.2009 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.70 of 2008. 2. In this case of matricide, the accused faced charge U/s.302 I.P.C. for having given a single blow to deceased mother on 12.2.2008 at 10.30 A.M. in the Mundari Basti. As per prosecution case, the accused and his wife quarreled and when mother intervened, the accused left the spot and thereafter bringing one knife searched for brother and in course of that he found his mother, dealt a blow which struck to the right ear and the mother succumbed to her injuries at hospital in course of treatment. F.I.R. was lodged at 4 P.M. resulting registration of Sector7 Rourkela P.S. Case No.09 of 2008. During course of investigation, accused was arrested, inquest and post mortem examination were conducted and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet U/s.302 I.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and accused faced trial for the aforesaid charge. 3. Defence took the plea of denial simplicitor and examined none. In support of its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses, out of which P.W.10 is the informant, P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 are son, brother and sister of the deceased. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination. Prosecution exhibited 12 documents. The seized knife and wearing apparels were marked as M.O.I and M.O.VII. 4. Learned trial court appreciating the evidence of doctor and eye witnesses, found the death of deceased to be homicidal in nature and relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, convicted and sentenced the accused as above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ambika Prasad Ray submits that the manner in which the knife blow was inflicted to the mother is nothing but without premeditation and due to heat of passion, out of sudden quarrel and not in a cruel manner for which exception 4 of Section 300 of the I.P.C. is attracted. For that, he earnestly submits to convert the conviction to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. 6. Mr. Zafarullah, learned Addl. For that, he earnestly submits to convert the conviction to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. 6. Mr. Zafarullah, learned Addl. Standing Counsel does not dispute the factum of quarrel but stated that no such plea was taken before the learned Trial Court. 7. Bestowing our thoughts to the above contentions, we carefully perused the evidence on record and found that the doctor P.W.8 has found only 1 incise wound of size 2" X 4" on the right side ear canal. The father of the accused P.W.10 has stated that he got information that his wife and son after a quarrel, fought between them, as a result his deceased wife was admitted at R.G.H. P.W.1, the brother of the accused while describing the incident has stated that accused picked up quarrel with his wife inside the house at which time he was present in the house, as such his deceased mother told the accused not to quarrel but the accused holding a vegetable cutting knife (PANIKI) chased her. At that time his maternal uncle Mangra Oram and some neighbours of their Basti came and intervened and the accused ran away towards Sector 6. After some time when he (P.W.1) went near the Pooja Pendal, noticed that accused, holding one knife, came near him and called but out of fear he did not go near him. At that time his mother was standing near the tubewell adjacent to the house of Anu Sanga. Accused seeing the deceased chased her but out of fear he (P.W.1) could not intervene as accused threatened him. Thereafter accused dealt a knife blow on the right ear of his mother. He has also stated that he along with others took the injured to R.G.H. in an auto but in course of treatment she expired. 8. The accused son had no animosity with the deceased mother, rather the incident had genesis of quarreling between accused and his wife for which it could be said that there was no premeditation. There was no motive. There was sudden quarrel between the parties and in the heat of passion the accused dealt a single blow which turned fatal. Even the brother and father of accused have not stated that by acting such manner, the accused took any undue advantage. There was no motive. There was sudden quarrel between the parties and in the heat of passion the accused dealt a single blow which turned fatal. Even the brother and father of accused have not stated that by acting such manner, the accused took any undue advantage. The material in abundance, in our consideration, proves that the offence committed is culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined under exception 4 of section 300 I.P.C. and for that the accused is to be convicted U/s.304 Part-I I.P.C. instead of Section 302 I.P.C. Learned Trial Court has committed error in not appreciating the law in the right perspective for which we are constrained to modify the conviction to one U/s.304 Part-I of I.P.C. instead of one U/s.302 I.P.C. In the result, the appellant is convicted U/s.304 Part-I of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further R.I. for three months. The period undergone shall be set off. If required, the appellant be set at liberty after getting set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C. if his detention is not required in any other case / cases. The appeal is allowed in part. Send back the L.C.Rs. forthwith.