JUDGMENT S.K.Mishra, J. - This is a case of sororicide. The convict-appellant has been convicted for committing murder of his sister, Sankuanri Munda, (hereinafter referred as to 'the deceased', for brevity) under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2005, as per the judgment dated 17.06.2006. 2. The prosecution case is that on 15.12.2004 at about 8.00 P.M. the deceased has been to the house of the appellant where she was staying with her mother. At about 8.30 P.M. in front of his house, P.W.2, Nadi Singh heard the appellant telling loudly 'CHHADIBI NAHIN' and saw the appellant assaulting the deceased by means of a stone and the deceased was lying on the ground with a bleeding injury. After the assault, an F.I.R. was lodged and Investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code along with his mother as the co-accused, though, his mother was charged under Section 201 of the Penal Code. She died during pending of the trial. 3. The defence took the plea of complete denial. 4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case and relied upon 17 Exhibits. Out of which Ext.1 is the F.I.R. and Exhibit.11 is the postmortem report along with witness examined P.W.2, Nadi Singh, who is the solitary eye witness, speak about the assault by the appellant on the deceased by means of a stone. The defence did not examine any witness in his behalf. 5. XXX XXX XXX 6. Ms Sumitra Mohanty, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that at this stage the appellant does not dispute the homicidal nature of the death of the deceased but submitted the conviction against the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code is erroneous. She submitted that, at best, an offence under Section 304 of the Penal Code is made out. Hence, she submitted that as the appellant is in custody for more than 15 years, the conviction should be recorded under Section 304, Part-I or II of the Penal Code and appropriate order be passed. 7. Sk. Zafrulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, argued that this is a case of murder as the deceased has sustained several injuries on her person. 7. Sk. Zafrulla, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, argued that this is a case of murder as the deceased has sustained several injuries on her person. All the injuries have been inflicted by means of a sharp cutting weapon like 'katuri'. 8. The prosecution has presented a case that the appellant committed murder of the deceased by means of a 'Katuri' by giving blows on her neck and head and then by assaulting her by means of a stone and mother of the appellant has concealed the weapon of offence. However, this statement is denied by contents of the F.I.R. as well as statement of the P.W.2 that the 'Katuri' was lying near the dead body, along with stone, with blood stains. 9. In this case, it is apparent from the record that the appellant committed offence of homicide by doing his sister to death. There was no dispute between them. In fact, the appellant has stated before witnesses that at the time of the occurrence the deceased kicked him and he assaulted the deceased. This appears to be a petty quarrel between the appellant and his sister which led to the unfortunate incident. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant had actually make any preparation for committing the offence. The prosecution has not established any motive for committing the offence. Moreover, though the prosecution has proved that the deceased has sustained six injuries, only two injuries, i.e., cut injury of size 5'' x 2'' and 1/2'' x 4'' (brain depth) on right ear transversely situated, and cutting the right ear, skull bone thereby injuries the brain are grievous injuries. Rest of the injuries are superficial and simple injury. The injury no.-ii is grievous injury but it has not caused the death of the deceased. Death of the deceased has been caused by injury no.-i which injured the brain matter. It is evident from the statement of Dr. Bankim Prasad Mahanta, P.W.10 that the stomach of the deceased contained about 250 ml. of liquid materials having smell of alcohol. From these materials discussed in the preceding paragraph, it is apparent from the record that the deceased has consumed liquor at the time of occurrence. It is evident from the statement of Dr. Bankim Prasad Mahanta, P.W.10 that the stomach of the deceased contained about 250 ml. of liquid materials having smell of alcohol. From these materials discussed in the preceding paragraph, it is apparent from the record that the deceased has consumed liquor at the time of occurrence. There was a petty quarrel between her and the appellant and the occurrence took place in a spur of moment without any previous preparation or deliberation and the appellant did not have any motive to commit murder of the sister. 10. In such situation, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Rather, it is an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304, Part-I of the Penal Code. 11. In the result, the JCRLA is allowed in part. The impugned judgment of conviction and consequent sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2005, convicting the appellant-Gardi Singh @ Nagabansi @ Sukura Singh @ Nagabansi under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life are hereby set aside. He is convicted for the offence under Section 304, Part-I of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone. It is borne out from the record that the appellant is in custody since mid of December, 2004 and in the meantime, he has already undergone about 15 years of imprisonment. So, the purpose of justice shall be subserved, if he is convicted under Section 304, Part-I of the Penal Code and sentenced to the period already undergone. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. Accordingly, the JCRLA is disposed of. The L.C.R. be returned back to the trial court forthwith. As restrictions are continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this judgment available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.