JUDGMENT : P.N. PRAKASH, J. Though what has been listed today is only the petition for suspension of sentence and bail, since the point for consideration before us is short, with consent, the criminal appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.39 of 2012. 2. The prosecution story runs as under : 2.1. The appellant (accused) got married to Usha (deceased), who was herself a divorcee and through the said wedlock with Usha, he has two sons. 2.2. The appellant was into coconut peeling work, in connection with which, he used to carry an implement therefor, to various places and return home. 2.3. The appellant was living with Usha in Pudhu Colony, Centrampalayam in Coimbatore, which is about 5 kms. away from the natal home of Usha, which was in Amman Colony, where Ramathal (P.W.1), mother of Usha and Manickam (P.W.2) and Velusamy (P.W.3), relatives of Usha were also residing. 2.4. Prior to 07.11.2011, the appellant had gone on work and since he was not available at home, Usha and her children were staying in the house of Ramathal (P.W.1) in Amman Colony. On 07.11.2011, the appellant returned home late and finding that Usha was not there in the house, he went to Ramathal's (P.W.1's) house and brought her to his house. 2.5. It is alleged that, the appellant used to suspect the fidelity of Usha and used to beat her frequently, after getting drunk. Therefore, suspecting foul play, Ramathal (P.W.1), Manickam (P.W.2) and Velusamy (P.W.3) went in the wee hours of 08.11.2011 to the house of the appellant in Pudhu Colony. When they went there, they saw the appellant assaulting Usha with an iron vashi (M.O.1), which is an implement used for peeling coconuts. Usha sustained injuries and when the ambulance was called, the ambulance personnel examined her pulse and declared her dead. 2.6. On a written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Ramathal (P.W.1), Shanmugavel, Special Sub-Inspector of police (P.W.14), Kinathukadavu Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1256 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P13). 2.7. Usha sustained injuries and when the ambulance was called, the ambulance personnel examined her pulse and declared her dead. 2.6. On a written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Ramathal (P.W.1), Shanmugavel, Special Sub-Inspector of police (P.W.14), Kinathukadavu Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1256 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P13). 2.7. In the meanwhile, the appellant surrendered before Mylsamy, Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) at 02.00 p.m. on 08.11.2011 and gave an extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4), which was recorded by Mylsamy (P.W.9), after which, Mylsamy (P.W.9) produced the appellant along with the record of the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) before Ravikumar, Inspector of Police (P.W.15), who took over the investigation of the case. For brevity, Ravikumar, Inspector of Police (P.W.15) will be referred to as the I.O. 2.8. The I.O. arrested the appellant and recorded his police confession, pursuant to which, the iron vashi (M.O.1) was seized on the disclosure of the appellant under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P5). The I.O. conducted inquest over the body of Usha and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P15, after which, the body of Usha was sent to the Government Hospital, for postmortem, where Dr.Jeya Singh (P.W.10) performed autopsy over the body of Usha and issued the postmortem certificate (Ex.P6) and a final opinion (Ex.P7), wherein, he has stated that Usha “would appear to have died of multiple injuries, 10 to 12 hours prior to autopsy”. 2.9. After examining witnesses and collecting the various reports, the I.O. completed the investigation and filed a final report in P.R.C.No.1 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pollachi, against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2.10. On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.39 of 2012 and was tried by the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 IPC. 2.11. When questioned, the appellant pleaded “not guilty”. 2.12. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 20 exhibits and 9 material objects. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. From the side of the appellant, no witness was examined nor any document marked. 2.13. When questioned, the appellant pleaded “not guilty”. 2.12. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 20 exhibits and 9 material objects. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. From the side of the appellant, no witness was examined nor any document marked. 2.13. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 30.10.2012, in S.C.No.39 of 2012, convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. Since the date of his conviction, he has been in the prison and this appeal was filed belatedly this year, with a petition for condonation of delay, which was allowed by this Court. 4. Heard Mr.B.Shruthan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 5. The case of the prosecution stands on the testimonies of Ramathal (P.W.1), Manickam (P.W.2) and Velusamy (P.W.3) as well on the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) that was given by the appellant to Mylsamy (P.W.9). 6. Ramathal (P.W.1), Manickam (P.W.2) and Velusamy (P.W.3) have, in their evidence, stated that, the appellant had got married to Usha; suspecting Usha's fidelity, the appellant used to quarrel with her frequently; the appellant was a coconut peeler and also does decoration works in marriage halls; the appellant went away from his house for work and at that time, Usha and her children were in the house of Ramathal (P.W.1); on the late night of 07.11.2011, the appellant came to the house of Ramathal (P.W.1), picked up a quarrel with Usha and took her to his house; they followed the appellant and when they went to his house, they saw him assaulting Usha with an iron vashi (M.O.1). 7. In the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4), the appellant has stated that, he went for work and returned home in the late night on 07.11.2011, went to his mother-in-law's (P.W.1's) house and brought his wife to his house to spend a night with her privately, but, she quarrelled with him by suspecting his fidelity and refused courtship, on account of which, he hit her with the iron vashi (M.O.1), due to which, she died. Thus, the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) shows that, it was Usha, who suspected the fidelity of the appellant and was quarrelling with him. Thus, the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P4) shows that, it was Usha, who suspected the fidelity of the appellant and was quarrelling with him. Whereas, her relatives (P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3) have stated otherwise, for obvious reasons. 8. We carefully analysed the evidence available on record and we are of the view that the appellant had not committed the murder of his wife with premeditation. He was away from home and on return, he wanted her companionship. But, when she quarrelled with him and refused companionship, he is said to have hit her with the iron vashi (M.O.1), resulting in her death. Thus, the act of the appellant would, at the most, fall within the contours of Section 304(I) IPC and not 302 IPC. The appellant has served around nine years of actual imprisonment. Therefore, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is convicted of the offence under Section 304(I) IPC. As a sequel, he is directed to be released forthwith, provided his presence is not required in any other case. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.