JUDGEMENT : Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. We have heard Mr. Nageshwara Rao Pappu, learned senior counsel along with Ms. V. Mythili, learned counsel for the appellant, and; Mr. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgement dated 16.04.2015 rendered in Sessions Case No.393 of 2012 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-4VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), by which the appellant, having been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof to undergo two years’ simple imprisonment. 3. The prosecution came to be instituted on the basis of the First Information Report, lodged by the Station House Officer, Krishnagiri Police Station, on the basis of the statement recorded by Harijana Kathi Amrose (PW-1), relating to the death of his father viz. Harijana Kathi Nageswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), in which the appellant was made the sole accused. As per the prosecution’s story, on the fateful day, the appellant, who is none other than the brother of the deceased, along with the deceased and the brother-in-law of the deceased went to the house of Kuruva Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandrudu (PW-5) for giving application to get drought relief cheques and at about 09.00 AM, in his house, the appellant is alleged to have shouted at the deceased in Telugu: 4. The aforesaid extract loosely translates in English to read: “What man, how many times I should tell you that you are taking away the drought relief cheques that belong to the father without giving it to me.” 5. Having said so, it is alleged that he hit the deceased on the left side of the head with a 2 feet pattudu stick, which was available on the spot. It has further been alleged that due to the said blow, the deceased fell on the ground and PW-1, Harijana Devakanta Rangadu @ Ranganna (PW-2) and Harijana Kesavaiah (PW-3) as also PW-5, Nerakanti Ediga Giddaiah (PW-6) and Kuruva Bullineni Nadipi Rangadu (PW-7) witnessed the incident. It has further been alleged that due to the said blow, the deceased fell on the ground and PW-1, Harijana Devakanta Rangadu @ Ranganna (PW-2) and Harijana Kesavaiah (PW-3) as also PW-5, Nerakanti Ediga Giddaiah (PW-6) and Kuruva Bullineni Nadipi Rangadu (PW-7) witnessed the incident. It is stated that PW-1 rushed to the road to get a vehicle to shift the deceased, i.e. his father, to the hospital and was able to secure the jeep belonging to Kuruva Mahesh (PW-4). Thereafter, deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Dhone, and the doctor informed that the father of the informant had succumbed to the injuries sustained. 6. The trial resulted in the appellant’s conviction and sentencing as stated supra, against which this appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses, both in the FIR as well as their statements, took a stand that the incident occurred in the house of PW-5; whereas in deposition, PW-5 has not only become hostile but in the cross-examination has stated that the said incident did not take place in his house. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the rough sketch made by the Investigating Officer with regard to the place of occurrence, in which also there is no indication of any material much less blood being found in the house of PW-5, and rather there was blood on the road outside the house of PW-5 and on the other side of the road, the so-called weapon/stick and bloodstained soil have been recovered. Learned senior counsel submitted that when there are two versions with regard to place of occurrence, the benefit should go to the accused. For such proposition, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Buta Singh vs. The State of Punjab, 1991 AIR SCW 1022, the relevant portion being at Paragraph No. 9, which reads as under: “9. From the above state of evidence, it appears that the defence version regarding the incident is a probable one and is supported by the find of blood from near the tubewell which is adjacent to the ‘dera’ of the appellant. When two versions are before the Court, the version which is supported by objective evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly unless it has been properly explained. When two versions are before the Court, the version which is supported by objective evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly unless it has been properly explained. As stated earlier, the prosecution has not explained how blood was found from near the tubewell and no blood was found from the spot where according to them the incident occurred. In addition to this, the factum regarding the delay in lodging of the First Information Report and the suspicion that it was delayed with a view to concocting the prosecution case and further the delay in forwarding the special report to the Magistrate as well as the case papers to the hospital shows that the investigation was not above board. In these circumstances, we think that the approach adopted by the Courts below cannot be justified.” 8. It was further contended that the eye witnesses i.e. PWs 1 to 3 are interested witnesses inasmuch as PW-1 is the son of the deceased, PW-2 is the brother of the wife of the deceased and PW-3 is the son of another sister of the deceased’s wife. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise the presence of PWs 2 and 3 is not very natural. He submitted that the cause for the presence insofar as PW.2 is concerned, is stated that he has come to visit the deceased two days prior to the incident in relation to availing loan of Rs.10,000/- from him, whereas, apropos PW-3, there is absolutely no explanation as to why he was present at the place of occurrence that too for a cause which was quite personal, namely giving an application for receiving drought relief cheque(s). Learned counsel submitted that in the alternative, the Court may consider the fact that even as per the prosecution’s witnesses, it is established that the incident, if at all perpetrated by the appellant, was at the spur of the moment without any premeditation and thus, conviction under Section 302 of IPC is unwarranted and, at best, the case can be one under Section 304 of the IPC. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmukh Singh v State of Haryana, 2009 AIR SCW 6710, for contending that the parameters which should be looked into by the Court while sentencing have been explained at Paragraph No.24 thereof, which states: “24. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurmukh Singh v State of Haryana, 2009 AIR SCW 6710, for contending that the parameters which should be looked into by the Court while sentencing have been explained at Paragraph No.24 thereof, which states: “24. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under : (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations; (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment?” 9. It was submitted that, taking into consideration the facts in Gurmukh Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein, converted conviction under Section 302 of IPC to that under Section 304-Part II of IPC and directed the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It was submitted that, taking into consideration the facts in Gurmukh Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein, converted conviction under Section 302 of IPC to that under Section 304-Part II of IPC and directed the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Drawing analogy therefrom, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case as per the depositions of PWs 1 to 3, when the deceased and the appellant were in the house of PW-5, for submitting applications for receiving drought relief cheques, all of a sudden, the appellant is said to have become angry, accusing the deceased of receiving drought relief cheque of their father without paying any amount to the appellant and thereafter the appellant is said to have picked up the pattudu stick which was lying there and hit the head of the deceased, due to which he fell down and the appellant is stated to have left the place of occurrence. Thus, learned senior counsel contended that this is clear admission of the fact, even by the prosecution, that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment and the same is further fortified by the statements of the witnesses that they had no time to react or to prevent the same as it was unexpected. Learned senior counsel contended that the appellant had not come with any predetermined mind or with any arms to cause any grievous injury, much less death to the deceased, as he is said to have picked up an innocuous wooden stick of about 2 feet which happened to be lying in the vicinity, of which he could not have been aware beforehand. Thus, learned senior counsel prayed that the Court may consider modifying the conviction to that under Section 304-Part II of the IPC. He further requested that the Court may consider reducing the period of incarceration, since as on date, the appellant had suffered incarceration of about 7 years (6 years and 351 days, to be precise). 10. Per contra, Mr. Reddy, the learned APP submitted that the Trial Court has dealt with, in detail, the depositions of the witnesses and rightly rejected the controversy with regard to the place of occurrence of the incident in view of the overwhelming ocular evidence to the version that the incident occurred in the house of PW-5 and the recovery of bloodstained stick. Reddy, the learned APP submitted that the Trial Court has dealt with, in detail, the depositions of the witnesses and rightly rejected the controversy with regard to the place of occurrence of the incident in view of the overwhelming ocular evidence to the version that the incident occurred in the house of PW-5 and the recovery of bloodstained stick. Blood on the road in front of the house of PW-5 is also identified as the same blood on the clothes of the deceased. With regard to the appellant’s plea on modifying the conviction to that under Section 304-Part II of the IPC, learned APP drew our attention to a recent decision rendered in State of Uttarakhand vs. Sachendra Singh Rawat, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 146, the relevant being Paragraph No.25(c), where 11 situations have been extracted as laid down in Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444 . It is 10 apposite to reproduce Paragraph No. 25(c) of Sachendra Singh Rawat (supra): “c) In the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider the case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the intention to cause death. It was observed and held by this Court that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.’’ 11. At this juncture, on a direct query of the Court, as to, in the light of the very decision relied upon by the learned APP as also submissions advanced by him in view of learned senior counsel for the appellant urging that the conviction required modification to one under Section 304-Part II of the IPC, learned APP could not effectively controvert the fact that the depositions of the witnesses and the prosecution’s own story itself indicates that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment and the weapon used in the commission of offence was also not carried but just picked up from the place of occurrence, as is the version of PW-1, who is the informant, during his deposition before the Trial Court. 12. Having examined the facts and circumstances, and given our anxious thought to the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, the Court does not find any merit in the submissions of learned senior counsel qua the appellant’s guilt, in view of the evidence on record and the discussions of learned Trial Court pertaining to the appellant in committing the crime. That being so, however, insofar as the conviction is concerned, the Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of learned senior counsel that, from the materials available on record, the statements of the witnesses and the attending circumstances, the appellant cannot be said to be guilty of committing a premeditated act, which should ensue in conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. 13. In this connection, it would be useful to reproduce Sections 302 and 304 of the IPC, which read as under: “302. Punishment for murder – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. xxx 304. 13. In this connection, it would be useful to reproduce Sections 302 and 304 of the IPC, which read as under: “302. Punishment for murder – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. xxx 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” 14. Section 302 of IPC provides for punishment for murder; whereas Section 304 of IPC provides for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court would pause at this juncture to emphasize that Section 304-Part II of IPC prescribes that whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 15. Before venturing further, we may also usefully take note of Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC defining ‘Culpable homicide’ and ‘murder’, respectively: “299. Culpable homicide – Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. 300. Culpable homicide – Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. 300. Murder – Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or – Secondly – If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or – Thirdly – If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or – Fourthly – If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.” 16. In Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 14 SCC 479 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon considering Section 304 of the IPC, exposited as follows: “20. … A plain reading of the above section makes it clear that it is in two parts. The first part of the section is generally referred to as Section 304 Part I, whereas the second part as Section 304 Part II. The first part applies where the accused causes bodily injury to the victim with intention to cause death; or with intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Part II, on the other hand, comes into play when death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 21. The makers of the Code observed: “The most important consideration upon a trial for this offence is the intention or knowledge with which the act which caused death, was done. 21. The makers of the Code observed: “The most important consideration upon a trial for this offence is the intention or knowledge with which the act which caused death, was done. The intention to cause death or the knowledge that death will probably be caused, is essential and is that to which the law principally looks. And it is of the utmost importance that those who may be entrusted with judicial powers should clearly understand that no conviction ought to take place, unless such intention or knowledge can from the evidence be concluded to have really existed.” The makers further stated: “It may be asked how can the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge be proved, seeing that these are internal and invisible acts of the mind? They can be ascertained only from external and visible acts. Observation and experience enable us to judge of the connection between men's conduct and their intentions. We know that a sane man does not usually commit certain acts heedlessly or unintentionally and generally we have no difficulty in inferring from his conduct what was his real intention upon any given occasion.” 22. Before Section 304 can be invoked, the following ingredients must be satisfied: (i) the death of the person must have been caused; (ii) such death must have been caused by the act of the accused by causing bodily injury; (iii) there must be an intention on the part of the accused: (a) to cause death; or (b) to cause such bodily injury which is likely to cause death (Part I); (iv) there must be knowledge on the part of the accused that the bodily injury is such that it is likely to cause death (Part II).” (italicised in original) 17. In the instant case, in view of the discussions hereinabove and having regard to the scope of Section 304-Part II of IPC, we find that the conduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased. Rather, on the spur of the moment, by one blow to the head of the deceased, that too with a 2 feet wooden stick lying around, does not lead us to believe that there was intention to kill the deceased. Rather, on the spur of the moment, by one blow to the head of the deceased, that too with a 2 feet wooden stick lying around, does not lead us to believe that there was intention to kill the deceased. In our considered opinion, the act committed by the appellant would, no doubt, call for conviction, however, under Section 304-Part II of the IPC, and not under Section 302. 18. Accordingly, the Court upholds the conviction of the appellant for the action of causing the deceased’s death but modifies such conviction from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304- Part II of IPC. We are also persuaded, in the interest of justice, to modify the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled and he shall be set at liberty. The jail authorities are directed to release the appellant forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this judgement to the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 19. Ergo, this Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms. 20. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, stand closed.