JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 30.03.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.121/1990, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 447 IPC and sentenced as under :- Offences u/Sec. Sentences Fine (in Rs.) Sentence (in default of payment of fine) 302 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for Life 100/- NIL 447 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for Three Months 50/- Imprisonment for One Month 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the present criminal appeal, are that on 10.08.1990 at about 09:40 PM, one Kishnaram (PW-6) lodged FIR No.63/1990 (Exhibit-P/13) at Police Station Chhattargarh, District Bikaner alleging that around one month ago, one Devilal S/o Magaram had cut a Khejari tree in the agriculture field of Dullesingh, and son of Kishnaram viz. Madhuram had seen him cutting the Khejari tree. It was further alleged that later on, upon being inquired by Dullesingh, Madhuram had informed him that Devilal cut the Khejari tree and on account of that Devilal and his brother used to keep enmity with them. It was also alleged by Kishnaram that today i.e. 10.08.1990, at about 03:00 – 03:30 PM when he was working in his agriculture field, Omiya @ Omprakash and Jagiya @ Jagdish S/o Magharam Jat came there and threatened him; at that time his son Madhuram was watching his she-camels who were grazing in the field. The above named two persons asked Kishnaram to accompany them to the camp situated in their agriculture field upon which he went there. It was alleged that upon reaching there, both the above named two persons tied Kishnaram’s hand with a string of rubber strip and while leaving him there, they went towards his agriculture field. It was alleged that after about an hour, appellant-Ram Pratap S/o Magha Ram came there and untied Kishnaram’s hands and thereafter they proceeded towards Kishnaram’s hamlet. It was further alleged that after reaching hamlet of Kishnaram, appellant-Ram Pratap, Omiya @ Omprakash and Jagiya @ Jagdish caught hold of the hair of his son Madhuram and started beating him; they dragged him towards their hamlet while threatening that they would kill Madhuram today. It was further alleged that after reaching hamlet of Kishnaram, appellant-Ram Pratap, Omiya @ Omprakash and Jagiya @ Jagdish caught hold of the hair of his son Madhuram and started beating him; they dragged him towards their hamlet while threatening that they would kill Madhuram today. It was alleged that Jagiya @ Jagdish had a Kassi in his hand; appellant-Ram Pratap picked up a Lathi from his hamlet; Omiya @ Omprakash had no weapon in his hand and all these persons dragged Madhuram towards their hamlet while assaulting him. It was alleged by Kishnaram (PW-6) in the FIR (Exhibit-P/13) that he immediately ran towards the field of Pannaram; told him about the incident and when he, along with Pannaram reached the field of appellant-Ram Pratap, he found that his son Madhuram was lying injured. On seeing them, Madhuram asked for some water; Pannaram and Jagiya @ Jagdish brought some water and poured it in his mouth thereafter he immediately died on the spot. 4. On receiving the said report, the police registered the FIR (Exhibit-P/13) against appellant-Ram Pratap, Jagiya @ Jagdish and Omiya @ Omprakash for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 342, 365 and 302 IPC and after investigation, filed charge-sheet against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 342, 447 and 364/34 IPC. 5. The matter was committed to the trial court, which framed charges against appellant-Ram Pratap for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 447 IPC and against Omiya @ Omprakash and Jagiya @ Jagdish for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 364, 302 and 342 IPC. 6. All the above named persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 7. The prosecution produced as many as seven prosecution witnesses and exhibited as many as thirteen documents. 8. The statements of appellant-Ram Pratap, Omiya @ Omprakash and Jagiya @ Jagdish were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and appellant-Ram Pratap and Jagiya @ Jagdish submitted their written statements on 27.08.1991 before the trial court. In their defence, appellant-Ram Pratap and Omiya @ Omprakash examined as many as five defence witnesses and also exhibited three documents. 9. 8. The statements of appellant-Ram Pratap, Omiya @ Omprakash and Jagiya @ Jagdish were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and appellant-Ram Pratap and Jagiya @ Jagdish submitted their written statements on 27.08.1991 before the trial court. In their defence, appellant-Ram Pratap and Omiya @ Omprakash examined as many as five defence witnesses and also exhibited three documents. 9. The trial court, after pondering over the evidence produced on behalf of all the respective parties and after hearing all the counsels, convicted appellant-Ram Pratap for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 447 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above, however, acquitted Omiya @ Omprakash and Jagiya @ Jagdish from the offences they were charged. 10. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment passed by the trial court has argued that the trial court has relied on the evidence of sole eye witness Kishnaram (PW-6) to convict the appellant, whereas it has disbelieved the evidence of the said eye witness qua two other persons viz. Jagiya @ Jagdish and Omiya @ Omprakash, who were assigned identical acts and role by the said eye witness as assigned to the appellant. It is further argued that the evidence of (PW-6) Kishnaram has been disbelieved by the trial court qua other two persons and one of the consideration for disbelieving the said evidence is that it is possible that Jagiya @ Jagdish has been implicated on account of enmity between the parties because of the alleged sexual assault by the deceased on his sister, however, the trial court has failed to apply the same analogy qua the appellant though Jagiya @ Jagdish and appellant-Ram Pratap are the real brothers. 11. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has erred in holding that injuries found on the body of the deceased were caused by appellant-Ram Pratap while relying on the evidence of (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara. It has been argued that as per the postmortem report (Exhibit-P/12), the injuries present on the body of the deceased are primarily bruises of varying dimensions. Ramchandra Godara. It has been argued that as per the postmortem report (Exhibit-P/12), the injuries present on the body of the deceased are primarily bruises of varying dimensions. It has been submitted firstly that the bruises of different dimensions could not have been caused by a single weapon and secondly, the dimensions clearly reveal that these bruises could not have been the result of a blow by Lathi, more particularly when no Lathi has been recovered from the accused to corroborate the said allegation. It has further been submitted that as per the recovery memo (Exhibit-P/7), the pieces of wood of different sizes ranging from 1 feet, 10 inches and 14 inches were recovered by the police from an open place after eight days of the occurrence, however, the witness of the said recovery i.e. (PW-1) Girdhari Singh, in his cross-examination, has admitted that four pieces of Lathi were recovered by the police from the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. It has also been submitted that in view of the above, it is clear that no Lathi was recovered at the instance of the appellant. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the testimony of (PW-6) Kishnaram has been disbelieved by the trial court qua Jagiya @ Jagdish and Omiya @ Omprakash on the ground that he made certain improvements in his court statements, however, in the case of appellant, the trial court has relied on the same evidence, which as per its own finding, is full of improvements. It is also argued that looking to the discrepancies in the statements of (PW-6) Kishnaram, the trial court has grossly erred in placing reliance on the said evidence to convict the appellant. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the testimony of (PW-6) Kishnaram is not corroborated by any other evidence, inasmuch as (PW-2) Pannaram has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the testimony of (PW-6) Kishnaram is not corroborated by any other evidence, inasmuch as (PW-2) Pannaram has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the alleged act of the appellant, which caused death of the deceased and further that the injuries present on the body of the deceased are neither on the vital part nor grievous in nature and nor is there any evidence to show that on account of injuries suffered, there was some internal haemorrhage or damage to internal organs which caused death. It is, therefore, argued that the appellant deserves to be acquitted because the sole testimony of (PW-6) Kishnaram is not a sterling worth to base his conviction. 14. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision dated 18.07.1996 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alil Mollah and Another Vs. State of W.B. reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1028. 15. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and argued that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on account of brutal assault by appellant-Ram Pratap, Madhuram died. It has been submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality in placing reliance on the evidence of (PW-6) Kishnaram, who, in categorical terms deposed before the trial court that appellant-Ram Pratap brutally assaulted his son Madhuram with a Lathi, which resulted into his death. It has been submitted that the trial court has acquitted the other co-accused viz. Jagiya @ Jagdish and Omiya @ Omprakash specifically taking into consideration the fact that no injury was inflicted by them upon the deceased. Therefore, the case of the appellant is clearly distinguishable from that of the other two co-accused and their acquittal by the trial court will not help the appellant in any manner as sufficient evidence against him was available on record. With the said submission, it has been prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record. 17. While convicting and sentencing the convict appellant, the trial court has mainly relied upon the evidence of (PW-6) Kishnaram and (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara. 18. With the said submission, it has been prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record. 17. While convicting and sentencing the convict appellant, the trial court has mainly relied upon the evidence of (PW-6) Kishnaram and (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara. 18. It has come on record that (PW-6) Kishnaram is the father of the deceased and he lodged the FIR (Exhibit-P/13) alleging that appellant-Ram Pratap along with two other co-accused viz. Jagiya @ Jagdish and Omiya @ Omprakash started beating his son Madhuram in his agriculture field and dragged him towards their agriculture field. The complaint regarding the said incident was filed by (PW-6) Kishnaram on 10.08.1990 at 09:40 PM whereas, as per his own version, the incident took place on 10.08.1990 at about 03:00 – 3:30 PM. It has also come on record that the police station was around 32 kms. away from the place of incident and before lodging the FIR (Exhibit-P/13) at the police station, (PW-6) Kishnaram had immediately reached his village from his agriculture field, where he narrated the incident to Labhu Singh and (PW-5) Puraram. 19. It is noticed that (PW-5) Puraram has stated that when he and Labu Singh were standing at the chowk of village, (PW-6) Kishnaram came there weeping and stated that his son has been beaten to death by appellant-Ram Pratap, Jagiya @ Jagdish and Omiya @ Omprakash in the agriculture field. 20. It is also to be noticed that (PW-6) Kishnaram, in his cross-examination, stated that when appellant-Ram Pratap and other co-accused viz. Jagiya @ Jagdish and Omiya @ Omprakash were dragging his son Madhuram towards their hamlet, he reached the agriculture field of (PW-2) Pannaram and asked him to accompany with him to his agriculture field because the appellant and the other co-accused were assaulting his son. Though, (PW-2) Pannaram in his court statements has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile, but admitted that (PW-6) Kishnaram came to his agriculture field; he narrated that his son misbehaved with a girl and therefore, he went to hamlet of accused persons. 21. From the above piece of evidence, it cannot be said that there is gross delay in filing the complaint/FIR (Exhibit-P/13) and that (PW-6) Kishnaram has not witnessed the incident or that his presence at the scene of crime is doubtful. 22. 21. From the above piece of evidence, it cannot be said that there is gross delay in filing the complaint/FIR (Exhibit-P/13) and that (PW-6) Kishnaram has not witnessed the incident or that his presence at the scene of crime is doubtful. 22. It is noticed that in his court statements, (PW-6) Kishnaram has stated that when appellant-Ram Pratap untied his hand and he returned to his agriculture field, appellant-Ram Pratap followed him; he picked up a Lathi; caught hold of his son’s hair and started beating him with that Lathi. Though (PW-6) Kishnaram has also alleged that Jagiya @ Jagdish inflicted a blow by Kassi and Omiya @ Omprakash slapped his son but no such injury by Kassi was found on the body of the deceased and no evidence has been led by prosecution to that effect that Ompiya @ Omprakash inflicted any injury upon the deceased. Though the trial court has not relied upon the testimony of (PW-6) Kishnaram against the co-accused viz. Jagiya @ Jagdish and Omiya @ Omprakash but only on that count his evidence cannot be rejected qua appellant-Ram Pratap. It is well settled that in India the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one false in all) does not apply. It is also well settled that the court can partly reject and partly accept the evidence of a witness and the complete statements of a witness cannot be rejected merely for the reason that some part of it is found to be false. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its decision dated 21.08.2007 rendered in State of Maharasthra V. Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 3042 has held as under :- “34. As regards the second ground for rejecting the evidence of these eye-witnesses given by the High Court, namely that they have falsely implicated Laxman Shirast @ Paparkar, this too, in our opinion was hardly a good ground of rejecting their evidence. It is well known that in India the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one false in all) does not apply. The court can partly reject and partly accept the evidence of a witness, and it is not correct to say that merely because some part of the evidence is found to be false the entire evidence has to be rejected. The court can partly reject and partly accept the evidence of a witness, and it is not correct to say that merely because some part of the evidence is found to be false the entire evidence has to be rejected. [See Krishna Mochi and others v. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC 81 ]. If the Court finds that out of several co-accused, one or more are falsely implicated, that does not necessarily mean that everyone was falsely implicated. Similarly, the third ground for rejecting the testimony of the four eye-witnesses, namely that they have falsely stated that Suresh Sobaji had witnessed the incident, is in our opinion not a good ground for rejecting the prosecution version in toto.” 24. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence of (PW-6) Kishnaram, we are of the view that his allegation against appellant-Ram Pratap of inflicting injuries to deceased Madhuram by a Lathi is corroborated by the evidence of (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara. Even in his cross-examination, (PW-6) Kishnaram reiterated that it was appellant-Ram Pratap, who inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased and as such his evidence qua appellant-Ram Pratap is trustworthy and has rightly been relied upon by the trial court. 25. The police have found the dead body of the deceased in the agriculture field of the appellant and prepared a report Exhibit-P/9 to this effect, which has been verified by (PW-1) Girdhari Singh. (PW-1) Girdhari Singh has also verified the Panchayat Nama (Exhibit-P/1), wherein the villagers have opined that Madhuram died on account of injuries inflicted on him on 10.08.1990. Exhibit-P/2 is the memo of dead body and the same has also been verified by (PW-1) Girdhari Singh. 26. Exhibit-P/7 is the report of recovery of Lathi at the instance of appellant-Ram Pratap. Though it is mentioned in the said recovery report that three pieces of Lathi were recovered, the same has been verified by (PW-1) Girdhari Singh and the said recovery was made after eight days of the incident but only on that account, the recovery cannot be disbelieved. Though it is mentioned in the said recovery report that three pieces of Lathi were recovered, the same has been verified by (PW-1) Girdhari Singh and the said recovery was made after eight days of the incident but only on that account, the recovery cannot be disbelieved. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that Lathi recovered by the police vide Exhibit-P/7 was in three pieces and it cannot be said that injuries on the body of the deceased were inflicted by the said pieces only is of no force and we are of the view that though, Lathi was recovered in three pieces but this itself is not sufficient to hold that no injury was inflicted by the said Lathi. There is a possibility that the Lathi broke when the appellant inflicted injuries on deceased Madhuram because, as per the postmortem report (Exhibit-P/12) and evidence of (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara, as many as 24 injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Though, all those injuries are bruises and abrasions but (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara specifically opined that those injuries are sufficient to cause death. 27. The other argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that while disbelieving the evidence of (PW-6) Kishnaram, the trial court has acquitted the other two co-accused whereas qua appellant, the same evidence has illegally being relied upon. We are not convinced with the said argument because the trial court while acquitting the other co-accused, has observed that though (PW-6) Kishnaram has alleged that co-accused Jagiya @ Jagdish inflicted injuries by a sharp weapon i.e. Kassi but no injury of a sharp weapon was found on the body of the deceased. 28. So far as co-accused Omiya @ Omprakash is concerned, the allegation against him is of slapping the deceased and not of inflicting any injury. 29. Taking into consideration the above evidence, we are of the opinion that sufficient evidence is available on record against the convict appellant to the effect that he inflicted several injuries upon the deceased by Lathi. So far as co-accused Omiya @ Omprakash is concerned, the allegation against him is of slapping the deceased and not of inflicting any injury. 29. Taking into consideration the above evidence, we are of the opinion that sufficient evidence is available on record against the convict appellant to the effect that he inflicted several injuries upon the deceased by Lathi. Though there are certain improvements in the statements of (PW-6) Kishnaram but those improvements itself cannot be a reason to discard his complete evidence as he has categorically stated that it was the appellant-Ram Pratap, who inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased by a Lathi and that version of the witness is corroborated by the postmortem report (Exhibit-P/12) as well as the statements of (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara. 30. Now the question remains whether the appellant inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased with an intention to kill or not? 31. To answer the question, we have to examine the nature of injuries inflicted by the appellant on the body of the deceased and the arms used in inflicting those injuries. 32. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that there was an intention to inflict bodily injuries, which in ordinary course of nature, were sufficient to cause death. 33. As per the postmortem report (Exhibit-P/12) as well as the statements of (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara, though there were around 24 injuries all over the body of the deceased such as nose, eyelid, eyes, waist, hands and legs but it is to be noticed that none of the injuries was found to be grievous in nature. (PW-3) Dr. Ramchandra Godara, in his court statements, has opined that the deceased died of shock due to multiple injuries, however, he has not concluded that any one of the injuries was vital and sufficient to cause death. 34. To further gather the intention of accused appellant-Ram Pratap, we have looked into the attending circumstances emerging in this case. 35. As per the defence set up by the appellant, when his minor sister (DW-2) Mst. ‘P’ was coming to the agriculture field getting lunch, deceased Madhuram attempted to commit rape upon her, whereupon she raised cries and hearing them, Jagiya @ Jagdish came there but the deceased fled away from the scene of crime and Jagiya @ Jagdish followed him. As per the defence set up by the appellant, when his minor sister (DW-2) Mst. ‘P’ was coming to the agriculture field getting lunch, deceased Madhuram attempted to commit rape upon her, whereupon she raised cries and hearing them, Jagiya @ Jagdish came there but the deceased fled away from the scene of crime and Jagiya @ Jagdish followed him. The defence has claimed that the deceased, while fleeing the scene of crime, received several injuries and thereafter died of exhaustion on account of running a long distance. 36. In relation to the incident of sexual assault upon minor girl, FIR No.64/1990 (Exhibit-D/3) was also lodged at Police Station Chhattargarh, District Bikaner by the father of the appellant against deceased Madhuram. Regarding that FIR, (DW-1) Dr. Vijayshri deposed before the trial court that she examined the minor girl and found a bite mark on her cheek. 37. The Investigating Officer (PW-7) Ibrahim Khan has also deposed that the FIR (Exhibit-D/3) was lodged on 12.08.1990 by the father of the appellant, wherein he alleged that the deceased sexually assaulted his minor daughter. The Investigating Officer (PW-7) has further stated that in the said FIR (Exhibit-D/3), he filed the final report because the accused Madhuram had already expired, however, he has not deposed that the said complaint filed by the father of the appellant was false. 38. (PW-12) Pannaram, who has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile, has stated in his statements in chief that (PW-6) Kishnaram came to his agriculture field and stated that his son misbehaved with a girl. 39. Another witness (DW-5) Hemaram has deposed that around one and a half years ago at 12:30 PM, when he was in his agriculture field, a girl came there and stated that when she was going to agriculture field, Madhuram came there and sexually assaulted her and also bit on her cheek. (DW-5) Hemaram has further stated that thereafter he brought that girl to his house and that girl was the daughter of Magha Ram, who happened to be the father of the appellant. 40. From the above piece of evidence, it can be gathered that the reason behind the assault upon Madhuram was the incident of the same morning wherein it was alleged that Madhuram molested the minor sister of the appellant and tried to sexually assault her. 41. 40. From the above piece of evidence, it can be gathered that the reason behind the assault upon Madhuram was the incident of the same morning wherein it was alleged that Madhuram molested the minor sister of the appellant and tried to sexually assault her. 41. We are of the view that though the appellant assaulted deceased Madhuram and inflicted several injuries upon him, it can be safely presumed that he was provoked by the action of the deceased whereby he misbehaved/molested his minor sister. It is also to be noticed that the appellant was not armed but picked up a Lathi from the hamlet of the complainant himself and looking to the nature of injuries it can be gathered that he wanted to teach a lesson to the deceased without any intention to kill him. 42. It is also relevant to note that (PW-6) Kishnaram, in his cross-examination, stated that when he reached the field of the appellant, his son Madhuram was lying there injured asking for water, whereupon (PW-2) Pannaram and co-accused Jagiya @ Jagdish brought some water in a bucket and appellant-Ram Pratap poured some water in the mouth of the deceased. The above piece of evidence shows that even after assaulting the deceased, appellant-Ram Pratap did not leave the scene of crime; he stayed there and even poured water in the mouth of the deceased just before his death. Therefore, in view of the finding reached by us that there was no intention of the accused appellant to kill the victim, the matter requires consideration under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 43. Section 304 IPC reads as under :- “304. Therefore, in view of the finding reached by us that there was no intention of the accused appellant to kill the victim, the matter requires consideration under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 43. Section 304 IPC reads as under :- “304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[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.” 44. Section 304 IPC provides for a punishment for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part-II of Section 304 IPC stipulates the quantum of punishment for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 45. Looking to the nature of the injuries and duration of assault, it can be concluded that accused appellant-Ram Pratap had knowledge of the fact that the injuries inflicted by him may cause death of Madhuram but had no intention to kill him and as such the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 46. So far as sentence part of the convict appellant is concerned, it is to be taken into consideration that the appellant was arrested on 14.08.1990; he remained in custody during trial; he faced trial for 1 year, 4 months and 16 days; his sentence was suspended by this Court on 10.04.1992; he was 26½ years of age at the time of incident and his appeal is pending consideration before this Court since 06.04.1992. 47. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to alter the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC and reduce the sentence awarded to him equivalent to the period already undergone by him. 48. 47. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to alter the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC and reduce the sentence awarded to him equivalent to the period already undergone by him. 48. Accordingly, the instant appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.121/1990 is modified to the extent that the conviction of appellant-Ram Pratap is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC; his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC; the period of sentence awarded to appellant-Ram Pratap is reduced equivalent to the period already undergone by him. 49. The bail bond furnished by the appellant is hereby cancelled. 50. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.