JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri M. Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2015 on the file of X Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, is the appellant herein. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C’) for causing the death of his mother by name S. Desamma on 20.05.2014 at about 7.30 P.M in Eguva Muddikuppam village, S.R. Puram Mandal, with a stick. Vide judgment dated, 13.10.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal came to be filed. 3. The facts in issue are as under: (i) PW-1 is the daughter of accused, while accused is the son of deceased. PWs. 2 to 6 are residents of Eguva Muddikuppam village and living nearby the house of the accused. The accused had three children. It is said that accused married one Sarada, a native of Routhuvanigunta village and was blessed with two daughters and one son. The son of the accused died, while PW-1, the daughter of the accused was married and living elsewhere. The second daughter of accused is said to be residing with PW-1. The accused was in the habit of consuming alcohol and was attending to agricultural work. Though the accused was having cardinal relationship with his wife, but they used to quarrel with each other, whenever accused consumed liquor. It is said that the accused killed his wife by strangulation at Routhuvanigunta village, which lead to his arrest and remand. In respect of the said case, a charge sheet came to be filed and thereafter on committal, came to be tried in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2012, wherein the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life. Challenging the same, an appeal was filed before this Court and it was found that the said appeal was dismissed. After registering the crime against the accused, in respect of causing death to his wife Sarada, the accused was released on bail on surety given by the deceased herein. Challenging the same, an appeal was filed before this Court and it was found that the said appeal was dismissed. After registering the crime against the accused, in respect of causing death to his wife Sarada, the accused was released on bail on surety given by the deceased herein. Thereafter, the accused and his mother (deceased) were residing in one house at Eguva Muddikuppam village. The deceased was looking after the welfare of the accused, as the accused was not doing any work except consuming liquor. It is said that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased to give money and also used to beat her. (ii) On 20.05.2014 at about 7.30 P.M. the accused quarreled with his mother in a drunken state and during the course of the said quarrel, the accused picked up a stick which was lying and beat on the head of the deceased, causing head injury, as a result of which, the deceased fell down with injuries. PWs. 2, 3 and 6, who saw the incident, rushed to the house of the accused and questioned his act, for which accused told them that it was their family affair and asked them not to interfere. After some time, the accused threw the stick in his house with which he beat his mother and left the house. (iii) Information about the incident was given to PW-1, who came to the scene of offence. As it was raining, a report was lodged on the next day morning before PW-11 Sub-Inspector of police, S.R. Puram Police station, which lead to registration of a case in Crime No. 70 of 2014 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P12 is the First Information Report. (iv) Investigation in this case was taken up by PW-12 Inspector of Police, Karvetinagar Circle, who visited the scene of offence and prepared a panchanama of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P6. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P13. At the scene of offence, he examined PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-7. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest, he sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination. At the scene of offence, he examined PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-7. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest, he sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination. (v) PW-8, who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in District Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P8 Post Mortem Certificate. According to her, the cause of death was due to Cardio Respiratory arrest due to head injury and intra cranial hemorrhage. (vi) PW-12, who continued with investigation, arrested the accused on 22.05.2014 and pursuant to the confession made by the accused, recovered one cover from bushes wherein one white colour half shirt and one lungi containing blood stains belonging to the accused. Ex.P10 is the panchanama. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed by PW-13, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 07 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by a Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge under Section 302 I.P.C. came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14, besides marking M.O.1 to M.O.13. Out of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs. 2 and 3 did not support the case of prosecution and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. 6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Relying upon the evidence of PW-6 coupled with the medical evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Relying upon the evidence of PW-6 coupled with the medical evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. Sri M. Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that out of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs. 1 and 3 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the Prosecution and the entire case rests on the evidence of PW-6, which cannot be believed. He submits that in the case of this nature, conviction on the evidence of solitary witness, is not safe. 9. Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, would contend that there are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW-6, who is a natural witness and whose presence at the scene of offence, cannot be doubted. According to him, the evidence of PW-6 is of sterling quality and as such, conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court requires no interference. 10. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?” 11. As seen from the record, out of three eye witnesses to the incident, PWs. 2 and 3 have resiled from their earlier statements and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. PW-6 was examined as an eye witness to the incident. He in his evidence deposed that the name of the first wife of the accused is Sarada and the name of second wife is Padma. The accused got three daughters through first wife. Accused used to quarrel with others in a drunken mood. It is said that when the accused brought his second wife to his house, the first wife went to her parents’ house after quarreling with the accused. Sometime thereafter, the accused brought his first wife to his house. Later, the accused is said to have caused the death of his first wife, pursuant to which, he was arrested and later released on bail on a surety given by the deceased herein, who is none other than his mother. After his release, the accused and deceased were living in the same house and the deceased was peeking out her livelihood by doing coolie work and also by selling vegetables. After his release, the accused and deceased were living in the same house and the deceased was peeking out her livelihood by doing coolie work and also by selling vegetables. With the money earned, she used to take care of the accused. His evidence discloses that accused was not doing any work. On the fateful day i.e. on 20.05.2014 at about 7.30 night, the accused quarrelled with his mother in a drunken state. At that time, PW-6, who was standing at some distance, saw the accused picking up a stick which was lying there and beating his mother on her head, causing bleeding injuries, as a result of which, the deceased fell down. Immediately thereafter, she was taken to hospital, where the doctor declared her brought dead. 12. PW-6 was cross examined at length, but nothing useful came to be elicited to discard his testimony. In fact, the evidence on record also shows that immediately after the incident, PW-6 informed about the incident not only to PW-1 but also to PW-5. 13. The evidence of PW-5 shows that after receipt of information from PW-2 about the incident, he along with PW-2 and another went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying on a cot with bleeding injuries. 14. The evidence of PW-8, who is Post Mortem doctor, shows that there are three external injuries on the body of the deceased i.e. a lacerated injury over frontal region exposing underlying skull bone, a lacerated injury in front of left ear exposing underlying bone and multiple abrasions over left temporal region. He also found a fracture on left side frontal bone and fracture of left temporal bone. However, the doctor opined that the deceased would have died due to Cardio Respiratory arrest due to head injury and intra cranial hemorrhage. 15. From the evidence of PWs. 5 and 6, it is very clear that the accused was living along with his mother in the house, after his release on bail in the earlier case. It is also not in dispute that the accused was not doing any work and he used to quarrel with his mother demanding money. 15. From the evidence of PWs. 5 and 6, it is very clear that the accused was living along with his mother in the house, after his release on bail in the earlier case. It is also not in dispute that the accused was not doing any work and he used to quarrel with his mother demanding money. Even on the fateful day i.e. on 20.05.2014 at about 7.30 P.M. accused quarreled with his mother for money and in the course of the quarrel, he picked up a stick which was lying there and beat on the head of the deceased leading to her death. From the above, two things would follow. Firstly, there was no enmity or ill-will between the accused and the deceased. Secondly, it was the deceased, who stood as surety for the accused and got him released on bail and it was the deceased, who was taking care of the accused by providing all the necessities, while the accused was not doing any work. Since the accused was addicted to alcohol, he was quarreling with the deceased and in that quarrel, the incident in question took place. Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is not the number of injuries on the body and the place where the injuries are caused is the matter in deciding the nature of offence, but the manner in which the incident took place also has to be looked into. 16. Taking into consideration the manner in which the incident took place, we feel that the nature of offence is to be scaled down to one under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. more so, when he had no intention to cause the death and the attack on deceased took place during a quarrel. It is nobody’s case that the accused was there on the date of incident armed with weapon as well. 17. It is nobody’s case that the accused was there on the date of incident armed with weapon as well. 17. Under those circumstances, taking into consideration the manner in which the incident took place and having regard to the fact that the incident took place in a spur of moment and in the absence of any ill-will, motive or prior enmity between the accused and the deceased, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant/accused has to be scaled down to one under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. Hence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is set-aside and the appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. The period of sentence undergone by the Appellant/Accused as remand prisoner shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Appellant/Accused shall be set at liberty forthwith on completion of ten [10] years imprisonment, if not required in connection with any other case or crime. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. 19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.