JUDGMENT : K.SUJANA, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.04.2015 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, in S.C.No.702 of 2006 wherein, the appellant/accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Safia Begum was the wife of accused and their marriage took place about 18 years prior to April, 2006. Out of their wedlock, the deceased gave birth to three daughters and a son. PW.3 – Salma, is the elder daughter. After about ten years of marriage, the accused got addicted to alcohol and used to threaten the deceased for money and also used to beat her frequently. Several times PWs.1 and 2 who are brothers of the deceased made efforts to convince the accused to mend his ways but their efforts failed. On 01.04.2006 the accused demanded money from his wife to purchase liquor and when she denied to give money and warned the accused to leave his company, he became wild and in rage, doused kerosene on the body of deceased and set her ablaze. Seeing the incident, PW.3 raised hues and cries. On hearing the same, the father of accused and neighbours rushed to the house and shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kollapur. Later, she was shifted to the District Head Quarters’ Hospital, Mahabubnagar, for treatment, where the dying declaration of deceased was recorded. 3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and got marked M.Os.1 and 2. On behalf of accused, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. Basing on the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused, as stated supra. 4. Heard Smt Pendyala Suhasini Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/accused, and Sri T.V.Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State. 5. Learned counsel for appellant/accused would submit that though there were number of loopholes in the case of prosecution, the trial Court convicted the accused and that the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. 4. Heard Smt Pendyala Suhasini Reddy, learned counsel for appellant/accused, and Sri T.V.Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent – State. 5. Learned counsel for appellant/accused would submit that though there were number of loopholes in the case of prosecution, the trial Court convicted the accused and that the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. The trial Court erred in convicting the accused as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 who are interested witnesses and that the accused has no motive, intention, premediated plan and mens rea to kill the deceased and he was not in a position to anticipate the result of his action as he was in drunken condition and he had no knowledge that his action would lead to the death of deceased instantly. Therefore, she prayed the Court to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court by acquitting the appellant. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 corroborates with each other. Further, the dying declaration of victim itself is sufficient to convict the accused. As such, there are no merits in the appeal and the judgment of the trial Court is well founded, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and the evidence on record, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ? 2. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs interference? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 8. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14. PW.1 is the complainant and the brother of deceased. His evidence is that the marriage of his sister was performed with the accused and both lived happily and were blessed with four children. After ten years of their marriage, the accused got addicted to liquor and began harassing the deceased demanding to get more money. PW.1 deposed that several times, he has tried to convince the accused to live amicably but the accused has not changed his attitude. He further deposed that on 01.04.2006 he came to know through one Rafiuddin who is the paternal uncle of the accused that his sister died due to burns and was admitted in the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar. PW.1 deposed that several times, he has tried to convince the accused to live amicably but the accused has not changed his attitude. He further deposed that on 01.04.2006 he came to know through one Rafiuddin who is the paternal uncle of the accused that his sister died due to burns and was admitted in the Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar. Then when he enquired with his sister as to what happened, she informed him that the accused was harassing her and demanding money and under intoxication, he poured kerosene and set her ablaze. PW.2 is the younger brother of PW.1. He deposed on the same lines as that of PW.1. PW.3 is the daughter of the deceased and accused. Her evidence is that her father used to beat her mother and used to demand money for purchasing liquor. She deposed that on 10.04.2006 her father picked up quarrel with her mother as she refused to give money for purchasing liquor, he poured kerosene on her mother and set fire. She was shifted to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, as she succumbed to burn injuries. PW.4 is the panch for inquest panchanama. PW.5 is the panch for scene of offence panchanama. PW.6 is the Judicial Officer who recorded the statement of the deceased. According to him, the deceased stated to him that the accused used to beat and abuse her for money to purchase liquor and when she refused to give money, he poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. PW.7 is the Investigating Officer who deposed about the investigation done by him. PW.8 is the brother of deceased. His evidence is that while he was at his work shop, he was informed by the driver of ambulance that the accused set fire to the deceased, thereupon, he went to the District Headquarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar and saw his sister with burn injuries. PW.9 is also the relative of deceased. His evidence is that when he went to the Hospital, on his enquiry, the deceased informed him that the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire. PW.10 is the neighbor of the accused and deceased. He deposed that regularly the accused used to insist the deceased for money to purchase alcohol and beat her frequently in intoxicated condition. His evidence is that when he went to the Hospital, on his enquiry, the deceased informed him that the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire. PW.10 is the neighbor of the accused and deceased. He deposed that regularly the accused used to insist the deceased for money to purchase alcohol and beat her frequently in intoxicated condition. On the date of incident, on hearing the commotion, when he came out of his house, he saw few people bringing out the deceased from her house. He deposed that he saw burn injuries on the body of deceased and through other people he came to know that accused set fire on deceased and ran away. PW.11 is the panch for inquest. PW.12 is the panch for confession. PW.13 is the R.M.O., Nilopher Hospital, Hyderabad, who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. PW.14 is presently the S.I., of Women Police Station, at Mahabubnagar, who identified the signature of one Yousuf Khan, who was the A.S.I., at the Police out-post Headquarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar, working along with him. PW.14 recorded the statement of PW.1 and proceeded to the District Headquarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar, and conducted the inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and also conducted the scene of offence panchanama. 9. The evidence of PWs.1 to 14 is relied upon by the prosecution to prove the accusation against the accused. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the deceased and the accused, and that they have four children. The prosecution mainly relied on the dying declaration given by the deceased, wherein, she stated that the accused used to harass her in drunken condition and that on the date of incident, the accused demanded money from deceased to purchase alcohol and when she refused to give money, the accused started beating her and poured kerosene on her and lit fire. The dying declaration of deceased corroborates with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PWs.1 and 2 are brothers of deceased who deposed about the marriage of deceased and accused and their relationship. PW.3 is the daughter of the deceased and accused and her evidence also corroborates with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. The dying declaration of deceased corroborates with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PWs.1 and 2 are brothers of deceased who deposed about the marriage of deceased and accused and their relationship. PW.3 is the daughter of the deceased and accused and her evidence also corroborates with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. However, though there are discrepancies with regard to the presence of children in the house, according to the deceased, at the time of the incident, the children were not present and it was only herself and accused in the house, whereas, according to PW.3, all the children were present in the house when the accused poured kerosene on deceased and set fire. As there is no discrepancy with regard to pouring of kerosene by the accused on the deceased, the minor discrepancy cannot be taken into consideration. The other witnesses also deposed about the attitude of the accused that he was habituated to liquor and he used to quarrel with deceased, as such, there is no dispute that the accused used to consume liquor and harass the deceased. 10. The trial Court relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW.10 who is the neighbour, and came to conclusion that the accused used to harass the deceased for money to purchase liquor, as such, convicted the accused as stated supra. 11. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material and evidence placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/accused vide judgment dated 27.04.2015 in S.C.No.702 of 2006. As seen from the record, there are disputes between the accused and deceased, due to which the wife started residing with her parents and later the husband also joined her in the same house. Admittedly, the accused is habituated to drinking alcohol. That apart, the occurrence of the incident was not pre-mediated. From the evidence available, it is presumed under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., going by the natural conduct, that in the sudden quarrel, the accused had committed crime. Thus, the act of the accused would squarely fall under the first exception to Section 300 of IPC, and fourth limb of the Section 300 of IPC. From the evidence available, it is presumed under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, i.e., going by the natural conduct, that in the sudden quarrel, the accused had committed crime. Thus, the act of the accused would squarely fall under the first exception to Section 300 of IPC, and fourth limb of the Section 300 of IPC. As such, having regard to the fact that the appellant/accused committed offence in the heat of anger due to the sudden quarrel that took place between him and the deceased and that he was in drunken condition at the time of incident, this Court deems it fit to modify the conviction of the appellant/accused from the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC to the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered. 12. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the judgment dated 27.04.2015 in S.C.No.702 of 2006 passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, is modified, finding the appellant not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, while finding him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. However, as the appellant/accused is in jail from last twelve years, the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant/accused be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. The Bail bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.