JUDGMENT : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P. P. for the State. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2018 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S. T. No. 69 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 17.09.2008 at 6:00 A.M., the rain water flowing from the house of Titu Mahto had entered into the house of the informant which resulted in an altercation between the father of the informant, Titu Mahto and the brother of the informant namely, Ashok Yadav at which Titu Mahto, Krishnadeo Yadav and Mithu Mahto variously armed had started abusing them and at the instigation of Titu Mahto, Krishnadeo Yadav gave a tangi blow on the head of Ashok Yadav and when the informant tried to save his brother, Krishnadeo Yadav assaulted him as well on his head with an axe. When both the brothers fell down, they were indiscriminately assaulted by rod by Mithu Mahto. On alarm, neighbours had assembled who pacified the situation. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mohanpur P. S. Case No. 173 of 2008 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 & 34 of I.P.C. against Titu Mahto, Krishnadeo Mahto and Mithu Mahto. Since Ashok Yadav had died during the treatment, Section 302 of I.P.C. was added vide order dated 18.09.2008. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Mohanpur P. S. Case No. 173 of 2008 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 & 34 of I.P.C. against Titu Mahto, Krishnadeo Mahto and Mithu Mahto. Since Ashok Yadav had died during the treatment, Section 302 of I.P.C. was added vide order dated 18.09.2008. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 302/34 of I.P.C. against Titu Mahto, Krishnadeo Yadav, Mithu Mahto and Tara Devi pursuant to which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S. T. No. 69 of 2009. Charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 302/307/34 of I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 – Urmila Devi has stated that at the time of the incident, she was in her house. Due to rain water entering into her house from the house of Titu Mahto, her brother-in-law, Ashok Yadav started conversing with Titu Mahto and in the meantime, Hargovind Mahto, Mithu Mahto, Krishnadeo Mahto, Mohan Sao and Tara Devi came and Hargovind Yadav gave an order to assault Ashok Yadav. At this Krishnadeo Yadav assaulted Ashok Yadav with an axe on head which led to a bleeding injury. Mohan Yadav assaulted Ashok Yadav on his head with a spade. When Pramod Yadav came to save Ashok Yadav, he was assaulted with an iron rod on head by Mithu Yadav. Both Ashok Yadav and Pramod Yadav due to the assault fell on the ground. The accused persons fled away. Her husband and other villagers took the injured to Mohanpur hospital. She has stated that Ashok Yadav was taken to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for treatment where he died in course of treatment. The accused Mithu Yadav died while in custody. In cross-examination, she has deposed that at the time of the incident, none of the villagers had come. Both the sides share a common courtyard. The occurrence had taken place in the courtyard. He had not seen any sort of injuries on the person of the accused. The accused Mithu Yadav had on the same day instituted a case against her husband and others. Both the sides share a common courtyard. The occurrence had taken place in the courtyard. He had not seen any sort of injuries on the person of the accused. The accused Mithu Yadav had on the same day instituted a case against her husband and others. P.W. 2 – Sunita Devi is the wife of the informant Pramod Yadav who has stated that the incident had taken place about a year back at 6:00 A.M. It was raining and water was flowing towards her house. Her brother-in-law Ashok Yadav and Titu Mahto were discussing the matter relating to water entering into the house at which point of time, Mithu Mahto, Hargovind Yadav, Krishnadeo Yadav, Mohan Mahto and Tara Devi came. Hargovind Yadav was armed with an iron rod, Krishnadeo Yadav with an axe, Mohan with a spade and Mithu with a rod. Hargovind Yadav had assaulted Ashok Yadav with an iron rod on his head and Krishnadeo Yadav also assaulted Ashok Yadav with an axe on head. When Pramod Yadav came to save Ashok Yadav, he was assaulted on his head by Mithu Yadav with a rod. Both Ashok Yadav and Pramod Yadav were taken to Mohanpur hospital from where Ashok Yadav was referred to Sadar hospital for better treatment. In course of treatment, Ashok Yadav died. In cross-examination, she has deposed that her husband and father-in-law reside in the same house and the courtyard is common. Arising out of the same incident, Titu Mahto had also instituted a case against her husband and others. She had not seen any injuries on the person of the accused. Her father had two marriages and Ashok Yadav and her husband were born out of his first marriage. P.W. 3 – Sushila Devi is the wife of the deceased Ashok Yadav who has stated that at the time of the incident, she was standing in the door steps of her house, when she saw her husband and father-in-law conversing. At that point of time, Hargovind Yadav, Krishnadeo Yadav, Mohan Yadav, Tara Devi, Mithu Mahto came who were variously armed and Hargovind Yadav by instigating others committed an assault on Ashok Yadav with a rod followed by Krishnadeo Yadav with an axe and Mohan Yadav with a rod. When her brother-in-law Pramod Yadav went to save Ashok Yadav, Mithu Mahto had assaulted him with a spade on his head. When her brother-in-law Pramod Yadav went to save Ashok Yadav, Mithu Mahto had assaulted him with a spade on his head. The accused persons after committing the assault had fled away. Both the injured were sent to Mohanpur Government Hospital from where her husband was referred to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for better treatment, where he died in course of treatment. Pramod Yadav was treated at Mohanpur Hospital itself. In cross-examination, she has deposed that in her house there are 10 rooms. The accused persons also stayed in the rooms in the same premises having a common courtyard. When her husband fell on the ground in an injured state, her brother-in-law had come. When she had raised an alarm, her brother-in-law had come. Chanwa Devi, Tara Devi and others on hearing the cry of alarm had also assembled. She has deposed that Krishnadeo Yadav had given an axe blow upon her husband and when he fell down, the accused persons fled away. Several persons of the village had thereafter assembled, though she does not remember the name of any of them. She had not seen any injuries on the person of Krishnadeo and Mithu. P.W. 4 – Pramod Yadav is the informant and injured who has stated about the incident which occurred two years back at 6:00 A.M. He had gone to defecate when he heard shouting and when he came back home, he had seen his father Titu Yadav quarrelling with Ashok Yadav. The rain water from the house of Titu Yadav was flowing towards the house of Ashok Yadav and this was the cause for quarrel. In the meantime, Hargovind Yadav came and by instigating others had himself assaulted Ashok Yadav with a rod on head. This was followed by Krishnadeo Yadav who assaulted Ashok Yadav on head with an axe and Mithu Yadav and Mohan Yadav assaulted Ashok Yadav on head with rods. When he had gone to save his brother, Krishnadeo Yadav assaulted him with an axe on his head and he had also suffered injury on his finger. He had fallen down unconscious and he remained in such state for 30 minutes. He had identified his signature in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit 1. Ashok Yadav was treated at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar where in course of treatment he died. He had fallen down unconscious and he remained in such state for 30 minutes. He had identified his signature in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit 1. Ashok Yadav was treated at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar where in course of treatment he died. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the house of both the sides are beside a common courtyard. With respect to the same incident, a case was instituted against him and others. Hargovind Yadav is the uncle of Ashok Yadav with whom there was no previous enmity. P.W. 5 – Tarni Yadav, P.W. 6 Dilip Yadav, P.W. 7 Vijay Yadav and P.W. 8 Bhagirath Yadav did not support the case of the prosecution and were accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 9 – Dr. Anand Bardhan was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and on 18.09.2008 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ashok Yadav and had found the following: “Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, eye open, mouth closed. External Examination: Sekel an incise would over scalp tender parietal region about 4”x 3/4” skin deep with clinically fractured of tempro parietal bone. On internal examination: Scalp fractured of tempro parietal bone corresponding to injuries. Brain and meningest congested corresponding to fracture parts. Hematoma present beneath two fracture parts, lest part of brain and meningest pail. Neck nad, chest both lungs pail. Heard, left chamber empty, right chamber full of blood. Stomach – stomach contain about 1.50 m.l. of semi digested food particles. Intestine – contain fecal matter fluid and gas.’ Urine bladder – contain about 50 m.l. of urine. Time elapsed since death between 18-24 hours at the time of P.H. examination.” The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhage as a result of the above noted injuries. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 2. P.W. 10 – Dr. Sanchayan was posted as a Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Mohanpur, Deoghar and on 17.09.2008 he had examined Ashok Kumar Yadav and had found the following injuries: “Lacerated wound on left side on scalp in colour size 2” x 1/8” x skin deep. Weakness – left side of open and lower limbs. P.W. 10 – Dr. Sanchayan was posted as a Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Mohanpur, Deoghar and on 17.09.2008 he had examined Ashok Kumar Yadav and had found the following injuries: “Lacerated wound on left side on scalp in colour size 2” x 1/8” x skin deep. Weakness – left side of open and lower limbs. Marks of identification – a black mark on left side on sub mendicular reason.” On the same day, he had examined Pramod Yadav and had found the following injuries: (i) A lacerated wound on right side of skull above right ear 3” x 1/8” x skin deep, red in colour. (ii) A lacerated wound on left hand on forth finger, red in colour. 1” x 1/8” x skin deep. The nature of injury was found to be simple caused by hard and blunt substance. Both the injury reports have been proved and marked as Exhibit 3 and 3/1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the injury may be caused by fall on hard surface or wall. P.W. 11 – Jagdish Rai is the Investigating Officer who after taking over investigation had inspected the place of occurrence and had recorded the statement of the witnesses who all have supported the prosecution case. He has also prepared the inquest report of Ashok Yadav and had also obtained the injury report of Ashok Yadav and Pramod Yadav. He had also obtained the post mortem report of Ashok Yadav and on completion of investigation had submitted charge-sheet against Titu Mahto, Krishnadeo Yadav, Mithu Mahto @ Yadav and Tara Devi. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit 4. He has also proved the acknowledgement in the written report which has been marked as Exhibit 5. In cross-examination, he has deposed that witness Urmila Devi had never disclosed before him that Hargovind Yadav had committed the murder of Ashok Yadav. She has also not stated that Hargovind Yadav and Krishnadeo Yadav had assaulted Ashok Yadav with axe. She had not stated that Mohan Yadav had assaulted Ashok Yadav with a spade and when Pramod Yadav came to save his brother, Mithu had assaulted him with a rod. He has deposed that Sunita Devi had not disclosed before him the manner of assault and the participation of Hargovind Yadav, Krishnadeo Yadav, Mithu, Mohan in the said assault. She had not stated that Mohan Yadav had assaulted Ashok Yadav with a spade and when Pramod Yadav came to save his brother, Mithu had assaulted him with a rod. He has deposed that Sunita Devi had not disclosed before him the manner of assault and the participation of Hargovind Yadav, Krishnadeo Yadav, Mithu, Mohan in the said assault. The witness Sushila Yadav had also not stated about the accused persons being armed and committing assault upon Ashok Yadav and Pramod Yadav. The witness Pramod Yadav in his statement had not stated about Mithu, Mohan Yadav and Hargovind Yadav committing assault upon the Ashok Yadav. 6. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied to have participated in the assault upon Ashok Yadav and Pramod Yadav. 7. Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the case of the prosecution has been destablised by the evidence of the eye-witnesses who have given a completely different version of the occurrence. It has been submitted that as per the evidences of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, it was Hargovind Yadav who had played a predominant role in the incident, but as per the Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) none of the said witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated so. Mr. Yadav has submitted that no role has been assigned to Titu Mahto and Tara Devi by any of the witnesses of having participated in the assault or having been involved in any manner with the incident of assault. So far as the Krishnadeo Yadav is concerned, even if it is assumed that he had participated in the assault, the same cannot be treated to be premeditated and had occurred at the spur of the moment due to the dispute between Titu Mahto and Ashok Yadav regarding flowing of rain water to the house of Ashok Yadav from the house of Titu Yadav. 8. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P. P has opposed such contention and has stated about the evidence of the eye-witnesses who all have supported the involvement of the appellants. It has been submitted that the assault was pre-planned considering the fact that the accused were variously armed and the quarrel between Titu Mahto and Ashok Yadav was used as a ruse to commit such assault. It has been submitted that the assault was pre-planned considering the fact that the accused were variously armed and the quarrel between Titu Mahto and Ashok Yadav was used as a ruse to commit such assault. Learned P. P. has therefore, submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial court is based on a proper appreciation of the evidences available on record. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the lower court records. 10. The first information report lodged by Pramod Yadav (P.W. 4) categorized the commission of assault upon Ashok Yadav (deceased) and Pramod Yadav by Krishnadeo Yadav and when both fell down, they were assaulted by Mithu Yadav, who has died during the pendency of the trial. Titu Mahto has been attributed the role of instigator and so far as the appellant Tara Devi is concerned, her presence in the entire episode has been noted in course of investigation. 11. The pre-cursor to the incident of assault appears to be of rain water entering from the house of Titu Mahto to the house of Ashok Yadav which led to a quarrel and the subsequent assault. Incidentally, Titu Mahto is the father of Ashok Yadav and Pramod Yadav, who were born from his first marriage as would be evident from the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. The accused persons and the informant side are all therefore related to each other. 12. The appellant Titu Mahto has been alleged by the prosecution of instigating the others to commit assault. However, none of the witnesses seems to have stated so and the instigation and the initiation of the assault has been attributed to Hargovind Yadav. P.W. 4 has stated that when he came from the field after answering the call of nature, he had seen his father Titu Mahto and the deceased Ashok Yadav quarrelling. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence connecting the appellant Titu Mahto with the alleged incident. So far as the appellant Tara Devi is concerned, P.W. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 have stated about her presence when the deceased and Titu Mahto were conversing. Except her presence which is understandable since all the persons resided in the same premises having a common courtyard, there is no evidence of the appellant Tara Devi having participated in any manner either directly or indirectly in the incident. 13. 1, 2 & 3 have stated about her presence when the deceased and Titu Mahto were conversing. Except her presence which is understandable since all the persons resided in the same premises having a common courtyard, there is no evidence of the appellant Tara Devi having participated in any manner either directly or indirectly in the incident. 13. The main assault appears to be against Hargovind Yadav and the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav, who had assaulted the deceased Ashok Yadav with rod and axe respectively. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have all stated likewise. Their evidence seems to be an improvement as P.W. 11 (I.O.) has categorically stated that in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., none of the said witnesses have stated what their evidences suggest. Further what could be culled out from their evidences especially of P.W. 4 is that the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav seems to be a common factor and his participation in the assault is beyond doubt. At the same time, we must have a glimpse once again of the prologue which culminated in the incident. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that rain water was coming to the house of the deceased Ashok Yadav from the house of Titu Mahto which caused a quarrel. We must take note of the fact that both the sides are related to each other. It also appears that Titu Mahto had two marriages and deceased Ashok Yadav and Pramod Yadav (P.W. 4) are the children born out of the first marriage. It is also an admitted fact that the entire family members including Titu Mahto resided in the same premises, albeit in different rooms, though sharing a common courtyard. The dispute as noticed above had started on account of the rain water entering into the house of the deceased Ashok Yadav from the house of Titu Mahto and this led to a quarrel which culminated in an indiscriminate assault upon Ashok Yadav which led to his death. The entire scenario as can be deciphered from the evidences of the witnesses and the surrounding circumstances would suggest that there was no premeditated plan on the part of the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav to have taken part in the assault upon Ashok Yadav which led to his death. The entire scenario as can be deciphered from the evidences of the witnesses and the surrounding circumstances would suggest that there was no premeditated plan on the part of the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav to have taken part in the assault upon Ashok Yadav which led to his death. The post mortem report reveals that there was only one incised wound over the scalp which led to fracture of tempo parietal bone. It would therefore appear that the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav had given one blow with an axe on the head of the deceased Ashok Yadav which would clearly indicate that there was no premeditated or preconceived plan on the part of the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav to commit the murder of Ashok Yadav. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav had committed an indiscriminate assault on the person of Ashok Yadav and in fact the findings of the post mortem report further fortify the case of the defence that only one blow was given by the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav on the deceased Ashok Yadav. In the context of the evidence and the findings recorded above, the conviction cannot be sustained for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and the appellant is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. 14. In the case of “Atul Thakur Vs. State of H. P.” reported in (2018) 2 SCC 496 , while considering Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C., it has been held as follows: 12. Taking overall view of the matter, the facts of the present case warrant invocation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. For, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder inasmuch as the incident happened on account of sudden fight between the friends who had gathered for a drink party arranged at the behest of Hitesh Thakur. There was no premeditation and the act done by the appellant was in the heat of passion without the appellant taking any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The number of wounds caused by the appellant, it is a well-established position, by itself cannot be a decisive factor. The High Court committed manifest error in being influenced by the said fact. What is relevant is that the occurrence was sudden and not premeditated and the offender acted in the heat of passion. The number of wounds caused by the appellant, it is a well-established position, by itself cannot be a decisive factor. The High Court committed manifest error in being influenced by the said fact. What is relevant is that the occurrence was sudden and not premeditated and the offender acted in the heat of passion. The evidence supports the case of the appellant in this behalf. The fact that the appellant used weapon such as knife, is also not a decisive factor to attract Section 302 IPC. Neither the use of a knife in the commission of offence nor the factum of multiple injuries given by the appellant would deny the appellant of the benefit of Exception 4. 13. Dealing with a somewhat similar situation, in Surain Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court has restated the settled legal position about the purport of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Even in that case, the accused had repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a kirpan and caused injuries resulting into death. After restating the legal position, the Court converted the offence to one under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302 IPC. Following the same legal principle and keeping in mind the factual position as unfolded, the view taken by the trial court of convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, is unexceptionable. 14. The trial court had observed thus: “60. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution reveals that deceased Hitesh and the accused were having cordial relations since long, knowing each other and were good friends. A party was organised by the deceased in the room of accused Mukesh and the deceased himself invited all the accused to attend the party. In this party, large quantity of alcohol was consumed by them and suddenly an altercation took place between deceased Hitesh and accused Atul Thakur as a result of which accused Atul stabbed Hitesh, which resulted into his death. … 61. There is no doubt that Hitesh met a homicidal death on the night intervening 27-7-2011/28-7-2011 at IGMC, Shimla consequent to stab injury inflicted by accused Atul Thakur. The question which arises for consideration is whether this action of the accused which caused the death of Hitesh would amount to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. … 61. There is no doubt that Hitesh met a homicidal death on the night intervening 27-7-2011/28-7-2011 at IGMC, Shimla consequent to stab injury inflicted by accused Atul Thakur. The question which arises for consideration is whether this action of the accused which caused the death of Hitesh would amount to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is an admitted fact that there was no enmity between the deceased and this accused rather they were having cordial relations. The fact that there was a physical fight between the deceased and the accused Atul, cannot be denied because it has come in the evidence of PW 11 Himanshu, PW 12 Manoj Bansal and PW 1 Ashutosh that a physical fight had taken place between them. In these circumstances, this Court will have to examine the prosecution evidence whether the accused Atul had taken an undue advantage or acted in a cruel or inimical manner so as to deprive him of the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300. In fact, the prosecution could not prove any motive for killing the deceased by the accused. The drinking session in the room of the accused Mukesh Thakur was by mutual consent. From these circumstances, it can be held that the incident in question took place in a sudden fight in the heat of possession (sic passion). The next question which arises for consideration is whether the accused Atul did take an undue advantage of the said fight or acted in a cruel or inimical manner. Keeping in view the fact that both the deceased and accused had consumed considerable amount of alcohol, which is established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be altogether ruled out that the stab injuries inflicted were not with an intention of taking undue advantage by the accused Atul. It is probable that in an inebriated condition the accused inflicted the injuries because of the physical fight between them. Moreover, keeping in view the nature of the injuries noticed by Dr Sandeep Kaushik in the MLC, Ext. PW 18/A, it is difficult to accept that the accused Atul Thakur intended to cause the death of Hitesh or that the injuries were so dangerous that they would in all probability, cause death. Moreover, keeping in view the nature of the injuries noticed by Dr Sandeep Kaushik in the MLC, Ext. PW 18/A, it is difficult to accept that the accused Atul Thakur intended to cause the death of Hitesh or that the injuries were so dangerous that they would in all probability, cause death. Nevertheless, the injuries were quite serious, the accused can surely be credited with the knowledge that if an injury is caused with a knife on the chest or abdomen of a person then this act is likely to cause the death of the victim. 62. Having considered the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the accused Atul Thakur can only be found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, Penal Code.” 15. There does not appear to be any previous enmity between the parties who all are relatives residing in the same premises in different rooms having a common courtyard and there also does not appear to be any motive in existence and only on account of the rain water flowing from the house of the appellant Titu Mahto to the house of the deceased Ashok Yadav, the incident had occurred. 16. In view of what we have discussed above, so far as the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 535 of 2018 are concerned, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the said appellants and consequently the judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2018 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S. T. No. 69 of 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside, so far as these appellants are concerned. Since both the appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. 17. As regards, the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 575 of 2018 is concerned, it has already been held that at best a case under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. is made out against the said appellant and consequently the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2018 passed by Sri Vijay Kumar, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S. T. No. 69 of 2009 is modified and the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 575 of 2018 is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Since it appears that the appellant Krishnadeo Yadav in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 575 of 2018 has remained in custody for more than 10 years and has accordingly completed the modified sentence imposed upon him by this court, he is directed to be released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 18. Both these appeals are disposed of.