JUDGMENT : (V. Srinivas, J.): Assailing the judgment dated 19.08.2015 in S.C.No.448 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge at Tenali, convicted the accused for the charges under Section 302 and 324 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC), the appellant/accused filed the present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. This Criminal Appeal was admitted on 01.11.2016. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). P.W.1 and P.W.4 are the second daughter and husband of one Savalam Nagendramma (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively. The marriage of P.W.1 was performed with the accused and out of wedlock they were blessed with a male child. While P.W.1 was carrying seventh month pregnancy for second time, the accused suspected her fidelity claiming that he is not responsible for her pregnancy and used to harass her. When P.W.1 went to her parental house for formal sleep since she was pregnant, on 25.12.2013, on the day of Christmas festival, accused went to the parental house of P.W.1, demanded the deceased to send P.W.1 along with him for termination of her pregnancy, picked up quarrel with deceased and threatened to kill her. On the intervention of P.W.9 and L.W.16-Mandru Tirupathamma, accused left the place by threatening the deceased to see her end. ii). On 21.01.2014, the deceased and her daughter (P.W.1) went to Tenali for medical checkup by P.W.17 and after completion of medical checkup, when they went to New Navayuga Hotel, Market Area, Tenali to have tiffin, the accused who followed them, went to chicken stall of P.W.10, took a knife, went to the said hotel at about 1.00 p.m., caught hold the head of deceased, twisted her head to the back, cut the neck of the deceased deeply on either side and thereby caused bleeding injuries. When P.W.1 caught hold the knife with her left hand to rescue the deceased, her left hand middle three fingers received cut injuries. P.W.5, who is supplier in the said hotel, P.W.11 and other customers, witnessed the incident. On that accused escaped from the spot by throwing the knife in front of cash counter of the hotel. Due to over bleeding, the deceased died and P.W.1 was shifted to District Hospital, Tenali for treatment. iii). P.W.5, who is supplier in the said hotel, P.W.11 and other customers, witnessed the incident. On that accused escaped from the spot by throwing the knife in front of cash counter of the hotel. Due to over bleeding, the deceased died and P.W.1 was shifted to District Hospital, Tenali for treatment. iii). On receipt of Ex.P.14 admission intimation of P.W.1, on the same day, P.W.18-A.S.I of Police, I Town Police Station, Tenali, recorded Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1 and basing on the same, registered a case in Cr.No.8 of 2014 under Ex.P.15 F.I.R. for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and investigated into by P.W.19 Inspector of Police. PW19 recorded the statements of witnesses and on 28.01.2014, in the presence of mediators, arrested the accused. P.W.16, who treated P.W.1, issued Ex.P.13 wound certificate of P.W.1 as well P.W.15, who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased issued Ex.P.12 report opining that the cause of death is ‘severe bleeding and cardiac arrest due to the injuries referred by him’. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.19 laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and the same was taken cognizance vide P.R.C.No.14 of 2014 on the file of Court of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tenali and committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.448 of 2014 on the file of Court of the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge at Tenali and after full-fledged trial, the accused was found guilty of the charges under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and accordingly the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for LIFE and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three (3) months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the accused was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of three (3) months for the offence under Section 324 IPC. It is further ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal. Pending criminal appeal, this Court granted bail to the appellant/accused, vide orders dated 24.08.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021. 6. It is further ordered that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused preferred the present appeal. Pending criminal appeal, this Court granted bail to the appellant/accused, vide orders dated 24.08.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021. 6. Heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri K.Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 7. Now the point that arises for determination in this appeal is “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge levelled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt?” 8. Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that there are no direct witnesses to the incident; that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 is interested in nature; that P.Ws.3 to 5 and others did not witness the incident; that the basic ingredient for commission of a crime would be motive, which is absent in the present case; even if the prosecution story is taken to be correct, the appellant/accused cannot be said to be guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C., since as per own testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, intention to kill the deceased was neither alleged nor established; that even as per the testimony of P.W.15 medical officer, the injuries found on the dead body of deceased are lacerated injuries, which cannot be caused with M.O.2 and that the intention to cause death is not established, as is evident from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. 9. He further submits that as per the testimony of P.W.1, the deceased was suffering from heart problem and even if the death was caused with such injury, it is only homicide, but it does not amount to commission of murder; that the death of the deceased was said to be caused on account of excessive bleeding as no arrangement for medical treatment of the deceased was made by PW1 and other witnesses who gathered at the scene of offence since the time of the incident and till she died. Thereby, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the charges leveled against the appellant and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective and erroneously convicted the appellant for the said charges, as such, prays to consider the present appeal. 10. Thereby, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the charges leveled against the appellant and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective and erroneously convicted the appellant for the said charges, as such, prays to consider the present appeal. 10. Sri K. Anand Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.W.1, who is injured eye-witness to the incident, which is corroborated by testimony of P.W.5 and other witnesses categorically proved the incident; that the prosecution is able to prove that the accused committed the murder of deceased as well caused injuries to P.W.1 by examining P.Ws.1 to 19 and producing Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs.1 to 6 , as such, he is liable for punishment for the charges leveled against him; that the trial Court after appreciating the material on record in a right perspective has convicted the accused for the said charges; that there are no valid ground urged by the appellant to meddle with the findings recorded by the trial Court, thereby, prays to dismiss the appeal. Discussion and findings: - 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 19. P.W.1 who is second daughter of deceased as well wife of accused, said to be injured eye witness to the incident, P.W.2 who is son of elder sister of deceased and arrived at the spot immediately after the incident, P.W.3 sister of P.W.1, who also visited the spot after the incident, P.W.4 father of P.W.1 and husband of deceased, who came to know about the murder of deceased, P.W.5, who is supplier in the said hotel and present at the time of incident found the accused at the spot holding a knife. PWs 6 to 8 who are running a juice shop, sweet shop and working in the said sweet shop respectively, near the place of incident, came to the spot after the incident and found P.W.1 with injuries and dead body of the deceased at the spot. 12. PW9 who is said to be related to the deceased testified about the matrimonial disputes between P.W.1 and accused prior to the incident. PW10 who is working in the Chicken Stall in the market area, where the accused allegedly secured M.O.2 knife to commit the offence. 12. PW9 who is said to be related to the deceased testified about the matrimonial disputes between P.W.1 and accused prior to the incident. PW10 who is working in the Chicken Stall in the market area, where the accused allegedly secured M.O.2 knife to commit the offence. PW11 who is owner of the hotel remained as a hostile witness to the prosecution case. PW12 is the photographer. P.Ws.13 and 14 are the mediators for observation of scene of offence, inquest over the dead body of the deceased and arrest of the accused respectively. PW15 is the medical officer who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.12 postmortem report. PW16 is the doctor, who treated P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.13 wound certificate. P.W.17 is the doctor, who made medical checkup to P.W.1 just before the incident. P.W.18 is SI of Police, who recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered Ex.P.15 F.I.R. and P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer. 13. To prove the incident, the only substantial testimony available to the prosecution is P.W.1, who is said to be injured eyewitness to the incident, wife of the accused and daughter of the deceased. She categorically testified that since she conceived for the second time, her husband started suspecting her character and disowning the same stating that he is not responsible for the pregnancy. When her mother took her to their house for formal sleep, on 25.12.2013, on the day of Christmas festival, the accused came to the house of her parents, picked up quarrel with her mother claiming that he was not responsible for the pregnancy, threatened to kill her and her mother (deceased). 14. She further testified that on 21.01.2014, the deceased brought her to Tenali for medical checkup and after completion of medical checkup by P.W.17 and when they are in Hotel Aurogya Bhavan to have tiffin, the accused came there, picked out knife concealed in the naval area, caught hold the tuft of her mother, twisted her head towards back and cut her throat with that knife. When she caught hold the said knife, her fingers received cut injuries and then accused ran away from the spot by throwing the said knife and that she was shifted to Government Hospital and police recorded her Ex.P.1 statement. 15. When she caught hold the said knife, her fingers received cut injuries and then accused ran away from the spot by throwing the said knife and that she was shifted to Government Hospital and police recorded her Ex.P.1 statement. 15. Coming to the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 4 and 9, it is relevant to the extent of proving the matrimonial disputes between the accused and P.W.1 in suspecting the character of P.W.1 by the accused, but not in proving the incident. However, as per their testimony, P.Ws.2 and 3 reached the scene of offence immediately after the incident and found P.W.1 with injuries as well the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence. 16. It is not in dispute that except P.W.1, none of the prosecution witnesses testified about their presence while accused committing the offences of murder as well causing injuries to P.W.1 with M.O.2 knife. However, on perusal of testimony of P.W.5, he categorically testified that on 21.01.2014 at about 01.00 p.m., two ladies came to their hotel, sat behind the cash counter and ordered for idly, He took order from the elder woman and went inside and within two minutes when he heard a sound he came out and found the accused holding a bloody knife and that the elder woman throat was found cut and the another woman who is later known as daughter of the said elder woman also received injuries to her fingers. In view of the categorical testimony of P.Ws.1 and 5, the presence of the accused at the scene of offence cannot be disputed. 17. More so, it is the categorical testimony of P.W.10, who is worker in Chicken stall, where the accused said to have secured M.O.2 knife that, in January, 2014 between 12.00 noon to 12.30 p.m., the accused came to their shop and asked him for a knife to cut a Banana Bunch, but he expressed that the knife is not meant for cutting Bananas and refused to give, and in the meanwhile, two or three customers came for chicken and he was engaged in their work by keeping the knife on the pial stone and after half an hour on verification, he found that one of the knives was missing and he thought that it was misplaced somewhere. Even the said M.O.2 was not confronted with P.W.10 to say that accused secured the M.O.2 from his shop for committing the offence and nothing was elicited during his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony to the extent of presence of accused at the market area where the offence is said to have taken place. Thereby, the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 5 coupled with testimony of P.W.10 categorically proved the presence of accused with the knife at the scene of offence and offence committed by him against the deceased and P.W.1. 18. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.16 Medical Officer, who treated P.W.1 on the date of incident itself and issued Ex.P.13 wound certificate clearly reveals the injuries sustained by P.W.1 in the hands of accused with M.O.2. Thereby, the prosecution categorically proved that the accused caused injuries to the deceased as well P.W.1 with M.O.2 knife due to the matrimonial disputes between accused and P.W.1 and which resulted to death of the deceased. As such, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that there are no grounds urged to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court to convict the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. 19. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as a last resort that the accused has no intention to cause death of the deceased and it is on an uncontrollable emotion due to matrimonial dispute and that the deceased received only lacerated injuries and she died out of cardiac arrest. Even as per the testimony of PW15 Medical Officer, who stated that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief is ‘due to severe bleeding and cardiac arrest due to the injuries noticed by him’. During cross examination of PW15 also, it is elicited that if there is no cardiac arrest, there is a possibility of survival. Besides this, while P.W.1 is in the box, it is elicited that her mother (deceased) was not doing well prior to that i.e., feeling pain in the heart and that a suggestion was also made to her that deceased died of heart failure, but not due to cut injury to the throat. Besides this, while P.W.1 is in the box, it is elicited that her mother (deceased) was not doing well prior to that i.e., feeling pain in the heart and that a suggestion was also made to her that deceased died of heart failure, but not due to cut injury to the throat. Thus, as per PW1, it was brought out that the deceased was suffering from heart problem during her lifetime and if really the death was caused due to such happening it is only homicide, but not homicide which amount to murder. 20. It is settled law that in order to prove the offence under Section 302 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the intention to cause death, preplanned or pre-meditated as well the act done with malicious intention. 21. It is not in dispute that even as per the prosecution version there are matrimonial disputes between P.W.1 and accused. The deceased being mother of P.W.1 resisted the accused for termination of pregnancy of P.W.1 by the accused. However, as per the prosecution version, no such intention to cause death of deceased or preplanned act done with malicious intention was established. As stated supra, out of the incident occurred on 25.12.2013 among the accused, P.W.1 and deceased, due to grave emotion, the accused might have made an attack on P.W.1 as well deceased. If the accused really have such pre-planned malicious intention, he would not have made an attempt to attack the deceased and PW1 at a public place, and as such, only with heat of passion, sudden and grave provocation and without any deliberation, the accused attacked them without any intention. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Khokan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2021) 3 SCC 365 , wherein at paragraph No.9 held that: “Section 300 IPC is in two parts. The first part is when culpable homicide can be said to be the murder, and the second part is the exceptions when the culpable homicide is not murder. The relevant part of Section 300 IPC for our purpose would be Clause 4 to Section 300 and Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The first part is when culpable homicide can be said to be the murder, and the second part is the exceptions when the culpable homicide is not murder. The relevant part of Section 300 IPC for our purpose would be Clause 4 to Section 300 and Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As per Clause 4 to Section 300 IPC, 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, such culpable homicide can be said to be the murder. However, as per Exception 4 to Section 300, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. As per Explanation to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.” (emphasis supplied) 23. In Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.29 that: “Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters — plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302. 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. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may”. (emphasis supplied) 24. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Stalin v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, (2020) 9 SCC 524 , wherein the Apex Court referred its earlier pronouncements and held at paragraph Nos.7.1, 7.1.1, 7.2, 11 and 12 as follows: “7.1 It is the case on behalf of the appellant – accused that as it is a case of single injury, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted and the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. While considering the aforesaid submission, few decisions of this Court on whether in a case of single injury, Section 302 IPC would be attracted or not are required to be referred to: 7.1.1 In Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319 , this Court while deciding the question of whether a single blow with a knife on the chest of the deceased would attract Section 302 IPC, held thus: (SCC pp. 322- 23, para 9) “9. … there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction under Section 302 IPC, in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him……..” 7.2………The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, under the circumstances narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence. 10. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, we are of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. 11. Now, the next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC? Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.” (emphasis supplied) 25. In this regard, in view of the above authoritative pronouncements, it is categorically held that Part-I of Section 304 IPC is applicable if the act by which the death is caused is done (i) with the intention of causing death, or, (ii) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The word "intention" as used in Part-I is absent in Part- II. Part-II shall be applicable where the intention as used in Part-I is absent but the act is done unintentionally by an accused with knowledge that his act is likely to cause death or the act is done unintentionally to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. There is subtle difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC. Under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. 26. In the present case on hand, as stated supra, the accused is husband of PW1 and son-in-law of deceased. 26. In the present case on hand, as stated supra, the accused is husband of PW1 and son-in-law of deceased. Due to matrimonial disputes between the accused and P.W.1, in particular PW1’s pregnancy and interference of deceased between them, the accused become emotional and made an attack on deceased in the state of anger, but the accused did not commit the crime with any premeditation and thereby, the circumstances leading to the act shows that there was no intention to kill, but without any premeditation, the accused committed the offence with intent to cause a bodily injury, but which resulted in death of the deceased. Even as per the testimony of P.W.15 Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, the death of the deceased is due to severe bleeding and due to the cardiac arrest. 27. The entire prosecution case is silent with regard to admission of deceased in hospital immediately after the incident to save her life and as per the final report of the prosecution, the incident happened in public place, but none of the witnesses tried to rescue the deceased after the incident. More so, as on the date of incident, the deceased was suffering from heart problem which is not in dispute as admitted by PW1. 28. Having regard to the above discussion, it is clear in vivid terms that the offence said to be committed by the accused against the deceased fall under Section 304 Part-I, but not Section 302 of IPC. Thereby, we are of the considered opinion that accused is found guilty of the offence under Sections 304 Part I and 324 of IPC, as such, the conviction made by the Trial Court against the accused under Section 302 IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC. 29. Coming to the quantum of sentence, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the incident had occurred on 21.01.2014 and the accused had already undergone imprisonment of six (6) years. Now, the appellant and P.W.1 are residing together and they have children who are depending on the appellant. 29. Coming to the quantum of sentence, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the incident had occurred on 21.01.2014 and the accused had already undergone imprisonment of six (6) years. Now, the appellant and P.W.1 are residing together and they have children who are depending on the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2127 , wherein the Apex Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-. 30. As well in Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be proper and proportional to the gravity of offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the facts and circumstances, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 31. No doubt, in the present case also, the incident was said to be occurred on 21.01.2014 and by this time, ten (10) years have already lapsed and the appellant was already undergone sentence for a period of six (6) years. 32. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court shall be modified/altered from the offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and accordingly, for the said offence the accused is liable for punishment of sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. 33. 33. In respect of offence under Section 324 IPC is also concerned, as discussed supra, there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant/accused to meddle with the finding arrived by the Trial Court in respect of the conviction and sentence. 34. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed altering the conviction made by the trial Court against the appellant/accused from the offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, and consequently, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of payment of said fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. The conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court for the offence under Section 324 of IPC shall remain intact. It is ordered that both the sentences imposed against the accused shall run concurrently. The period of remand as well sentence of imprisonment if any undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 35. The bail bond of the appellant/accused, who is on bail, is hereby cancelled. He shall surrender forthwith before the Court of learned XI Additional Sessions Judge at Tenali to complete the remaining sentence awarded as above, if not, the learned Sessions Judge concerned is directed to take necessary steps for compliance. A copy of this judgment shall be marked to the Trial Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.