JUDGMENT : K. Suresh Reddy, J. Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.76 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He along with Accused Nos.2 to 5 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under four charges i.e., first charge was under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1, second charge was under Section 201 IPC against Accused No.1, third charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 5 and fourth charge was under Section 201 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 5. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 19.10.2014 at about 2.00 P.M Accused No.1 with the common intention of Accused Nos.2 to 5 went to the house of one Korada Ramanamma (hereinafter referred as the deceased), situated at Jannivalasa Village and beat her with a stone on her face and head, causing her death and washed the blood stains with water, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with 34 IPC and Sections 201, 201 read with 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months under charge No.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Accused No.1 and other accused under charges 2 to 4. 3. Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- Accused Nos.1 and 3 are sons of Accused No.2, Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the wife and son of Accused No.3 respectively. All the accused are residents of Jannivalasa Village, Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The deceased also residing in the same Village. PWs-1 and 10 are the sons, PW-2 is the husband and PW-3 is the father of the deceased respectively. All the accused are residing in the same locality. There are differences between the family of the accused and the deceased as Accused Nos.2 to 4 suspected that Accused No.5 was having illegal intimacy with the deceased. Subsequently, Accused No.5 left the house for a few days and returned back after ten (10) days. Since then, Accused Nos.1 to 4 bore grudge against the deceased. There are differences between the family of the accused and the deceased as Accused Nos.2 to 4 suspected that Accused No.5 was having illegal intimacy with the deceased. Subsequently, Accused No.5 left the house for a few days and returned back after ten (10) days. Since then, Accused Nos.1 to 4 bore grudge against the deceased. While so, on 19.10.2014 at about 11.00 A.M, father of the deceased-PW-3 came to her house and found the deceased went to attend agricultural work. PW-1-son of the deceased went to the fields and informed about the arrival of PW-3. Immediately, the deceased returned home and started cooking food for her father and children. At about 2.00 P.M, PW-1 was in front of the house and PW-10 was inside the house. At that juncture, Accused No.1 trespassed into the house of the deceased, caught hold of the tuft of the deceased and pulled her to backyard, which is adjacent to the kitchen. Immediately, Accused No.1 picked up a stone, hit on the head of the deceased and ran away. Having witnessed the incident, PW-1, 3 and 10 rushed to the backyard and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Immediately, PW-4, who is the younger brother of PW-2 came there and tied a bandage. PW-4 and others took the injured to the Community Health Centre, Salur. 4. PW-15-Civl Assistant Surgeon gave First Aid and advised them to take her to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. He gave an intimation to Salur Police Station. Ex.P-7 is the hospital intimation. Ex.P-6 is the extract of accident register. Ex.P-8 is the referral letter. Immediately, the injured was taken to Government Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram where the doctor declared her brought dead. Having received the information, Sub-Inspector of Police-PW-17 went to the Village and found blood stains on the back side of the house of the deceased. Having come to know that the injured was shifted to the Community Health Centre, Salur, he went there and came to know that the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. On the same day at about 7.00 P.M, PW-1 went to the Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P-1. On the basis of the said report, PW-17 registered a case in Cr.No.113 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1. Ex.P-10 is the copy of FIR. Having received the information, the Inspector of Police-PW-18 took up further investigation. On the same day at about 7.00 P.M, PW-1 went to the Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P-1. On the basis of the said report, PW-17 registered a case in Cr.No.113 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1. Ex.P-10 is the copy of FIR. Having received the information, the Inspector of Police-PW-18 took up further investigation. On 20.10.2014 he went to the scene of offence along with mediators PW-12 and another, prepared an observation report -Ex.P-3. He also seized M.Os. 5 to 7 at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch-Exs.P-11 and 12 at the scene of offence. Thereafter, he went to the Government Hospital, Vizianagaram and recorded statements of PW-11 and others. Thereafter, PW-18 conducted inquest over the dead body in the hospital between 12.00 Noon and 2.30 P.M in the presence of PW-11 and another. Ex.P-2 is the inquest report. He got the scene photographed through PW-17. Ex.P-13 is the copies of photographs and C.D. He sent the dead body for Post-Mortem examination. PW-16-Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead body between 3.30 P.M and 4.30 P.M on the same day. He opined the cause of death was due to severe head injury, resulting in internal haemorrhage caused by a blunt object. He issued Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-9. On 27.10.2014 PW-18 arrested Accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have confessed about the commission of offence in the presence of mediators-PW-13 and another. Ex.P-5 is the mediators report for arrest and seizure of M.Os.3 and 4. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were remanded to judicial custody. Further investigation was taken over by PW-19 on 10.11.2014. On 19.11.2014 he sent the material objects to RFSL, Visakhapatnam. On 03.12.2014 he arrested Accused Nos.3 to 5, who were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, PW-20 another Investigating Officer, after receiving Post-Mortem Report and RFSL Report-Ex.P-14, filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 20 and marked Exs.P-1 to 14 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 7. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material found against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, 10 and 14, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1 as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, Accused No.1 filed the present Criminal Appeal. 8. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material found against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, 10 and 14, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1 as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, Accused No.1 filed the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Heard Sri B. Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri K. Anand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 9. We have gone through the entire material on record. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of PWs-1 to 3 and 10 with the deceased. It is also not in dispute that all the accused and the prosecution party are residing in the same locality. Though the prosecution tried to establish the motive stating that Accused No.5 was having illegal intimacy with the deceased, there is no positive evidence. PW-2, who is the husband of the deceased, vaguely stated in his Chief Examination that Accused Nos.2 to 4 were having suspicion that the deceased was having illegal intimacy with the Accused No.5. Except the said vague statement of PW-2, the prosecution has not at all placed any material to establish the alleged motive. PW-7 to 9, who were neighbours of the deceased did not state anything with regard to the said motive. Of course, the incident was witnessed by PWs-1, 3 and 10. The evidence of PWs-1 and 10, who were none other than sons of deceased show that on the fateful day, at about 2.00 P.M they were at the house. PW-1 was in front of the house on the road while PW-10 was present inside the house. It is the specific evidence that at about 2.00 P.M, Accused No.1 trespassed into the house of the deceased and dragged her to backyard and gave a blow with a stone on the head. It is the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 10 and 14 that immediately after giving the blow, the accused ran away from the scene of offence. But, the reason for the said attack is not known. 11. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, the accused dealt only one blow with a stone. It is not the case of PWs-1, 3, 10 and 14 that the accused was armed with any weapon at the relevant point of time. But, the reason for the said attack is not known. 11. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, the accused dealt only one blow with a stone. It is not the case of PWs-1, 3, 10 and 14 that the accused was armed with any weapon at the relevant point of time. According to the prosecution witnesses, Accused No.1 trespassed into the house, dragged her to the backyard and gave one blow on the head of the deceased and ran away. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused gave that blow with an intention to kill the deceased. If at all, he really intends to kill the deceased, Accused No.1 ought to have inflected few more injuries on the person of the deceased. As seen from the evidence, Accused No.1 also did not try to attack PWs-1, 3 and 10. He only dealt one blow on the head of the deceased and ran away. In such circumstances, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that the accused attacked the deceased with an intention to kill her. 12. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the offence under Section 302 IPC may not be proper, instead he can be convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 13. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to allow the Appeal in part by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 IPC, instead we are inclined to convict him under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC, instead he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 15. So far as the sentence is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the accused has already served six (06) years eleven (11) months and twenty three (23) days. It is also represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that during pendency of the appeal, he was granted bail by this Court, by order dated 22.10.2021 in terms of the order passed by the Combined High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011). 16. It is also represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that during pendency of the appeal, he was granted bail by this Court, by order dated 22.10.2021 in terms of the order passed by the Combined High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011). 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as the appellant has already served nearly seven (07) years of sentence, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the fine amount. However, the appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, and complete the formalities as per the guidelines enunciated in Batchu Rangarao (supra). Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.