JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Ms. Jaya Doji, learned legal aid counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant/convict. Also heard Ms. Laxmi Hage, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The instant criminal appeal preferred by the appellant, herein, from jail, is directed against the judgment and order, dated 07-11-2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat, in PSG Sessions Case No. 91/2020, convicting the appellant, herein, under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default to pay the fine, further sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for a term of 1(one) year. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial is that on 13-06- 2020, a telephonic information was received by the police of Pasighat Police Station from one Kamin Darang at about 15.32 hours, alleging that his brother-in-law Shri Pitor Ngupok(appellant, herein) had killed Gori Ngopuk in his farmhouse on that day at around 13.20 hours. The police on receiving the said information, proceeded to the site of the crime and after completion of the requisite formalities, including inquest over the dead body; the dead body of the deceased was evacuated to Bakin Pertin General Hospital, Pasighat and kept at the mortuary. Thereafter, a formal written complaint was received at the Pasighat Police Station, and accordingly, on receipt thereof, the police registered the same as Pasighat Police Station Case No. 91/2020 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, herein, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the case being committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat, a hearing for framing of charge was held on 23-02-2021. The charge on being read over and explained to the appellant, herein, he pleaded guilty to the same and stated that the deceased did not care and listen to what he told her and did not cook food properly which made him irritating and he had punched her and pressed her neck due to which she later on, died. The appellant, herein, however, clarified that he had no intention to kill her. 5. The appellant, herein, however, clarified that he had no intention to kill her. 5. Although the appellant, herein, had pleaded guilty, however, for the ends of justice, the learned trial Court directed that the trial of the case shall proceed to prove the offence alleged against the appellant. The prosecution during the trial, examined as many as 9(nine) witnesses 6. PW-1, Shri Kamin Darang, the informant, herein, had identified the appellant as the accused and stated that he was his brother-in-law. The PW-1 had deposed that his wife viz. Smti. Tongki Ngupok, received an information from one of his labourers that the appellant was assaulting the deceased, Late Gori Ngupok, at Mariyom(Berung). The PW-1 had also deposed that Gori's husband was in jail at that point of time and on request, she was allowed to stay in his agricultural field house i.e. at Mariyom along with her two children. appellant Pitor Ngupok was also contended to have been staying in his agricultural field but in a separate house. On receipt of the information, it was further deposed by the PW-1 that he along with his wife, rushed towards his agricultural field and on reaching the spot, they found the deceased was lying dead inside a house and she was having an injury on her neck. It was also deposed by the PW-1 that the appellant had fled the spot after the incident and was stated to be hiding somewhere in the jungle. The PW-1, accordingly, informed the matter to the police through telephonic call and later on, an First Information Report(FIR) was lodged against the appellant for killing the deceased. The PW-1 exhibited the FIR, Inquest Report, Seizure Memo along with the Material Exhibit No. 1 and Material Exhibit No. 2 being the photographs of the dead body of the deceased. During his cross by the appellant, PW-1 had deposed that he suspected that it was the appellant who had killed the deceased and that he did not know if there was any enmity between the appellant and the deceased. It was also deposed by the PW-1 that he cannot say for definite that only the appellant had killed the deceased. During his cross by the appellant, PW-1 had deposed that he suspected that it was the appellant who had killed the deceased and that he did not know if there was any enmity between the appellant and the deceased. It was also deposed by the PW-1 that he cannot say for definite that only the appellant had killed the deceased. The PW-1 had also deposed that he has no any other reason to suspect the appellant of killing the deceased except that he had assaulted the deceased soon before her death as per the information received by him from neighbours staying nearby. 7. PW-2 viz. Smti. Tongki Ngupok who is the wife of PW-1, the informant, herein, and the elder brother of the appellant, herein; had deposed that on 13.06.2020, when they were at Berung village to attend the last rites of one of her relatives, she had asked one of her labourers, Maji, to look after the labourers whether they were working in the agricultural field or not. The PW-2 was informed then that the deceased was lying still unmoved inside the house. The PW-2 had deposed that on presuming that the deceased had fell sick, she immediately informed the matter to her husband and they both rushed towards their agricultural field. On the way to the place of occurrence, another telephonic call was stated to have been received from said Maji when she was informed that the deceased had already died. PW-2 had further deposed that on the way, they had met the appellant on a bike and on being stopped, he was seen to be trembling. PW-2 had also deposed that the appellant had told them that during the previous night, he had assaulted the deceased out of anger but he had no intention to kill her. The appellant had also told them that now the deceased had expired. The PW-2 then asked her husband to beat the appellant for what he has done but her husband did not beat him and only took the keys of the bike. The appellant was then stated to have fled away to the jungle. On reaching the place of occurrence, it was deposed by the PW-2 that she and her husband(PW-1) saw that the deceased had already expired and a dead body was lying on the floor of the Chang Ghar. Later, the matter was immediately informed to the police. The appellant was then stated to have fled away to the jungle. On reaching the place of occurrence, it was deposed by the PW-2 that she and her husband(PW-1) saw that the deceased had already expired and a dead body was lying on the floor of the Chang Ghar. Later, the matter was immediately informed to the police. During her cross- examination, the PW-2 had deposed that one Suresh Bora had told her that on the intervening night of 12-06-2020 and 13-06-2020, he had heard a quarrel between the deceased and her brother i.e. the appellant, herein. However, said Bora did not tell PW-2 what was the reason for the quarrel. The PW-2 further deposed that the deceased Gori Ngupok used to fall sick sometimes and she had seen her fall unconscious due to weakness, once. The PW-2 had clarified that she had not seen the appellant killing the deceased with her own eyes but was told that he had killed the deceased. Further, the PW-2 had deposed that she did not know the reason for the assault. However, it was clarified by the PW-2 that the appellant had told her that he had assaulted the deceased but he had no intention to kill her. 8. PW-3, Miss Yangki Ngupok, is the daughter of the deceased and was aged about 9 years at the time of the incident and was around 10 years at the time of her deposition in the trial. The PW-3 had identified the appellant standing on the dock as her Uncle and deposed that she was sleeping on the night of the incident. The PW-3 had deposed that she was sleeping and later on, in the morning, she found her mother dead. The PW-3 had deposed that the appellant had killed her mother and he used to eat and sleep in their house. During the cross-examination, the PW-3 was silent to the suggestion made by the defence counsel that the appellant did not kill the deceased. However, the PW-3 had deposed that she was sleeping on the night of the incident and did not know what had happened between the appellant and her deceased mother at night. 9. PW-4 viz. Shri Sanjay Maji, a labourer working at a place nearby, deposed that around 12 noon, he came to know about the incident of killing from the other labourers. 9. PW-4 viz. Shri Sanjay Maji, a labourer working at a place nearby, deposed that around 12 noon, he came to know about the incident of killing from the other labourers. The PW-4 had deposed that since the appellant had fled after the incident and the police did not know about the location of the jungle, on the request of the police, he had accompanied them to the jungle to find out the appellant. However, in spite of such effort being made for 3(three) days, the appellant could not be traced-out. The said PW-4 had deposed that later, it was told that the appellant had gone to his village from where he was arrested. The PW-4 had further deposed that he did not see the incident himself but it was told that the deceased was killed by the appellant. The PW-4 had further deposed that he did not know anything about the fact of the case as to how and when the incident took place. 10. PW-5, Dr. Mum Tayeng, one of the Doctors who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, in his deposition, highlighted the findings of the post-mortem examination. The PW-5, during her cross-examination, had deposed that she had mentioned that the cause of death of the deceased was due to manual strangulation which was homicidal in nature. The PW-5 had further deposed that a person dies immediately after strangulation and may be after few moments of the incident. 11. PW-6, Dr. Mope Loyi, who was the other Doctor conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, had also highlighted the findings of the post-mortem examination and had deposed that as per his opinion, the death of the deceased had occasioned around 24-28 hours before. According to the PW-6, the cause of death of the deceased was opined to be due to manual strangulation which is homicidal in nature. The PW-6, during his cross-examination, reiterated his opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to manual strangulation and was homicidal in nature. 12. PW-7, Smti. Shiv Kumari Majhi, in her deposition, after identifying the appellant, herein, as the accused, deposed that she was also staying nearby the place of occurrence in the field of one Mengu Sir. 12. PW-7, Smti. Shiv Kumari Majhi, in her deposition, after identifying the appellant, herein, as the accused, deposed that she was also staying nearby the place of occurrence in the field of one Mengu Sir. The PW-7 had further deposed that on the morning of the incident day, the elder sister of the appellant who was the wife of Kamin Darang, had called her on her mobile and asked her to go and find-out if the deceased and her children are fine or not. Accordingly, the PW-7, at around 10am, had gone to the house of the deceased where the appellant also used to stay. The door of the house of the deceased was found closed so the PW-7 called the deceased from outside but the appellant had replied that the deceased was still sleeping and not to disturb her. On being told by the appellant that the door was open and that she can come inside the house, the PW-7 had deposed that she had proceeded inside the house and had seen the appellant and the daughter of the deceased were having food and the deceased and her minor son were found sleeping. When the PW-7 went near, she saw the deceased was breathing slowly. On seeing the condition of the deceased, the PW-7 got fear and quickly rushed out and ran towards her friend's house who was also a neighbour. Thereafter, it was deposed that the PW-7 along with her friend, went back to the house of the deceased and her friend entered into the house and saw that the deceased was dying and her friend told her that the deceased would die. Thereafter, they informed about the condition of the deceased to PW-2(Smti. Tongki Ngupok) and returned back to the house of the deceased. While going back to the house of the deceased; they saw the appellant, herein, coming out of the house and on meeting the appellant, he had told them that the deceased had already died. It was further deposed by the PW-7 that appellant had fled the spot and after some time, the owner of the land came to the field. During her cross-examination, the PW-7 had deposed that when she had gone to the house of the deceased, the appellant was also inside the house and when she saw the deceased, she was in a very serious condition and about to die. During her cross-examination, the PW-7 had deposed that when she had gone to the house of the deceased, the appellant was also inside the house and when she saw the deceased, she was in a very serious condition and about to die. The PW-7 had deposed that she had no idea about the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and had not heard about the fight. The PW-7 had also deposed that she did not have any idea about the cause of the death of the deceased. 13. PW-8, Smti. Mohili Mogar, another neighbor who had accompanied PW- 7 to the house of the deceased, had deposed that on reaching the house of the deceased; she found the deceased to be lying in a serious condition. Thereafter, the PW-8 along with PW-7 came out of the house of the deceased and informed the matter to Tongki Ngupok over phone. The PW-8 had also deposed that when they were going back to the house of the deceased; the appellant who came out of the house informed them that the deceased had already died. The PW-8 had further deposed that after informing the same, the appellant took the bike and fled the spot. Later on, the owner and her husband reached the place of occurrence. During her cross-examination, the PW-8 had deposed that she did not see any injury marks on the dead body of the deceased. The PW-8 also deposed that she was told by the appellant that the deceased had died but he had not told her that he had killed her. PW-8 also deposed that she had not seen or heard the appellant assaulting the deceased. 14. PW-9, Inspr. P. Tagia, the Investigating Officer, after reiterating the materials brought on record in the charge-sheet, had deposed that during his interrogation, the appellant, herein, voluntarily admitted that he was annoyed over the pouring of ORT drink of the deceased to his glass and as a result, he assaulted the deceased by punching and pressing her neck. Accordingly, after recording the statement of the appellant, he was forwarded to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, with a prayer for judicial remand, which was granted and the appellant was shifted to judicial custody. Accordingly, after recording the statement of the appellant, he was forwarded to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, with a prayer for judicial remand, which was granted and the appellant was shifted to judicial custody. On inspection of the body of the appellant after his arrest, scratches were found on his face and also on the right hand of the appellant, herein, indicating that the injury mark could be a resistance injury caused by the deceased during strangulation. During his cross- examination, he deposed that he had found one eyewitness, namely Ms. Yangki Ngupok, PW-3, i.e. the daughter of the deceased. The PW-9 mentioned that the appellant had accidentally killed the deceased. The learned trial Court had, thereafter, examined the appellant under Section 281/313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The PW-9, in his statement, had stated that the appellant had physical intimacy with the deceased and during the night of the incident, the deceased poured ORT wine in the appellant’s glass for which, the appellant lost his temper and assaulted the deceased by strangulating her neck. The incident was stated to have taken place in the night at around 9 p.m. and the deceased was stated to have died at around 12 noon of the next day of the incident. The PW-9 had further stated that he did not have the knowledge that it could take the life of the deceased, but, out of sudden anger, he had done it. The appellant further admitted that he had fled away from the spot after the incident. The statements made by the other prosecution witnesses on being brought to the notice of the appellant, he had admitted the same to be correct. The appellant also admitted to have consumed alcohol with the deceased. It is seen that that appellant did not produce any defence witness. 15. Ms. Doji, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant, had submitted that during the trial of the case, incident of causing hurt and strangulation of the deceased by the appellant was admitted and the same was not disputed by the defence. However, the plea taken was that the said incident had so occasioned on sudden and grave provocation. It was further submitted by the learned legal aid counsel that the appellant had no motive, or, intention, to assault the deceased in such a manner so as to cause her murder. However, the plea taken was that the said incident had so occasioned on sudden and grave provocation. It was further submitted by the learned legal aid counsel that the appellant had no motive, or, intention, to assault the deceased in such a manner so as to cause her murder. The statements of the appellant under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was relied upon to highlight that the act of the appellant, herein, was not pre-meditated and it was the deceased who had given a grave and sudden provocation to him and thereby, invited the wrath of the appellant. It was also submitted by the learned legal aid counsel that the blow given to the deceased and the strangulation of her neck, was a single transaction and there was no time in between for the passions to cool down. It was also highlighted by the learned legal aid counsel that the appellant, herein, was not armed with any arms. The learned legal aid counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, is required to be so converted to one under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Per contra, Ms. Laxmi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, has vehemently objected to the contentions raised by the learned legal aid counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the materials brought on record including the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, goes to establish that the death of the deceased was due to manual strangulation which was homicidal in nature. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has highlighted that the appellant even after strangulating the deceased in the night of the incident, neither informed the incident to any person, nor, made any effort to evacuate the deceased to a medical centre for treatment. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has further submitted that the appellant had allowed the deceased to die slowly and thereby, the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased, is clearly revealed from his conduct after the incident. The learned Addl. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has further submitted that the appellant had allowed the deceased to die slowly and thereby, the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased, is clearly revealed from his conduct after the incident. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, had further submitted that even in the morning, when the deceased was lying in a half-dying condition, the appellant did not take any steps to evacuate the deceased to a medical centre for treatment, inasmuch as, he had enough time to cool down after the incident had occasioned in the night. The learned Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh, has further submitted that the manner in which the appellant had conducted himself after the incident goes to reveal that he had the intention to kill the deceased and accordingly, she has submitted that the conviction of the appellant under part I of section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the trial court, would not mandate any interference from this Court. 17. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 18. The statement of the appellant during his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and his plea taken during the framing of the charge as well as his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the police; goes to reveal that the appellant and the deceased were in a relationship. The materials brought on record further goes to reveal that there was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant had no motive to eliminate the deceased. The provocation leading to assaulting of the deceased by the appellant is stated to be the action on the part of the deceased in pouring over the ORT wine in his glass. There cannot be any hard-and-fast rule to determine as to whether a particular act, or, a gesture, or, words, would be sufficient to provoke a person. It depends on the psyche of a person which indicates a mental, or, physiological structure of a person especially as a motivation to act in an aggressive manner and therefore, in the present case, in the absence of any material brought on record by the prosecution to counter such stand taken by the appellant; it cannot be held that there was no provocation from the deceased. 19. 19. The evidences brought on record during the trial would go to establish that the appellant, herein, had assaulted the deceased on the night of the incident i.e. on 12-06-2020 and had also strangulated her. From the initial stages of the investigation, till recording of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the appellant had consistently stated that he, on sudden provocation, had lost his temper and assaulted the deceased by strangulating her neck. During the framing of the charge, the appellant, herein, had also raised the said plea. Although PW-3, namely, Ms. Yangki Ngupok, daughter of the deceased, was projected as the eye-witness to the incident, however, from her deposition, it is seen that at the time of the incident, she was sleeping and does not know what had happened between the appellant and her mother, no other eye-witness was produced by the prosecution; accordingly, the contention made by the appellant that the incident of strangulation had so occasioned under sudden provocation of pouring of the ORT wine by the deceased to the appellant; cannot be ignored. The prosecution has not been able to dislodge the said plea taken by the appellant during the trial. 20. The learned trial Court, in the impugned judgment, had held that sudden provocation which the appellant had, contended to trigger for the assault by him upon the deceased, cannot be thrown away, or, rejected in the absence of any other evidence from the prosecution side to demonstrate that such fact did not exist. The learned trial Court also, in this connection, proceeded to draw the following conclusions: “ 58. During examination of the accused under the provision of section 313 CrPC, the accused admitted all the incident of living together with the deceased and PW3. He also deposed that in the evening he consumed alcohol with the deceased and also admitted that the evidence of PW7 and PW8 are correct, besides, other incriminating statement against the accused. However, during examination, the accused has explained the reason of killing the deceased in the incident night was that the deceased poured ort wine in his glass for which he lose his temper and assaulted the victim by strangulated by her neck. This incident took place in the night at around 9 PM and the deceased died at around 12 noon of the next day of the incident. This incident took place in the night at around 9 PM and the deceased died at around 12 noon of the next day of the incident. On further, query of the Court on knowledge and intention that such act of strangulation would take the life of deceased, the accused stated that he do not know whether he had intention or knowledge that it would take the life of deceased but under sudden anger, he did it. He has no dispute about the findings of the Medical as well as his absconding from the PO after the incident and hide inside Mariyom forest area and visited the house of PW4 and had food in the house of PW4. 59. Since, all the incident and evidences are not disputed by the accused and the evidences of all PWs are circumstantial evidences but there is no eye witness of the incident. In such a situation, when the accused is also admitting the incident of strangulation under sudden provocation of pouring or serving ort wine to the accused by the deceases is to be taken into consideration and same cannot be thrown away or rejected without being produce any other evidences from the prosecution side to say that such fact does not exist. 60. On further browsing of the evidence of the IO, it is reveal that during interrogation of the accused during investigation, the accused admitted the act of strangulation and one punch to the deceased on pouring or serving of ort wine to him. As such, the plea of the accused from the beginning of the case after arrest and during trail on examination of the accused and also during framing of charge. However, it is to be noted that during framing of charge, the accused pleaded guilty of the offence and stated that the decease did not take care and listen to what the accused told her and did not cook properly which made him irritating, so, he had punched, her and press her neck due to which she died later on but he had no intention to kill her. Accordingly, the trail of the case was conducted, although, the accused admitted the offence in the interest of justice. 61. The evidence of the prosecution is very sufficient to prove the commission of the offence by strangulation and also by also causing various injuries on the body of the deceased. Accordingly, the trail of the case was conducted, although, the accused admitted the offence in the interest of justice. 61. The evidence of the prosecution is very sufficient to prove the commission of the offence by strangulation and also by also causing various injuries on the body of the deceased. Now, the actual point for determination in this case is that whether the act of the accused is falls under section 299 or 300 IPC. 62. On the basis of prosecution evidences on record more particularly the Medical evidences as well as admission of the accused to strangulate the deceased, it is safe to conclude that the accused had caused the death of the deceased by punching on several parts of the body and strangulation on her neck. On further scrutiny of the Medical evidences and the act of the accused, it is observed that the act of punching the deceased pouring ort wine is accepted as defence plea on provocation as it was done without prior intention to cause the injury or death of the deceased and in ordinary course of action, a punch do not normally takes the life of a person unless it is hit a vital part with a greater degree of force. But act of the accused strangulate the deceased from the neck is an act which is so eminently dangerous of causing the death of a person and the accused committed the act of strangulation without any excuse incurring the risk of causing the death. A man in ordinary sense has in all probabilities known or knows that the act of strangulation to a person is so eminently dangerous causing the death of the person. And the accused was also known to this fact. However, it cannot be also denied that it was not done under sudden provocation of pouring ort wine in the glass of the accused. Hence, the motive of killing the deceased to kill the deceased is absent.” 21. A perusal of the said conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court in the light of the evidences coming on record in the trial, this Court does not find any error with the same. Hence, the motive of killing the deceased to kill the deceased is absent.” 21. A perusal of the said conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court in the light of the evidences coming on record in the trial, this Court does not find any error with the same. This Court would only reiterate that the plea of sudden provocation given by the deceased to the appellant leading to the assault on her by him, cannot be wished away and further there was no motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. 22. Having drawn the above conclusions, the learned trial Court proceeded further to hold that the appellant should have cooled down after committing the offence of abrasion and contusion injuries to the deceased but he continued to attack the deceased by strangulation resulting to the death of the deceased. As such, it was held that the same reflects the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased. Further, the learned trial Court also concluded that the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased cannot be ruled-out by his conduct in letting the deceased to die slowly from the night of the incident to the next day of the incident at around 12 noon. Accordingly, the learned trial Court concluded that the act of the appellant is covered under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant conclusions of the learned trial Court, in this connection, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ 68. It is also observed that the accused should have been cool down after committing offence of abrasion and contusion injuries to the victim but he continued to attack the victim by strangulation resulting to death of the deceased. As such, it is reflects the intention of the accused to kill her. 69. Under the above fact and circumstances I am of the view that although, the offence is not covered under murder but it cannot be rule out that the accused was not having intention to kill the deceased as the accused had intentionally let the deceased to die slowly form the night of the incident to next day of the incident at around 12 noon. Further, assuming it for time being that if the accused had no intention also, but the act of the accused causing strangulation injury was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased which was known to the accused that it was likely to cause the death of the deceased. 70. In view of the above fact, the act of the accused is completely covers under first part of offence under section 304 IPC and does not falls part II under section 304 IPC.” 23. A perusal of the said conclusions would go to reveal that the same are contradictory to the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court in paragraph Nos. 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 of the impugned judgment & order, dated 07.11.2022. Further, the conclusion that the appellant, herein, should have cooled down after committing the offence of abrasion and contusion injuries to the deceased but he continued to attack the deceased by strangulation resulting to her death; is a conclusion perverse to the evidences brought on record, inasmuch as, the materials brought on record, goes to demonstrate that the incident of assault and the strangulation of the deceased by her neck, was a part of the same transaction. 24. The learned trial Court having already convicted the appellant, herein, under Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is required to consider as to whether the same is mandated to be converted to a conviction under Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 25. The accusation of the appellant of strangulation of the deceased, can neither be necessarily termed as a cruel act, nor, it can be said that the appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation for the simple reason that the assault and the act of strangulation with hands were part and parcel of the same transaction as there was no time for cooling the passions. It should be further noticed that PW-7 namely Smti. Shiv Kumari Majhi, in her deposition had deposed that on reaching the house of the deceased, she found the appellant and the daughter of the victim, were having food while the deceased and her minor son, were found sleeping. It should be further noticed that PW-7 namely Smti. Shiv Kumari Majhi, in her deposition had deposed that on reaching the house of the deceased, she found the appellant and the daughter of the victim, were having food while the deceased and her minor son, were found sleeping. The said deposition goes to reveal that after the incident, the appellant, herein, did not have the intention to flee away from the place of occurrence and the same can be construed to be on account of the fact that he did not have the knowledge that his action had the effect of causing death to the deceased. The further deposition of the witnesses, more particularly, the PW-7 and PW-8, respectively, would go to show that it is only after the PW- 7 had reached the house of the deceased that the deceased had passed away and the appellant had fled from the place of occurrence. By the time the knowledge could be attributed to the appellant of the deceased being in a dying stage, there was no time for evacuating the appellant for medical treatment. As such, there can be no intention imputed to the appellant, herein, for having caused the death of the deceased, herein. 26. The appellant, herein, during the trial and even during the investigation of the matter as well as at the time of framing of the charge, had admitted to the fact that he had assaulted the deceased and also strangulated her by the neck. However, the same was pleaded to be not done with the intention to kill her. The present case, in the considered view, of this Court would fall within Exception-1 and Exception-4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. Accordingly, this Court considers this case to be a fit one for conversion of the conviction of the appellant from Part I of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, to one under Part 2 of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. On conversion of the conviction of the appellant to one under Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant, herein, considering the facts and circumstances involved in the matter; is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 7(seven) years along with the fine imposed by the learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment & order, dated 07.11.2022. 28. 28. It is to be noted that the appellant, herein, is already in custody since his date of detention on 15-06-2020 and the period of detention so undergone, shall be set-off against the sentence now imposed upon the appellant. 29. Before parting with the records, this Court would like to place on record its appreciation for the services rendered by Ms. Jaya Doji, learned legal aid counsel and she would be entitled to just remuneration as per the notified rate. 30. The appeal, accordingly, stands partly allowed. Registry shall send back the LCRs forthwith.