JUDGMENT : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. The relevant facts of the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.05.2001, the complainant Sri Jadav Nath of village Nij Bihaguri, Tezpur filed a written Ejahar before the Tezpur Police Station stating that accused persons, Sri. Homeswar Nath @ Soru Nath and Sri Pabin Nath, both of same village, had come at about 6:00 p.m, armed with lathi in their hands on the public road in front their house and while Khagen Nath was walking on the road, accused persons suddenly attacked Khagen Nath and injured him seriously. Many people gathered and both of the accused persons fled away. 3. After receipt of the aforesaid ejahar, the Tezpur Police Station Case No. 313/01 u/s 341/325/326/34 IPC was registered and investigated. During the investigation Khagen Nath died. Accordingly, an inquest was done and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination by the I/C GMC, Hospital. The I/O prayed for adding Section 302 against the accused persons. 4. On completion of investigation, IO submitted Charge-sheet u/s 302 IPC against the accused persons namely Homeswar Nath, Prabin Nath and Mridul Nath. The Trial Court framed the following point for determination. i) Whether on 17-05-01 at village Nij Bihaguri under Tezpur Police Station, the accused persons Sri Homeswar Nath @ Saruram and Sri Prabin Nath on being instigated by Sri Mridul Nath committed murder by intentionally giving blows by means of lathi on the head of Shri Khagen Nath, caused the death of Sri Khagen Nath and thereby committed an offence and are punishable u/s 109/302/34 of IPC and also Mridul Nath committed an offence under Section 323 of ? 5. To come to a decision as to the extent to which the prosecution has proved the case u/s 302/24 of IPC against the accused persons Homeswar Nath and Prabin Nath and Mridul Nath, the evidence on record was analyzed, along with exhibits and other materials on record and the statements of the witnesses were discussed. The learned Trial Court found PW7, PW8 and PW9 to be vital witnesses. 7. The learned Trial Court found PW7, PW8 and PW9 to be vital witnesses. 7. On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Court came to a conclusion that only a single blow was dealt on the victim and when one blow is given, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. Considering the factual background of the case at hand, it was held that the accused Homeswar had given blow on the head of the deceased, which is a vital part of the body and which was the outcome of their altercations earlier, and also that he was first assaulted by the deceased. It was found appropriate to convict appellant under Section 304 Part II , instead of . 8. Also, from the evidence, the Learned Trial Court found accused Prabin not to be guilty u/s 302/34 IPC and in the absence of materials, as accused Mridul was not implicated by any witnesses u/s 109/302 and no evidence is also there against them, they were found not guilty u/s 302/109/32 . 9. The accused Homeswar Nath was found not guilty u/s 323 IPC . However, from the circumstances of the evidence, the accused Homeswar Nath has been found to have committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under provisions of Section 304 . Having found it proved that the accused had no definite intention of causing such bodily injury likely to cause death and when the intention was not to cause death, he was found liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II , instead of Section 302 and accordingly he was convicted under Section 304 Part II , . 10. Considering the circumstances and the nature of offence, and after hearing him on conviction and also upon consideration of the facts that the accused was regular during the trial and had cooperated with the Court and that the trial also took a considerable time of about more than 10 years the prayer for a lesser punishment was considered. The accused Homeswar Nath was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default, R.I. for another one year u/s 304 Part II, IPC . The fine amount realized be given to the wife of the deceased Khagen Nath. 11. The accused Homeswar Nath was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default, R.I. for another one year u/s 304 Part II, IPC . The fine amount realized be given to the wife of the deceased Khagen Nath. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the learned Trial Court had come to a conclusion that there was no intent for causing death or even for causing such injury which may cause death, the sentence requiring the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years was highly excessive. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that when there was no minimum punishment required to be imposed as per the provisions of law itself, the impositioning of punishment of 3 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine was highly excessive. 12. The learned counsel has further submitted that the evidence, if appropriately weighed, would reveal that the entire incident had erupted in the heat of the moment and that the deceased had first struck the appellant herein and that the appellant had retaliated. The learned counsel has submitted that given the passage of time of nearly 25 years from the date of the incident, requiring the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment now would not serve any purpose. Rather, the petitioner has constantly suffered due to his conviction and the ends of justice would be served if his sentence is modified to pay a fine instead of undergoing imprisonment. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B Sharma, has submitted that the evidence led in the matter leaves no room for doubt that the conviction of the appellant under the provisions of Section 304 Part II was well founded and as such, such finding does not deserve interference at the hands of this Court. He has however, fairly submitted that the elapse of time from the date of the incident, the circumstances under which the fatal blow was inflicted and also the fact that the appellant had been allowed to remain on previous bail throughout the period of Trial and also during this appeal, which was not misused, the prayers for modification of the sentence to the extent of removing the requirement to undergo rigorous imprisonment and substituting it by directions to pay appropriate fine/compensation deserve a consideration. 14. 14. This Court has gone through the records of the Trial and has also considered the submissions made. This Court has noticed that the appellant has not challenged the conviction imposed on him under the provisions of Section 304 Part II . Though initially the charges had been framed alleging commission of offences described in Section 302 , IPC , on an overall appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court had found the ingredients of provisions of Section 304 Part II to be present, with a specific finding that the act complained of had occurred in the heat of the moment. The State did not prefer any appeal challenging the findings or praying for enhancement of sentence imposed. 15. This Court has gone through the evidence led during the Trial and is of the considered opinion that there is not much in the findings of the Trial Court which may require either a reevaluation or re-appreciation in this Appeal. Therefore, this Court has turned its attention to the plea of conversion of the sentence imposed on the appellant. 16. It is true that the unfortunate incident has caused the loss of a precious human life. The incident had, as held by the Trial court correctly, erupted in the spur of the moment and involved rustic villagers, who had quarreled over boundaries of land. Though the conviction, in the opinion of this Court, does not require any interference, the requirement of the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years now, after 25 years of the incident does not appear to be justifiable. The appellant had suffered custody of 1 month from 21.05.2001 to 21.06.2001 during investigation of the case. 17. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant Homeswar Nath @ Soru Nath under Section 304 Part II IPC , his sentence is modified to the period already undergone with further directions that he shall pay a fine of Rs 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. On realization, the fine shall be paid to the wife of the deceased Khagen Nath. 18. Appellant to appear before the learned Trial court on or before 06.06.2026 to carry out the sentence by payment of the fine imposed. Bail granted to the appellant shall remain in force till then and failure to report before the learned Trial Court as directed may entail cancellation of bail. 18. Appellant to appear before the learned Trial court on or before 06.06.2026 to carry out the sentence by payment of the fine imposed. Bail granted to the appellant shall remain in force till then and failure to report before the learned Trial Court as directed may entail cancellation of bail. Appellant to be set at liberty on payment of the fine, if detention is not required in any other case. 19. Registry to arrange for return the Trial Court records forthwith along with a copy of this order. 20. Appeal partly allowed.