ORDER :

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge by the State of Himachal Pradesh is to a judgment of the High Court by which the conviction of the respondent-accused has been altered from Section 302 Indian Penal Code ("IPC") to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. Accordingly, the sentence has been modified to the period undergone which is about six years.

3. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the relevant materials placed on record. There are three eye-witnesses to the occurrence, i.e., PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased whereas PW-2 and PW-6 are daughters-in-law.

4. The prosecution case appears to be that the deceased, who is the uncle of the accused, is to complain about the conduct of the accused, particularly in relation to his wife and, therefore, the accused had carried a grudge against the deceased leading to the incident in question.

5. Motive apart, the three eye-witnesses have clearly testified the assault on the head of the deceased by the accused with a danda. PW-12, who carried out the postmortem, corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses and further the said witness (Doctor) has specifically deposed that there