It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court, having found that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased or had not acted in a cruel manner, was right in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC but grossly erred in imposing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Drawing our attention of the decision of the Apex Court in Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217 , submits that the sentence imposed by the trial court is disproportionate to the crime proved against him. According to the learned counsel, the unfortunate incident came about due to family dispute (the appellant is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased) and the parents of the deceased has also forgiven him and wished to bury their past and to uphold the sentence so imposed, under the aforesaid changing circumstance, is highly disproportionate and is liable to be set off against the period already undergone by the appellant in jail. It may be noted that the appellant has hardly undergone four years of imprisonment and to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him will not meet the ends of justice. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who submits that the trial court, after considering all aspects of the matter, has rightly inflicted the impugned punishment, for which the interference is not called for.
