The learned senior advocate submitted that the fight had occurred between appellant and the deceased on the spot and there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. He further submitted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the appellant had taken undue advantage or had acted in a cruel or unusual manner. According to him, considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court and High Court had acquitted the appellant from the charges levelled against him under Section 302 IPC and convicted him only for the offence under Section 304 of IPC. He further submitted that the appellant has already undergone more than 04 years of the sentence and this is the fit case to reduce the sentence to the extent of the sentence undergone by the appellant. However, the learned advocate for the respondent State submitted that the Sessions Court and High Court have already shown leniency to the appellant by treating the case as falling under Section 304 of IPC instead of section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 07 years, which may not be further reduced. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the observations and findings recorded by the courts below, it appears that the Sessions Court had convicted the appellant accused for the offence under Section 304 of IPC by recording the finding that there was no premeditation and that the appellant accused had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The fight had taken place as the deceased used to pester the appellant to get liquor for him frequently, which had annoyed the appellant. The Sessions Court while imposing the sentence had also taken into consideration the fact that the appellant accused was the only son of his aged parents.