JUDGMENT 1. The four Appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment and sentence of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated April 4, 1972, by which the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced each of them, for causing the death of Ramchand and Sbrinarain, punishable under section 304 part I of the Indian Penal Code, to life imprisonment on both counts. He has also convicted them of an offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to P. W, 2 Gangaram alias Gangla and sentenced them to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment each. He has further convicted them under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing simple hurts to P. W. 3 Mst. Govindi, wife of Shrinarain, P. W. 4 Mst. Rama, wife of Ramchand and P. W. 6 Naraini, daughter of Shrinarain and sentenced them to underge six months' rigorous imprisonment each. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows : 3. On June 30, 1971, at about 3.30 p.m., P. W. 15 Mahadev Meena lodged a report Ex. P/17 at police station Jamwa Ramgarh to the effect that at about 8/9 a.m. in the morning while he was on his way from village Toda at village Kotiyali, he heard an alarm raised by some persons and he, therefore, went on a Teela and enquired as to what the matter was. He was informed by P. W. 6 Mst. Naraini, daughter of the deceased Shrinarain, that her father and uncle had been done to death by the four appellants viz., Ramu, Bhonrya, Ramdhan and Mangla. He then reached the spot i.e., field Khasra No. 641, known as Nandawali-kothi and found her uncle Ramchand lying deed while her father Shrinarain was in an injured condition. The witnesses, according to him, were P. W. 1 Mahadev and two others i.e. Rewar and Nanu, both of whom have not been examined. Upon the lodging of the report, a case under section 302, 307, 149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the police station Jamwa Ramgarh. The police started the investigation and sent the dead body of deceased Ramchand for post-mortem examination and Shrinarain, who was lying injured to the S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur, where he succumbed to his injuries on July 23, 1971. i.e., some 23 days after the incident. 4. P. W. 12 Dr. The police started the investigation and sent the dead body of deceased Ramchand for post-mortem examination and Shrinarain, who was lying injured to the S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur, where he succumbed to his injuries on July 23, 1971. i.e., some 23 days after the incident. 4. P. W. 12 Dr. Kailash Chandra Sharma performed an autopsy on the deceased Ramchand and found he had multiple injuries on his body including an incised wound and several lacerated wounds apart from multiple bruises. In his opinion the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage. After the death of Shrinarain, the autopsy on his dead body was performed by P. W. 12 Dr. S. B. Mathur. He found that there were two external injuries on the head and that septicaemia had intervened. On dissection, he found the frontal bone fracture in 10 pieces on right and left side. There was pus present all over the brain membranes-and there was necrosis of brain under frontal region. In the opinion of the doctor, the head injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. 5. The appellants abjured their guilt and denied their commission of the offences with which they were charged. In his defence, - the appellant kamdhan admitted his presence but pleaded that he was in cultivatory possession of the field Narulawali-kothi since long and on the day of incident he had gone with Ramal and Bhonrya for ploughing the field when the complainant's party came and assaulted them with lathis. He, therefore, pleaded that the accused persons had acted in the right of their private defence of person. Other appellants admitted that they had gone to plough the field but alleged that they did not participate in the assault. 6. The prosecution case rests on the direct evidence of 11 eye-witnesses. Viz., P. W. 1 Mahadev, cousin of the deceased, P. W. 2, Gangaram, P. W. 3 Mst. Govindi, wife of the deceased Shrinarain, P. W. 4 Mst. Rama, wife of the deceased Ramchand, P. W. 5 Mangli, P. W. 6 Mst. Naraini daughter of Shrinarain, P. W. 10 Bhainro P. W. 14 Narain and P. W. 15 Mahadeva. Viz., P. W. 1 Mahadev, cousin of the deceased, P. W. 2, Gangaram, P. W. 3 Mst. Govindi, wife of the deceased Shrinarain, P. W. 4 Mst. Rama, wife of the deceased Ramchand, P. W. 5 Mangli, P. W. 6 Mst. Naraini daughter of Shrinarain, P. W. 10 Bhainro P. W. 14 Narain and P. W. 15 Mahadeva. Though some of the witnesses arc related to the deceased Ramchand and Shrinarain, yet their presence, or at least of some of them, was not denied by the accused persons in their statements under section 342 Cr. P. C. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has, in his carefully written judgement, marshalled the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the accused persons acted in exercise of the right of private defence but that they had exceeded that right. There is no appeal by the State Government against the acquittal of the appellants under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. We have also gone through the evidence and we have no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the eye-witnesses. They have given a clear and consistant version of the entire incident. Though the witnesses were closely cross-examined, nothing has been brought out to impeach the credibility of their truthful version. The first information report Ex. P/17 was lodged at the police station Jamwa Ramgarh some 10 miles from the village Toda, at 3-30 p.m. on the same day i.e, within a few hours of the incident, This also lends support to the prosecution story as a whole. The testimony of these witnesses also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. From the nature of the injuries found on the bodies of the deceased Ramchand and Shrinarain, there is no manner of doubt that they were assaulted by a group of persons armed with different weapons. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has found that there was litigation going on between the parties for about 13 years regarding the disputed land known as Narulawali-kothi; and that on the day of incident when the accused party went to plough the field, the 'complainant's party reached there armed with lathis and put up a stiff resistance. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has found that there was litigation going on between the parties for about 13 years regarding the disputed land known as Narulawali-kothi; and that on the day of incident when the accused party went to plough the field, the 'complainant's party reached there armed with lathis and put up a stiff resistance. He has further found that the complainant's party first assaulted the appellants Ramliya and Bhonrya but the prosecution witnesses have failed to explain the presence of the injuries on their person. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in Mohar Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC page 2273 have laid down that the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries, probablises the defence that the accused acted in the exercise of the right of private defence of property and person and that such failure on their part to explain the injuries shows that the evidence relating to the incident was not true or at any rate not wholly true. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the deceased were the aggressors and the accused persons had acted in the right of private defence but looking to the ferocity of the assault to the deceased Ramchand and Srinarain, and the nature of the injuries found on their person, held that the accused exceeded their right of private defence and, therefore, they were guilty of culpable homicide not am uniting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part 1. In awarding the sentence, the learned Sessions Judge has taken a serious view of the entire incident and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo life imprisonment. 10. In the findings reached which were not seriously assailed before us by Shri-Mathur learned counsel for the appellants, we have no hesitation in maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part I I. P. C. we, however, think that a sentence to imprisonment for life would be too severe, in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is against the normal practice of sentence awarded by this Court under Section 304 Part I. In Bal jit Singh and Anr. This is against the normal practice of sentence awarded by this Court under Section 304 Part I. In Bal jit Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC page 1281 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have, under the somewhat similar circumstances i.e. where the accused party had exceeded the right of private defence, while converting their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, awarded to them a sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. Mr. D. S. Sishodia, learned Public Prosecutor, also does not seriously oppose the reduction of the sentence. For these reasons, we reduce the sentence of life imprisonment to one of rigorous imprisonment for 9 years. 11. We, accordingly, while maintaining the convictions of the appellants under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code, reduces their sentences of life imprisonment to one of rigorous imprisonment for 9 years under Section 324 Part I. However, the convictions and sentences of the appellants under sections 325 and 323 I. P. C. are maintained. We direct that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 12. The appellants shall be entitled to benefit of section 428 Cr. P. C. 1973, and the period of their detention in jail during investigation, inquiry or trial shall beset off against the term of their imprisonment awarded to them by this Court. 13. Subject to the above modification in the sentences, the appeals fail and are dismissed. *******