Short Note : 1. Appellants 1 and 3, namely, Khemchand and Rameshchand, have been convicted under section 325 read with section 114 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant No.2 Narendra Kumar has been convicted under section 304 (Part II) of the Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. 2. On 4th May 1976, the appellants armed with lathis and ballam came to the house of deceased Hukumchand and Kapurchand, but they were pacified by Hukumchand. In the evening at about 8-p.m. Hukumchand with Kapurchand left the house for answering the call of nature. When they came in front of the houses of the appellants, they found that the appellants were in their terrace. The appellants started abusing Hukumchand and Kapurchand on which Hukumchand and Kapurchand also returned the abuses. Appellant No.1 Khemchand and appellant No.3 Rameshchand Kumar lifted a big stone which was on the terrace and hurled it at Hukumchand. The stone hit Hukumchand on the head causing numerous injuries which resulted in his death. Kapurchand took Hukumchand to the Tendukheda hospital. Hukumchand died on the way. A report was lodged in the Tendukheda Police station at about 11.p.m. The report is substantially in line with the prosecution case. Held: The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that it was dark and there was no light cannot be accepted. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is that there was a lantern on the terrace where the appellants were standing arid, therefore, they would be able to identify the appellants. I accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that it was appellant No.2 Narendra Kumar who hurled the stone, Article C, at the deceased. The conviction of appellant No.2 Narendra Kumar under section 304 (Part II) of the Code must therefore be upheld. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, I think that the sentence should be considerably reduced in view of the young age of the appellant. In my opinion, a sentence of three year's rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. 3. As regards appellants Nos. 1. and 3, the case is of abetment by exhortation. The Evidence of exhortation is normally a weak type of evidence. The admitted case is that exchange of abuses was going on between the appellants on the one hand the deceased and Kapurchand (PW. 1) on the other. 3. As regards appellants Nos. 1. and 3, the case is of abetment by exhortation. The Evidence of exhortation is normally a weak type of evidence. The admitted case is that exchange of abuses was going on between the appellants on the one hand the deceased and Kapurchand (PW. 1) on the other. The evidence is not, therefore, definite. It is very likely that words of abuses uttered by the appellants may have been mistaken by the witnesses for an exhortation given by them to the other appellant Narendra Kumar for hurling the stones. In my opinion, appellants 1 and 3, namely, Khemchand and Rameshchand, should be given benefit of doubt. Appeal partly allowed.