Short Note : 1. Even after believing Santlal (PW 5) to the extent that it was Vishram, the deceased who picked up the quarrel by abusing the appellants and started beating Dilsai and Sonau by lathi, the accused appellants have definitely exceeded their right of self-defence because they continued to injure the deceased in a vindictive and revangeful spirit even after the deceased had fallen down. Looking to the number and nature of the in juries inflicted on the deceased and the vindictive and revangeful manner shown by the appellants in continuing to injure the deceased, even after he had fallen down, the case of exceeding the right of self-defence is fully made out. In view of this finding, it is not possible to affirm the conviction of the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, relying on the observations made in Tara Chand v. State of Haryana (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1891) alter the same, and convict each of the appellants for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code because the present case falls within the Exception 2 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and the offence committed cannot be held to be murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 2. The sentences imposed by the Sessions Court are also modified and each of the accused appellants is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. The sentences, imposing imprisonment for life on all the appellants are set aside. However, the appellants will be entitled to necessary adjustments of the period of detention already suffered by them during the Course of investigation, inquiry and trial. Appeal partly allowed.