JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 20, 1975 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby he convicted both the accused-appellants, Ramjilal and Chiranjilal, under section 302, 34, IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Ramdey (since deceased) was a creditor of both the appellants. They invited him to take his loans. The deceased in pursuance to the invitation went with his 'bahi' to the house of the accused. Entries were made in the 'bahi' showing the payment of appellant's debt. But, in fact, the amount was not paid, on which a verbal altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. Both the accused along with Ram Sahai, who is not before us, inflicted sharp and blunt weapon injuries on the person of the deceased. He was taken to the hospital at Karauli. After being admitted as an indoor patient, he succumbed to the injuries. Post-mortem on the dead body of Ramdev was performed by PW 1 Dr. M. P. Bhatnagar who stated that injury No. 1 individually was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and rest of the injuries were not sufficient to cause death, but cumulatively they could cause death of the injured. FIR, Ex. P/14, of occurrence was lodged at the Police Station Karauli on June 14, 1974, On commitment and after recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the accused, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statement of PW 8 Prem, son of the deceased, corroborated by the medical evidence convicted both the accused and sentenced them as mentioned above. 3. We are not required to deal in detail the evidence brought forth on record by the prosecution as the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly conceded, that there is ample evidence on record to hold that both these accused-appellants participated in the assault in which Ramdey sustained injuries on June 13, 1974 at the house of the accused, as a result of which be expired. 4. We have, however, looked into the record and are satisfied that the occurrence did take place at the time, place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 5. 4. We have, however, looked into the record and are satisfied that the occurrence did take place at the time, place and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 5. The only point seriously pressed before us is that the learned trial Court committed an error of law in convicting both the accused under Section 302/34, IPC as there is no definite evidence on record to hold that the fatal injury on the head of the deceased was inflicted by which of the three accused. 6. We have looked into the record. The evidence does show that the death was the combined effect of all the injuries. On the evidence on record, it cannot be said with certainty as to which of the two accused caused severe injury on the head of the deceased and, as such, we cannot hold all the accused liable for it unless it is proved that there was a common intention to commit the murder of Ramdey. 7. The incident was the off-shoot of a sudden quarrel while settling accounts some verbal altercation took place between the parties which infuriated the accused. No doubt, the accused used lathis and, as such, each of them must have known that the injuries which they were causing were likely to cause the death of Ramdey. In these circumstances, we think, that the ends of justice would be served if we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 302/34, IPC, and convict each of the appellants under Section 304/34, IPC and sentence them to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment each. 8. It is, however, made clear that the period of detention undergone by each of the accused during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set of against the term of imprisonment awarded by this Court. 9. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******