JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar dated July 31, 1980, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/-,and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months, rigorous imprisonment. The accused-appellant Girraj was also convicted under section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on November 16, 1979, Vishram lodged a F.I.R. with the police to the effect that his father Chiranji Lal and Harpal are both brothers. Their lands are situated in the forest of Jamdoli pertaining to which the litigation is pending between both the brothers. The fields were watered on the previous night, but the water entered the fields of Girraj after breaking the Bhora of their fields. Girraj objected that his wheat crop is likely to be damaged by this water. On the date of occurrence, Chiranji lal, the informant Vishram, his mother and brother had gone to the fields. On the neighbouring fields Girraj Munshi and Heera were present. Chiranji Lal started ploughing his own fields when Munshi, Girraj and Chhota came there and started abusing him and stating him that his wheat crops have been spoil because of the water which entered their fields. There was an exchange of hot words. Girraj and Chhota gave lathi strokes on the head of Chiranji Lal and Munshi struck him with Majhah Vishram wanted to protect and save his father, but he was also attacked, Because of the fear of assault, the complainant Vishram, his mother and brother Sukh Ram cried. As a result of which Chhota and Jangli came and these three appellants Munshi, Chhota and Girraj ran away. The condition of Chiranji Lal had became serious. He was taken to the hospital but he died on the following day. 3. On behalf of the prosecution 15 witnesses have been examined. The accused totally denied of having committed any offence and claimed to be tried. It has been pleaded by the accused that Chiranji Lal went to the field of Girraj and told him as to why he has encroached open the land. 3. On behalf of the prosecution 15 witnesses have been examined. The accused totally denied of having committed any offence and claimed to be tried. It has been pleaded by the accused that Chiranji Lal went to the field of Girraj and told him as to why he has encroached open the land. On this, Chiranji Lal wanted to give lathi blow 011 the head of Girraj, but Girraj defended the lathi stroke by his arms, and Girraj, in turn, gave a lathi stroke on the head of Chiranji Lal in his right of self defence. No witnesses have been produced by the accused in defence. 4. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State have been considered and the record of the case has been carefully perused. 5. P.W. 4, Dr. Prahiad Swaroop Agrawal, stated that Chiranji Lal was admitted on the night intervening 14th and 15th November 1979 in the hospital in on un-conscious state. He died at about 11.30 a.m. 011 Nov. 15, 1979. Autopsy on the dead body was conducted thereafter. The Medical Officer found the following three injuries on the dead body:- 1. Bruise 7 x 2,1/2 cm on right temporal parietal area of head, anterior part with swelling around in 12 x 10 cms area. 2. Bruise 6 x 2,1/2 cm on left temporo parietal area anterior part with swelling around in 10 x 6 cm area. 3. Lac. wounn 1 x 1/4 cm x Skin deep on scalp in middle. 6. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were serious in nature and injury No. 3 was simple. Injury No. 1 and 2 were fatal individually as well as collectively. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused because of the fracture of the parietal bones. 7. P.W. 7, Vishram, P.W. 8, Mst. Singari and P.W. 11 Sukh Ram are eye-witnesses and they have stated that at the time of occurrence, Chiranji Lal was ploughing his fields. These three witnesses have stated that Girraj, Chhota and Manshi abused Chiranji Lal and then assaulted him. The trouble arose because of the water having entered in the fields of Girraj. 8. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has seriously contended that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence is made out under sec. These three witnesses have stated that Girraj, Chhota and Manshi abused Chiranji Lal and then assaulted him. The trouble arose because of the water having entered in the fields of Girraj. 8. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has seriously contended that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence is made out under sec. 302/34 I.P.C. He has contended that at best if the offence is held to be proved then it falls within the four corners of Section 304 Part-11 I.P.C. It was also contended that so far as the accused Munshi is concerned, it has been alleged that he was armed with a Majha. According to the medical examination on the body of the deceased Chiranji Lal no serious injury has been found to be as a result of striking by Majha. 9. We have carefully considered the evidence on record and also perused the judgment of the learned trial court. The occurrence took place all of a sudden. The dispute was only with regard to flowing of water in the fields of Giraj. Girraj and Chhota did cause injuries by lathi on the head of the deceased Chiranji Lal, but it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the injuries were caused because of premeditation by the accused. The accused-appellants only intended to teach a lesson to Chiranji Lal for damaging their crop by allowing the water to flow into his fields. The facts of the present case bring the offence in exception-4 of Section 300 I.P.C. Exception-4 of Section 300 I.P.C. provides that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken under advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The offence committed by Chhota and Girraj therefore, squarely falls u/s 304 Part-II 1. P.C. as the act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 10. The offence committed by Munshi falls within the ambit of Section 323 I.P.C. Munshi was ordered to be released on bail by an order of this Court dated August 12, 1980. 10. The offence committed by Munshi falls within the ambit of Section 323 I.P.C. Munshi was ordered to be released on bail by an order of this Court dated August 12, 1980. It appears that Munshi remained in custody from November 15, 1979 till he was ordered to be released on bail by the order of this Court dated August 12, 1980. 11. Taking an over all view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the accused-appellants is partly allowed. The sentence and conviction of the accused-appellants under sec. 302/34 I.P.C, is hereby set aside. The accused-appellants Chhota and Girraj are convicted under section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The conviction and sentence under section 323 I.P.C. against Girraj is confirmed. 12. The accused appellant Munshi is convicted under section 323 I.P.C. He has already remained in custody for about 9 months. Under these circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met by convicting Munshi under section 323 I.P.C and to the sentence already undergone by him. He is on bail. His bail and surety bonds are cancelled. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. 13. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed as stated above.Appeal Partly allowed. *******