LODHA, J.—Gurucharan Singh filed an oral report before the SHO, Surat Singh of Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar, which was registered as Cr. Case No. 23 dated 17th March, 1975, as 1 AM. According to Gurucharan Singh, there was enmity between him and the other group of persons, who are accused as the houses and the fields of both the parties are side by side. It was alleged that the accused persons had been doing damage everyday, and therefore, they were inimical to the informant and his persons. On 26th March, 1975, at about 5 PM, the brother-in-law of the informant, Singarasingh went out from the house for getting his Sarson (Mustard) weighed. He went to bow his head to Gurdwara first, and when he came out and for making water (urination) he stood, he was attacked by the accused persons by various weapons, namely, Farsi, Lathi, Pistol, Ballam, Axe etc. There upon, the informant, Tarasingh, Swaransingh, Narendrasingh, Daleep Kaur, Balwant Kaur, Surjeet Kaur, Juru-mej Kaur, Bachansingh Amriksingh and Surendrapal Kaur, who tried to save Singarasingh could not succeed and Singarasingh was killed and his dead body was lying at the spot, and injuries had also been caused to the informant and his associates also who had tried to intervene and save Singarasingh deceased, Singara Singh had received injuries on the head and chest. Ajeetsingh accused had a Pistol in his hand, which he had fired and Narendrasingh got an injury from that Pistol and his shirt had also burnt. Balbirsingh had a Farsi in his hand. Hardeepsingh had a Ballam and Mukhtiyarsingh a Farsi, Swaransingh a Tabbal, Jugendrasingh a Farsi, Joga a Lathi, Jeetsingh a Ballam, Pyara Singh a Farsi, Dilbaghsingh a Lathi, Gurdayal a Farsi and accused Bhajan Singh had a Farsi in his hand. They all gave beating with these weapons. Pyarasingh gave a Farsi blow on the teeth of the informant, Gurucharan Singh. He also received injuries on the left arm from Swaransinghs Tabbal. He also received injuries from accused Mukhtiyarsinghs Farsi. He was accompanied by the brother of Singarasingh, while filing the report at the police station. 2. The report of the alleged incident, was reduced into writing by the SHO, Suratsingh. He also received injuries on the left arm from Swaransinghs Tabbal. He also received injuries from accused Mukhtiyarsinghs Farsi. He was accompanied by the brother of Singarasingh, while filing the report at the police station. 2. The report of the alleged incident, was reduced into writing by the SHO, Suratsingh. He found that Gurucharansingh the informant was bleeding from his lips, and injuries were present on the other parts of his body also, the details of which have been given in the note appended to the first information report. The injuries received by Tarasingh, were also seen by the SHO and he noted them also in the note. On this basis of this report, a case under Sections 148, 149, 302, 324, 325, 326, and 323, IPC was registered. 3. After usual investigation, the accused persons were challaned and after committal, they were charge-sheeted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar. The accused persons denied the charges levelled against them, and therefore, prosecution was asked to lead evidence in support of its case. 4. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all, they being PW 1 Gurucharansingh, PW 2 Tarasingh, PW 3 Topkhan, PW 4 Bachan Singh, PW 5 Narendrasingh, PW 6 Smt. Daleep Kaur, PW 7 Smt. Gurmej Kaur, PW 8 Smt. Balwant Kaur, PW 9 Smt. Surjeet Kaur, PW 10 Smt. Surendra Pal Kaur, PW ll Dr. DR Sharma, PW 12 Swaransingh, PW 13 Saudu Singh, PW 14 Sadu, son of Moti, PW 15 Suratsingh, PW 16 Puranchand, PW 17 Mamman, and PW 18 Dr. Deepaksingh. Then, the accused persons were also examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C, and they denied the allegations. The accused persons in their defence, examined DW 1 Shadi and DW 2 Balbirsingh. 5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution further produced 73 documents, and the defence also produced 21 documents in support of their case. 6. On the conclusion of the trial, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as under— Dilbagh Singh Under Section 302 to imprisonment for life. All the Remaining Accused Under Section 302/149, IPC to imprisonment for life. All the Accused Under Section 148, IPC, to two years rigorous imprisonment each. Swaransingh & Jeetsingh Under Section 324, IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment. All the Remaining Accused Under Section 302/149, IPC to imprisonment for life. All the Accused Under Section 148, IPC, to two years rigorous imprisonment each. Swaransingh & Jeetsingh Under Section 324, IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment. All the Accused Except Dilbaghsingh & Gurdayalsingh Under Section 324/149, IPC, to two years rigorous imprisonment. each. Swaransingh Under Section 325, IPC, to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, one months rigorous imprisonment. All the accused except Dilbagh Singh & Gurdayal Singh : Under Section 325/149, IPC, to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment." 7. In this appeal, Mr. Tibrewal, the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, has taken us to the entire record; read the evidence of all the witnesses and the other material oral as well as documentary evidence including the defence evidence, in order to persuade us to conclude the submissions which he made that as per the prosecution evidence, the offences that have been committed by accused Dilbagh Singh and Hardeep Singh, cannot travel beyond the purview of Section 304, IPC, and that, so far as the other accused persons are concerned, they deserve acquittal. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the appeal. Since Mr. Tibrewal has not challenged the basic finding regarding the death of deceased Singara Singh on account of the injuries caused by Lathi, Ballam etc. in the alleged incident, we are not required to enter into the detailed prosecution evidence about the finding of the trial court that the death of deceased Singara Singh, was homicidal, and this is further so, because, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the learned trial court on this aspect of the case. It may be mentioned here that the post-mortem report and the statement of Dr. Deepak Singh, PW 18, show that the following injuries were found on the person of deceased Singara Singh: "External Injuries—1. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" on the left frontal region; 3" above the left eye brow. 2. One punctured wound of oval shape and size 1" x 1/2" x 2-1/2" on the left side of chest 1" below the clavicle 3" lateral to the mid line directed backward and downward. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" on the left frontal region; 3" above the left eye brow. 2. One punctured wound of oval shape and size 1" x 1/2" x 2-1/2" on the left side of chest 1" below the clavicle 3" lateral to the mid line directed backward and downward. Internal Injuries.—1. Corresponding to injury No. 1. There is comunited fracture of the frontal bone to the site of injury. Membrane conjusted. There is extra dural haemorrhage, brain portion is depressed under the extra dural haemorrhage at the site of the injury 2. In corresponding to injury No. 2, blood is present on the left pleaural cavity, trachea contents blood. There is a tear on the apical low of the left lung of size 1" x 1/2" x1/2" right side of heart is full of blood left side was empty. General condition of body". 9. This is now to be seen as to whether the finding of the learned trial court that an offence under Section 302/149, has been committed by all the accused persons, is correct, and if not, what offences are made out against each one of them. 10. It is important to notice at the very there shold of this case that two complaints were filed before the police, and it is a case, where a cross case was also registered, and police challaned both the sides. From the statement of the Dr. Deepaksingh, PW 18, and as rightly pointed out by Mr. Tibrewal, it is clear that both the sides received injuries in the alleged incident, though, death was caused to only one person, namely, deceased Singarasingh of the complainant party in this case. 11. Mr. Tibrewal pointed out from the two site-plans which were produced by the parties in this case, regarding the place of the occurrence, it cannot be said that attack was made initially on Singarasingh, when he stood up after uritation having come out of the Gurdwara as the statements of the prosecution witnesses fail to corroborate each other. According to Mr. Tibrewal the version given in the first information report that a;l the accused persons, who were 14 in number attacked the deceased, is false, because, as per the statement of Dr. According to Mr. Tibrewal the version given in the first information report that a;l the accused persons, who were 14 in number attacked the deceased, is false, because, as per the statement of Dr. Deepaksingh, PW 18, two external and two internal injuries only were found on the person of the deceased, and had there been a joint assault of 15 persons, by various weapons there should have been several injuries on his person, and that, this all shows that the genesis of the incident has not been correctly put before the Court by the prosecution. Mr. Tibrewal also pointed out from the statement of the investigating officer, PW 15 Suratsingh, that even after investigation, it was revealed that the present one was a case of free-fight. In this connection, he poined out the following relevant portion of the statement of PW 15 Suratsingh :- ^^esjh rrhk ds vuqlkj eqyfteku ;k eqLrxhl ikVhZ esa Qzh QkbZV gqbZ FkhA vkSj ml Qzh QkbZV es nksuksa i{kksa dks pksVsa vkbZ Fkh eSusa rrhk ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ i{k vxzslj ugh FkkA^^ On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence, we are inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Tibrewal that it was a case of free fight as rightly deduced by the investigating officer after due investigation, and this is obvious also from the statements of the witnesses. 12. The question then comes up for consideration is, as to what offence has been committed by each one of the accused persons. We must mention here that we are in agreement with the finding of the learned trial court that there is no consistent, trustworthy and credible evidence in support of the finding that the fatal lathi blow was given by Dilbaghsingh accused, and the spear blow on the chest of the deceased was given by Hardeepsingh accused In this connection, we may refer to the statement of Gurucharansingh PW 1, the first informant; Bachansingh PW 4; Smt. Daleep Kaur PW 6; and Swaransingh PW 12 in particular. Though Mr. Tibrewal has tried to point out some discrepancy as to the manner in which the witnesses came on the scene of occurrence, but, we are convinced that such discrepancies are too minor to discard the evidence of the witnesses. Though Mr. Tibrewal has tried to point out some discrepancy as to the manner in which the witnesses came on the scene of occurrence, but, we are convinced that such discrepancies are too minor to discard the evidence of the witnesses. We, therefore, have got no hesitation in confirming the finding of the learned trial court that the fatal lathi blow was given by Dilbaghsingh accused and the spear blow was given by Hardeepsingh accused. 13. We are now to take up the case of the other accused persons except those two in order to find out what allegations have been proved against them and whether they deserve to be acquitted. Taking the case of accused Pyarasingh, we find that PW 1 Gurucharansingh has alleged that he gave a Farsi blow on him. The medical evidence supports this version that the complainant No. 1 Gurucharan Singh received an injury on his lips 14. So far as accused Swaransingh is concerned, we find that against him, there is statement of Gurucharansingh that he gave a Tabbal-blow on the left hand of Gurucharan Singh; and he further gave an injury on the head of Smt. Gurmej Kaur PW 7 and also caused injury to Narendra Singh. PW 5 Naren-drasingh has also supported this version of Gurucharan Singh, and proved that this accused Swaransingh, who was having a Tabbal in his hand caused a Tabbal-blow on his hand. PW 7 Smt. Gurmej Kaur has also proved that injury was caused to her by accused Swaransingh on her hand. In view of the above, it is amply proved by the prosecution evidence that Swaransingh accused was responsible for causing multiple to injuries various persons of the complainant party, as described above. 15. Now, taking up the case of Jogasingh, we find that causing of the injuries by him to the person of Gurucharansingh, is proved by the statement of PW 1 Gurucharansingh. He also caused injuries to Tarasingh, Smt. Daleep Kaur, and Smt. Balwant Kaur as proved by the statements of the witnesses and corroborated by the medical evidence. He is, therefore, found responsible for causing simple injuries on the person of the above members of the complainant party. 16. We also find that Balbirsingh accused has been proved responsible for causing injuries to Gurucharansingh, PW 1 and Bachansingh PW 4. as per the statements of Gurucharan Singh PW 1; and Bachansingh PW 4. He is, therefore, found responsible for causing simple injuries on the person of the above members of the complainant party. 16. We also find that Balbirsingh accused has been proved responsible for causing injuries to Gurucharansingh, PW 1 and Bachansingh PW 4. as per the statements of Gurucharan Singh PW 1; and Bachansingh PW 4. This again has been corroborated by the medical evidence, and therefore, Bachansingh accused is also found guilty of causing simple hurt to these persons of the complainant party. 17. We further find from the evidence that accused Jogendrasingh caused simple injuries to Bachansingh PW 4 He also caused injury to Smt. Balwant Kaur PW 8, and this also is proved by the statement of Balwant Kaur PW 8 and duly corroborated by the medical evidence. We, therefore, find accused Jogendrasingh guilty of causing simple injuries to the above persons of the complainant party. 18. In the case of accused Kishansingh, it is proved that he caused simple injuries to PW 1, as per the statement of PW 1 Gurucharansingh himself and as per the statement of PW 4 Bachansingh, accused Kishan Singh also caused injury to him. Similarly, as per the statements of Smt. Gurmej Kaur and Smt. Balwant Kaur, PW 7 and PW 8 respectively, accused Kishansingh caused injuries to them also. All these injuries were simple in nature. Accused Kishansingh, therefore, is found guilty of causing simple injuries to the above members of the complainant party. 19. Taking up the case of accused Mukhtiyarsingh, we find that he caused injury to PW 6 Smt. Daleep Kaur by a Farsi from its reverse side, and in all, two injuries were caused to her. We have, therefore, no hesitation in finding this accused guilty for causing simple injuries to Smt. Daleep Kaur PW 6. 20. So far as accused Bhajansingh is concerned, we find that he caused simple injuries to Narendrasingh PW 5 and Mst. Surjeet Kaur PW 9. These injuries are corroborated by the medical evidence. We have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the finding of the learned trial court and holding that this accused Bhajansingh caused simple injuries to PW 5 Narendrasingh and PW 9 Smt. Surjeet Kaur. 21 Jeetsingh accused son of Jogasingh caused simple injuries to PW 2 Tarasingh and the same is proved by the statement of Tarasingh PW 2 himself. 22. We have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the finding of the learned trial court and holding that this accused Bhajansingh caused simple injuries to PW 5 Narendrasingh and PW 9 Smt. Surjeet Kaur. 21 Jeetsingh accused son of Jogasingh caused simple injuries to PW 2 Tarasingh and the same is proved by the statement of Tarasingh PW 2 himself. 22. Accused Ajeetsingh caused injuries to PW 5 Narendrasingh and PW 1 Gurucharansingh. This is proved that he fired Pistol and though the pellets did not pierce inside the body of Narendrasingh, but, it caused injury on his left hand, which was grievous in nature. Simple injuries were caused by him to Gurucharansingh PW 1 also. We are, therefore, of the opinion that accused Ajeetsingh as guilty of causing grievous hurt. 23. So far as accused Mehersingh and Gurdayalsingh are concerned, we find that there is no specific evidence against them for causing injury to any of the members of the complainant party. 24. Since we are in agreement with the submission of Tibrewal that the present one was not a case where an unlawful assembly was formed or accused persons came with the intention of a common object. Hence, Sections 149 and 34, IPC, cannot be invoked. Only each accused can be held responsible for his specific part, if proved, and therefore, we have got no hesitation to hold that so far as Meharsingh and Gurudayalsingh are concerned, no specific part has been proved against them, and as we are not inclined to uphold their conviction under Section 149/34, IPC, they deserve to be acquitted. 25. While discussing the medical evidence, we found that the head injury which has been proved to be fatal was caused by Dilbaghsingh accused. Undoubtedly, unless we can find in any exception contained in Section 300, IPC, this accused would be guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder. However, we find that the story of the unlawful assembly and the accused persons coming with the intention of causing murder, has not been proved by the prosecution, and all that we find is that it is a case of free-fight, which was sudden in nature. However, we find that the story of the unlawful assembly and the accused persons coming with the intention of causing murder, has not been proved by the prosecution, and all that we find is that it is a case of free-fight, which was sudden in nature. Since both the parties received injuries and injuries caused to the accused party were also numerous, because eight of them received injuries, it was not improbable if in the sudden fight this accused caused the head injury in a heat of passion to the deceased, without pre-meditation. Since he caused only one injury, it cannot be said that he acted in a cruel and inhuman manner. The offence committed by accused Dilbaghsingh is, therefore, covered by Exception No. 4 to Section 300, IPC, which reads as under: "4thly—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid." 26. In view of the above, while convicting accused Dilbaghsingh under sec. 304, Part-I, IPC, we sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 27. Accused Hardeepsingh, according to our finding which is in conformity with the learned trial court also, he caused the injury on the chest of the deceased by a spear. According to the medical evidence, this injury endangered the life of the deceased, but, it was not the cause of his death. Since we have held above that in the present case, Secs. 34 and 149, IPC, cannot be invoked, accused Hardeepsingh can be held guilty under Section 326, IPC only. He is, therefore, convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years. 28. Now, coming to the case of Swaransingh, he is hold guilty under Section 325, IPC only and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. 29. Accused Mukhtiyarsingh, Jeetsingh, Bhajansingh, Pyarasingh, Jogendrasingh, Balbirsingh, Jogasingh, Ajeetsingh and Kishansingh are held guilty of the offence under Section 323, IPC only, and each of their sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment, given by the learned trial court, is upheld. The accused persons shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428, Cr. P.C. 30. Meharsingh and Gurdayalsingh are acquitted of the charges, levelled against them. 31. The accused persons shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428, Cr. P.C. 30. Meharsingh and Gurdayalsingh are acquitted of the charges, levelled against them. 31. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal is partly accepted as indicated above and the sentences awarded to the various accused appellants except to the extent of the confirmation and modification made by this Court, as mentioned above, are set aside.