Judgement QAZI, J.:- The only question that falls for our consideration in the present appeal filed by the State is, what offence the accused have committed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, has convicted them of the offence under S. 304, Part II, read with S. 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each, which they have already undergone. 2. The principal evidence led on behalf of the prosecution consists of Ku. Sindhu (P.W. 1), Ku. Pushpa (P.W. 2) and the medical evidence of Dr. Dongre (P.W. 8). It is not necessary for us to discuss the other evidence since Rukhmabai (P.W. 3) and Sita (P.W. 4) have turned hositle. Thus, we are left only with the evidence of Ku. Sindhu and Ku. Pushpa besides medical evidence. Both these witnesses are the daughters of deceased Pandurang. The incident in question took place on 14-6-1981 at about 3.30 p.m. at Junimangalwari, Nagpur. 3. Sindhu has deposed that at the time of the incident, the accused persons resided in front of her house in Koshti Mohalla at Nagpur. On the day of the incident, her father had gone to attend the marriage of the son of Doma Tatakade, from where he returned at about 11.00 a.m. According to her, the three accused, who are real brothers, also attended the said marriage and returned back more or less at the same time. According to her, her father went to accused No. 3 Ramdas to purchase liquor, but accused Ramdas declined to supply the same and hence her father started abusing him. She has deposed that on the same day at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. when her father after taking meals was sitting on the ota in front of her house, all the three accused came there armed with weapons like Guptis and knives and assaulted her father Pandurang. Her evidence has been fully corroborated by the evidence of Pushpa (P.W. 2). This evidence has already been believed by the learned trial Judge. He has, however, given the benefit of the Exception to S. 300 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, convicted the accused persons under S. 304, Part II by recording a finding that they have assaulted the deceased under sudden and grave provocation. 4. Shri Ahmed, the learned public prosecutor, submitted that there is no justification for this finding. He has, however, given the benefit of the Exception to S. 300 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, convicted the accused persons under S. 304, Part II by recording a finding that they have assaulted the deceased under sudden and grave provocation. 4. Shri Ahmed, the learned public prosecutor, submitted that there is no justification for this finding. According to him, there was no question of any provocation, much less grave and sudden. He submitted that the incident of abuses took place at about 11.00 a.m., whereas the incident in question which resulted in the death of Pandurang occurred at about 3.30 p.m. Therefore, according to Shri Ahmed, even if the filthy abuses could be taken as sufficient provocation, sufficient time had elapsed in between the giving of the abuses and the actual incident and, therefore, the question of giving benefit to accused of the exception of S. 300, I.P.C., did not arise. He submitted that the accused should have been convicted for the offence under S: 302, I.P.C. 5. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the two daughters of the deceased. The admission of Sindhu (P.W. 1) in cross-examination is relevant and significant. It reads thus: "It is true that at 3 p.m. father saw them (accused) and abused them. He abused them by mother. I feel shy to state those abuses." In view of the above admission, it is difficult to hold that there was really any substantial time gap between giving of abuses and the actual incident. At any rate, it appears from the entire tenor of the evidence that the deceased was pressurising accused No. 3 Ramdas for supply of liquor and since accused Ramdas did not oblige Pandurang by giving him liquor, he started giving filthy abuses. The abuses have not been reproduced by the witnesses, but there is no doubt that they must have been extremely filthy. (P.W. 1) Sindhu has admitted that she felt shy in repeating those abuses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed this aspect in detail and in our view, he has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused have assaulted the deceased under sudden and grave provocation and, therefore, the offence could not be one of murder. 6. (P.W. 1) Sindhu has admitted that she felt shy in repeating those abuses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed this aspect in detail and in our view, he has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused have assaulted the deceased under sudden and grave provocation and, therefore, the offence could not be one of murder. 6. The next question then arises for our determination is whether the offence would fall under Part 1 or Part II of S. 304 of the I.P.C. According to Shri Ahmed, the offence would squarely fall under Part I. He has argued that the number of blows given, the force with which they are given, the vital part of the body chosen, undoubtedly show that their intention was to inflict those injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Shri Wahane submitted that the conviction under Part II of S. 304, I.P.C., is perfectly according to law, since according to him, the doctor has not opined as to the gravity of any injury individually. He has argued that there is no evidence to show that a particular injury is caused by a particular accused. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to this aspect and we are satisfied that there is much substance in the submission of Shri Ahmed that the offence would fall under S. 304, Part I, I.P.C. There is no dispute that the deceased has suffered large number of injuries on the vital part of his body. The weapons used by the accused are dangerous. The doctor has also deposed that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Pandurang. Pandurang died on way to hospital. We are satisfied that accused intended to inflict the injuries that were found on his person and hence they are guilty of the offence under S. 304, Part I, I.P.C. We accordingly convict them for the same. 8. As regards sentence, Shri Wahane submitted that accused No. 3 Ramdas is a leprosy patient and a lenient view may be taken. Ramdas was present in the Court and we have seen for ourselves that he is seriously affected by leprosy. 8. As regards sentence, Shri Wahane submitted that accused No. 3 Ramdas is a leprosy patient and a lenient view may be taken. Ramdas was present in the Court and we have seen for ourselves that he is seriously affected by leprosy. He has further argued that the other accused are the only earning member in their family and that they have already undergone the sentence, which was imposed on them by the trial court and it would be extremely harsh if they are made to go to jail over again after a gap of about 3 years. We think in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case ends of justice would be met if accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in addition to the sentence of 3 years, which they have already undergone. We, however, feel that the sentence already imposed on Ramdas is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. The appeal is partly allowed, inasmuch as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in addition to three years rigorous imprisonment which the trial court has imposed. We further direct that the amount of fine has to be deposited in the trial court within one month from today, failing which accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. After the amount of fine is deposited by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the same may be allowed to be withdrawn by Vithoba Laxman Sonwane, the real younger brother of the deceased, to be paid to Ku. Alka Pandurang Sonwane minor unmarried daughter of the deceased. Order accordingly.