(1) THE two appellants along with many others were convicted under Section 302 read with S. 149 and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of one Manohar Lal and injuring other persons. The High court came to hold that the alleged common object had not been established and it was a free fight rising out of hurling of abuses. It was not possible to find as to which party was the aggressor. The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was a free fight and that the authors of the injuries would be punishable for their respective blows. The conviction under S. 148 was set aside. Apart from the present appellants in regard to others the High court vacated their con- viction under S. 302 and convicted them under S. 325 IPC. In regard to these two appellants, on the basis of the oral evidence as also the medical evidence the High court sustained the conviction under Sec- tion 302 and maintained the sentence of imprisonment for life. (2) WHEN special leave was granted it was confined to the question relating to the nature of offence and sentence. (3) MR Mulla appearing in support of the appeal contended that the deceased received two injuries on the head and the third one as the doc- tor has said could have been caused by fall. According to him since the jaili was used as a lathi and not as a piercing instrument but the metallic sharp ends attached to it have been found to have caused two injuries on the head. (4) WE have read the medical evidence. We have also scanned evi- dence of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence is clear that lathi and jaili were used and both of them were aimed at the head. Three injuries have been found on different parts of the head of the deceased. It is dif- ficult for us in these circumstances to accept the contention of Mr Mulla that only one person caused the fatal injuries on Manohar Lal. (5) YET, it still remains to be determined whether an offence of mur- der has been committed and Mr Mulla has rightly contended that an offence under S. 302 has not been established. It is dif- ficult for us in these circumstances to accept the contention of Mr Mulla that only one person caused the fatal injuries on Manohar Lal. (5) YET, it still remains to be determined whether an offence of mur- der has been committed and Mr Mulla has rightly contended that an offence under S. 302 has not been established. There is material to show that similar injuries which caused the death of Manohar Lal were suffered by some of the accused persons in the free fight. (6) WE are of the view that the proper S. under which the two appellants should be convicted is S. 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and not S. 302 IPC. Accordingly we direct that the appellants be convicted under S. 304 Indian Penal Code instead of under S. 302 Indian Penal Code and each of them shall suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment in place of the sentence of imprisonment for life.