JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bundi, convicting and sentencing the accused persons as under:- Accused Kajod U/s 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, one months S. I. U/s 304 Pt. II IPC Five years RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, two months SI. U/s 452 IPC One year's RI and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, one months SI. U/s 325 I.P.C. Three year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, two months simple imprisonment. Accused Badri U/s 304 Pt. II IPC 5 Years Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, two months simple imprisonment. U/s 452 IPC One years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, one months simple imprisonment. Accused Nanda U/s 304 Pt. II IPC 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, 2 months SI. U/s 323 IPC 6 months RI and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine one months SI. U/s 452 IPC One years RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, one months SI. 2. Prabhu Lal s/o Uda (PW-1) reached the Police Station, Kota Dam alongwith his mother Mst Muli and Nanda son of his Bhua as also his father Uda and lodged a report (Ex. P. 1) at Police station Kota Dam, Bundi on 2nd April 1983 at 10.30 PM, stating that there was marriage of daughters of Kajod (appellant) in the village wherein the Barat had come from Thadi Gram and Jal ki Jhopadia. As per the custom, bride and the bride groom are taken to the temple for seeking Gods blessings. Kajod had not given any subscription for the offerings in the temple and this fact was told to Kajod by his father Uda that he should not take brides and bride grooms to the temple unless he paid the subscription for the offerings of the temple. Inspite of this, Kajod took his daughters and son-in-laws to the temple for God's blessings at about 5.30 PM. Inspite of this, Kajod took his daughters and son-in-laws to the temple for God's blessings at about 5.30 PM. Prabhulal and Nanda requested Barat people at the temple with folded hands that Kajod did not pay any subscription towards the offerings of the temple, therefore, they should first pay the subscription and then, take the brides and bride-grooms for the Gods blessings. Thereupon. Kajod (appellant) struck a lathi blow on his neck and also wanted to hit Nanda. Both of them ran away and came to their houses., where his father Uda, mother Mooli, Heera, his wife Mangi were present. Kajod and other 15 persons named in the FIR followed them and inflicted blows to the complainant party who were sitting at the house of Prabhu as a result whereof, Pyara and Uda died and Prabhu, Nanda Murki and Heera received injuries. 3. On this report, the police registered a case u/s 302 IPC and started investigation. 4. After usual investigation, the police put up a challan against the accused persons named in the FIR and also three other persons. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate committed 19 accused persons to the court of Sessions on different dates. Learned Sessions Judge after holding trial, convicted the accused appellants as mentioned above, and also convicted accused Ramlal and Jaikishan but gave them benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. Accused Ramlal and Jaikishan were also convicted u/s 452 and 323 IPC but they were also given benefit of probation. Accused Devilal was convicted u/s 452 and sentenced to one year RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, u/s 323 IPC imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 100/-. Devilal has not filed any appeal and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the remaining accused person. 5. We have heard Mr. Jagdeep Dhankhar, for Kajod appellant and Shri S.K. Jain for accused Badri and Nanda, and O. P. Sharma, Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. We have perused the judgment of the learned trial court and the record of esse. Learned counsel for the accused appellants have not challenged the findings of learned trial court that such an incident happened and the accused appellants inflicted injuries to the members of the complainant party. It was further submitted that they have not. committed any offence u/s 302 IPC or u/s 304 Pt. II IPC. Learned counsel for the accused appellants have not challenged the findings of learned trial court that such an incident happened and the accused appellants inflicted injuries to the members of the complainant party. It was further submitted that they have not. committed any offence u/s 302 IPC or u/s 304 Pt. II IPC. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to discuss the entire prosecution evidence. The learned Session Judge has discussed the entire prosecution evidence in detail and has acquitted all the accused appellant persons of offence u/s 147, 148 and 149 IPC and therefore, we have to examine the part played by each accused individually in inflicting various injuries to the complainant party. 6. Accused-appellant Kajod has been convicted u/s 302 IPC for inflicting a blow by a sharp edged weapon on the leg of deceased Pyare. He has been further convicted u/s 304 Pt II IPC for inflicting another injury on the leg of deceased Uda. It may be noted that the whole incident at the spur of the moment. There was no mediation and there could not have been any intention on the part of Kajod to murder either Pyare or Uda. He has inflicted blows by sharp edged weapon only on the legs which is not a vital part of the body and he did not repeat the blow on that person. Therefore, he had no intention to cause death of any person. Hence, he should not have been convicted u/s 302 IPC for inflicting a blow on the leg of Pyare, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as deposed by P-7 Dr. Arora and as mentioned in Ex. 65, the postmortem report Moreover, the occasion was very auspicious, as it appears that marriage of daughter of Kajod had taken place and he had taken brides and the bride-grooms to the temple for getting God's blessings. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to have committed a crime of murdering Pyare. 7. As such, we are of the opinion, that conviction of Kajod u/s 302 IPC cannot be sustained, instead he should be convicted u/s 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced of five years rigorous imprisonment for inflicting blow by sharp edged weapon to the deceased Pyare. His conviction and sentence u/s 325 IPC is maintained. 8. 7. As such, we are of the opinion, that conviction of Kajod u/s 302 IPC cannot be sustained, instead he should be convicted u/s 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced of five years rigorous imprisonment for inflicting blow by sharp edged weapon to the deceased Pyare. His conviction and sentence u/s 325 IPC is maintained. 8. As regards accused Badri, he was not named in the FIR and he has been convicted u/s 304 Part-II IPC for inflicting the injury by a sharp edged weapon on the leg of the deceased Uda who had received four injuries. This was a simple injury, though by a sharp edged weapon. Learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused Devilal who also inflicted injury to Uda u/s 323. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the conviction of Badri u/s 304 Part-II IPC cannot be maintained and he should have been convicted only u/s 324 IPC. We convict him u/s 324 IPC. Since the incident had taken in April, 1983 and Badri has already remained in jail for about three months and has been enlarged on bail, already, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice if we sentence him to the imprisonment already undergone, and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment. We grant him one months time to deposit the fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In case he fails to deposit this amount, he should be arrested any may be sent to jail for undergoing the sentence of 6 months. Conviction of Badri appellant u/s 452 IPC is maintained but his sentence is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo further RI for three months. He is granted one months time to deposit the amount of fine. 10. As regards accused Nanda appellant, he has also been convicted u/s 304 Part II for inflicting injury on the leg of Uda deceased which is also a simple injury, though by a sharp edged weapon. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that conviction of appellant Nanda u/s 304 Pt. II IPC also cannot be maintained. He ought to have been convicted u/s 324 IPC. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that conviction of appellant Nanda u/s 304 Pt. II IPC also cannot be maintained. He ought to have been convicted u/s 324 IPC. Since he has already remained in jail for about 10 months and the incident is of the year 1983, we are of the opinion, that the ends of justice will be met if he is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs/- 500/-, in default of payment of fine, two month's R. I. He is granted one month's time to deposit the fine and in case he fails to deposit the amount of fine, he should be arrested and sent to jail to serve the sentence. His conviction & sentence u/s 452 & 323 is maintained. 11. The conviction of the appellants on other counts is maintained. Their sentences awarded on different counts shall run concurrently. 12. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed in the manner indicated above. *******