K.S. LODHA, J.—This matter comes up on the 4th bail application of appellant Jalia. The last application was dismissed by this court on 3.8.87 and is was directed that the appeal shall be heard on 10.8.87. However, it could not be possible to hear the appeal till now and, therefore, this 4th bail application has been moved. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that instead of hearing the bail application, the appeal itself may be disposed of. He further submits that he does not press the appeal, so far as appellants No. 2 and 3-Gyana Ram and Bhadar, are concerned and so far as appellant Jalia is concerned, his only contention is that the sentence awarded to him under sec. 304 Part II, I.P.C. is excessive and should be reduced. The sentence awarded is 7 years rigorous imprisonment and appellant Jalia, according to him, has already undergone more than 3-1/2- yrs. R.I. He was also convicted under sec. 324, I.P.C. and was sentenced to two years R.I. on two counts, and all sentences were made concurrent. 3. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, to which I will presently advert, I am inclined to accept the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants, and learned Public Prosecutor also does not have any serious objection to that. 4. From the prosecution story, it appears that on 12.1.83, one Mohan was grazing his sheep and goats in jungle outside the village, where some Bawaris came to have a game of shooting. Mohan asked them not to kill any animal, whereupon, those Bawaris gave beating to Mohan. Mohan reported the matter to the villagers and also to his father, who collected inhabitants of the village and on the next day, a large number of persons, from the side of the complainant, went to the deras of Bawaris. The men-folk of the Bawaris was out and only ladies were there in the dera. Thereupon, the complainant-party took away, a came!, a she-camel and a young camel from the camp of the Bawaris and told the ladies that when Bawaris return to the camp, they may be sent to the complainant-party, when camel etc. would be returned to them. When this party left back for their village and were on the way, some 10-11 Bawaris came there armed with guns and other arms, e.g. Farsi, Lathis, Spears etc. would be returned to them. When this party left back for their village and were on the way, some 10-11 Bawaris came there armed with guns and other arms, e.g. Farsi, Lathis, Spears etc. It is alleged that on their approaching the complainant-party, they let camel, she camel etc. loose and wanted to tall to the Bawaris, who did not listen to them and attacked them. Fire was opened by one of the accused Gyana, which hit Laxminath near his knee. Some other persons also caused injuries to the members of the complainant - party and so far as the present appellant Jaliya is concerned, it is alleged that saila blow was inflicted by him which resulted into the death of Gorakhnath. He is also alleged to have caused simple injuries with saila on the persons of Bherunath and Premnath. The police put up the challan against seven accused persons for offences under sec. 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 I.P.C. They were committed to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons from offences under sec. 302, read with sec. 149, I P.C. as also sec. 307, read with sec. 149. I.P.C. He, however, convicted appellant Jaliya under sec. 304, Part II and sec. 324, I.P.C. for causing death of Gorakhnath and further causing simple injuries with sharp-edged weapon on the persons of Premnath and Bherunath. He convicted accused Gyanaram and Bhadar for offences under sec. 325 and 324, I.P.C. but granted them probation. Aggrieved of the conviction and sentences, the three appellants have filed this appeal. 5. As already stated above, now the learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the convictions of the three appellants and has not pressed the appeal so far as appellants Gyana Ram and Bhadar are concerned, but has only prayed for reduction of sentence of Jaliya under section 304, Part II, IPC. 5. As already stated above, now the learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the convictions of the three appellants and has not pressed the appeal so far as appellants Gyana Ram and Bhadar are concerned, but has only prayed for reduction of sentence of Jaliya under section 304, Part II, IPC. From the narration of the incident given above, it clearly appears that it was the complainant-party who first went to the Dera of Bawaris and had removed camel, she camel and the young one from there in the absence of the men-folk of Bawaris, and as soon as the Bawaris, to which community the appellants belong, came to know of this high-handed act of the complainant party, they pursued them and tried to get the camel, she camel and young one released and it was in this affray that injuries were caused to the members of the complainant-party and unfortunately one of them had received a saila blow on his chest from accused Jaliya. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge, Churu himself has not convicted the appellant under sec. 302, I. P. C. and has convicted him only under sec. 304, Part II, I. P. C. The accused is a young person and had gone in pursuit of the complaint party along with his father Gyanaram and other members of the Bawari in order to rescue the camel etc which had been taken away in their absence. He must have been acting under the guidance and control of his father and other elderly members. He is alleged to have caused only one injury on the person of Gorakhnath; unfortunately, that proved fatal 6. Looking to all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence of seven years R.I. awarded to appellant Jaliya is little harsh and severe and deserves to be suitably reduced. Accused appellant Jaliya had been in custody from 3.2.83 to 7.6.85 during the course of trial and then again from 5.11.86 till today during the pendency of this appeal and, thus, has served out about three years and 10 months sentence. I am of the opinion that this sentence would meet the ends of justice 7. The result, therefore, is that the appeal filed by Gyana Ram and Bhadar is dismissed as not pressed. Jalias appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining his conviction under sec. I am of the opinion that this sentence would meet the ends of justice 7. The result, therefore, is that the appeal filed by Gyana Ram and Bhadar is dismissed as not pressed. Jalias appeal is partly allowed and while maintaining his conviction under sec. 304, Part II I. P. C. the sentence awarded to him is reduced to that already under gone. His convictions under section 324, I. P. C. are also maintained and the sentences awarded in that respect have already been made concurrent and must have been served out by now. He will, therefore, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.