K.S. LODHA, J.-The two appellants, Atma Singh and Hakam Singh have been convicted under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, two years R.I, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by his judgment dated 8.2.1983. Aggrieved of this, the present appeal was filed by them. However, pending the appeal, accused Hakam Singh has already died and, therefore, his appeal has abated. We are now only concerned with the appeal of Atma Singh. 2. So far as this appellant is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant after arguing the case for his acquittal for some time, gave up that effort and urged that in the circumstances of the case, the only contention which he would press is that the appellant Atma Singh could not have been convicted under section 302, I.P.C. but could have been convicted only under section 304, I.P.C. 3. In view of this short contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we may state the facts of the case in brief. Mohar Singh and Kaur Singh are two brothers. Mohar Singh had 20 bighas of land, whereas, Kaur Singh had 30 bighas of land. Mohar Singh had three sons; Atma Singh, Hakam Singh (both accused) and Vichitra Singh the deceased. Kaur Singh had no son and Atma Singh has been adopted by him. The case of the prosecution is that Mohar Singh had distributed his land between his sons Hakam Singh and Vichitra Singh half to half bur admittedly Atma Singh was also in possession of some piece of this land along with Hakam Singh. It is also alleged that formerly Mohar Singh had given 6-1/4 bighas of his land to Atma Singh but later that arrangement was revoked when half the land was given to Vichitra Singh. 4. It appears that on account of the dispute of this land between Vichitra Singh on the one hand and Atma Singh and Hakam Singh on the other, this incident had taken place. It is alleged that on 24.10.81 at about 6 p.m. Vichitra Singh and his sons Resham Singh and Roop Singh were returning from their field. 4. It appears that on account of the dispute of this land between Vichitra Singh on the one hand and Atma Singh and Hakam Singh on the other, this incident had taken place. It is alleged that on 24.10.81 at about 6 p.m. Vichitra Singh and his sons Resham Singh and Roop Singh were returning from their field. When they reached near the land of Basti Ram Meghwal, the two appellants Atma Singh and Hakam Singh along with their uncle Kaur Singh who were lying in a bush near the kamad crop attacked them. Atma Singh had a lathi and Hakam Singh and Kaur Singh had gan-dasas. Kaur Singh is alleged to have exhorted Atma Singh and Hakam Singh to do away with Vichitra Singh and thereupon, Atma Singh gave a lathi blow on the left temporal region of Vichitra Singh and Hakam Singh gave a blow with the gandasa on his left leg on the front side, whereupon, Vichitra Singh fell down. It is alleged that both of them continued giving blows to him. Then Roop Singh and Resham Singh raised hue and cry and one Tota Singh, who was in his field about 5 kilas away, also reached there. They challenged the accused, who then ran away from the spot. The dead body of Vichitra Singh was then taken near the khala and from there it was taken to the hospital. The first information report of this incident was lodged by Resham Singh at Police Station, Suratgarh at- I a.m. on 25.10.81. On reaching the hospital, Vichitra Singh was declared dead. On this report the police started investigations. 5. The post-mortem examination of Vichitra Singh was performed on 25.10.81 at 10 a.m. and the following injuries were found on his person by Dr. S. V. Jhanwar :.— . "1. Lacerated wound 3"x1/8" x bone deep Rt. Parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound 2"x1/4" x bone deep Rt. side frontal region. 3. Incised wound 1-1/4"x1/4" on upper part of left external ear and left external part divided in to two. 4. Lacerated wound 3/4"1/8"x1/8" below left eye. 5. Blackening around both eyes. 6. Lacerated wound 1/2"x1/8"x1/8" upper part of nose. 7. Fracture of left arm from mid-part with lacerated wound of l"x1/4" bone exposed. 8. Lacerated wound 2"x|" left forearm mid part. 9. Defused swelling 2"x2" on dorsum of left hand. 10. 4. Lacerated wound 3/4"1/8"x1/8" below left eye. 5. Blackening around both eyes. 6. Lacerated wound 1/2"x1/8"x1/8" upper part of nose. 7. Fracture of left arm from mid-part with lacerated wound of l"x1/4" bone exposed. 8. Lacerated wound 2"x|" left forearm mid part. 9. Defused swelling 2"x2" on dorsum of left hand. 10. Fracture of both forearm bone bone side just above wrist with lacerated wound over fractured bons. 11. Incised wound 3 x1/4"x1/4" on middle of left leg. 12. Fracture of left 4-5-6 ribs anteriorly." It was further found on the examination of the scalp, skull and vertebrae that on the left parietal lobe there was marked congestion with minute haemorrhage in it. Membranes were congested on the left side. According to the doctor, there was an injury to the left lung and there were fractures of the left ribs no. 4,5 and 6. The doctor was of the opinion that cause of death was multiple injuries on the body, mainly injuries to lung and brain, leading to shock and death, and when examined in court, Dr. Jhanwar P-W. 4 stated that the injuries to the brain and the lungs were individually as well as collectively and all the injuries were collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 6. Now in this state of affairs, we have to consider the question as to what offence can be said to have been made out against the appellant Atma Singh or in other words whether his conviction under section 302, I.P.C. was proper. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion, that he could properly be convicted only under section 304, Part II, I.P.C. 7. It may be noted that the dispute between the brothers was regarding the land. Both Atma Singh and Hakam Singh are said to be displeased with Vichitra Singh and had attacked him but in that attack the first blow is said to have been given by Atma Singh on the left parietal region of the deceased Vichitra Singh and the second blow is said to have been given by Hakam Singh with a gandasa on the left leg. On receiving these injuries the deceased had fallen down. Thereafter some other injuries were caused to him but there is no external injury on any vital part of the body. On receiving these injuries the deceased had fallen down. Thereafter some other injuries were caused to him but there is no external injury on any vital part of the body. It, of course, appears that 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on the left side of the deceased were fractured, but there is no external injury corresponding to these fractures. When according to prosecutions own case, the deceased had fallen down after receiving the first two blows, the possibility, that he may have received some internal injury on the ribs on account of this fall, cannot be ruled out. So far as the injury to the brain is concerned, even if it is assumed that it was a result of lathi blow by Atma Singh, he did not repeat the blow on the head or any vital part of the body. The injury no. 2 namely, lacerated wound on the right side of frontal region has not been attributed to him by any of the witnesses and this injury also could be possible on account of fall. Looking to the nature of the injuries thus caused to the deceased and the relationship between them, it can easily be inferred that the accused Atma Singh had no intention to cause the death of Vichitra Singh nor the intention of causing such bodily injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He could also not be said to be sharing a common intention with Hakam Singh to cause the death of Vichitra Singh or to cause him such injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is unfortunate that Vichitra Singh had died but in these circumstances the accused cannot be held guilty under section 302, I.P.C. He can, of course, be attributed the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death but he cannot be attributed the intention to cause death because it appears that he bad given a blow on the head and after the deceased had fallen down, some more blows were given on non-vital parts of the body. He can, therefore, be convicted only under section 304 Part II, I.P.C. 8. Hakam Singhs appeal is dismissed as having abated. 9. He can, therefore, be convicted only under section 304 Part II, I.P.C. 8. Hakam Singhs appeal is dismissed as having abated. 9. Atma Singhs appeal is partly allowed and his conviction and sentence under section 302, I.P.C. is set aside, instead he is convicted under section 304 Part II, I.P.C. and is sentenced to seven years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, he will undergo nine months further R.I. If the fine is recovered, it shall be paid to heirs of the deceased Vichitra Singh.