(1) SEVEN persons were put up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar. Learned Sessions Judge convicted them, namely, accused 1, 2 and 4, under S. 304 of Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High court. The High Court confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal on merits. It is against this order of the High court that the present appeal by special leave is preferred. (2) WE have heard counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent-State. We have perused the facts and the circumstances of the case and the ocular evidence tendered by the prosecution. We have scrutinised the reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge as well as the High court in convicting the present appellants. We are of the opinion that the view taken by both the courts below on the appreciation of evidence tendered by the prosecution is unassailable. (3) COUNSEL for the appellants emphasised that the injuries were caused on non-vital parts of the deceased, Balwant Singh. It appears that the deceased Balwant Singh was a lame person. The relations between deceased and Sujan Singh were strained. The appellants were lying amongst the bushes and when the deceased got down from the bus and was proceeding towards his house they assaulted him with deadly weapons like jailies, lathies and pharsa. It may be that the blows did not fall on the head or other vital parts of the body but the fact remains that the injuries caused the death of Balwant Singh. Besides, the assault by weapons continued even after the victim fell down. His legs were twisted and broken. In the circumstances we do not think that this is a fit case where the appellants can be let off on sentence already undergone which is approximately one-and-a-half years only. (4) IT was next contended that the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment was on the higher side. The conviction being under Sec- tion 304 Part II we think it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Except for this modification in the sentence we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal will stand dis- posed of accordingly. The appellants will surrender to the bail and serve out the remaining part of the sentence.