JUDGMENT I.G. Shah, J. - Original Accused No. 1 who was prosecuted along with four other accused persons for offences punishable under sections 147, 148 302 read with 149,307 read with 149, 120- B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 37 (1) read with 135 of Bombay Police Act and who has been convicted of the offence punishable under section 301 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 500 in default further R.I. for three months on the first count and R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 500 in default further R.I. for six months on the second count, has preferred this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: "Deceased Rama was the brother of Lax man (P.W. 1) and Awanna (P.W. 14) Gourabai (P.W. 12) is the mother of the said deceased Rama and his brother Luxman and Awanna. In 1980, Laxman (P.W. 11) Awanna (P.W. 14) deceased Rama, and one more brother of theirs were prosecuted for murder of the Sidhappa. In the said case, deceased Rama, Laxman (P.W. 11) and Awanna (P.W. 14) were convicted and were sentenced to imprisonment for three years. One of the other accused prosecuted in that case was also sentenced to death and the rest of the accused were acquitted. In 1984, deceased Rama, Laxman (P.W. 11) and Awanna (P.W. 14) were released from jail after they served out the sentences imposed on them. The accused Nos. 1, 3,4 and 5 in the present case are cousin brothers inter se and Accused No. 2 is their friend. Relations of the present accused persons became strained with deceased Rama and his brothers in view of the said incident of murder of Sidhappa Bargude. Prosecution claims that the accused persons wanted to take Malleshi Sharnappa Bargude v. state of Maharashtra revenge of the murder of Sidhappa against deceased Rama and his brothers. The prosecution, therefore, alleges that on 6th April, 1989, which was the day of Padvofestival, the Accused No. 1 along with Accused No. 2 came to the village of deceased Rama in the morning and they are alleged to have threatened Laxman (P.W. 11) that Rama should be produced before them and they desired to take revenge. The prosecution, therefore, alleges that on 6th April, 1989, which was the day of Padvofestival, the Accused No. 1 along with Accused No. 2 came to the village of deceased Rama in the morning and they are alleged to have threatened Laxman (P.W. 11) that Rama should be produced before them and they desired to take revenge. Laxman (P.W. 11) is alleged to have immediately apprised his brother Awanna (P.W. 14) about the said threat. Laxman (P.W. 11) instructed Awanna to inform deceased Rama that he should not come to the village but before Awanna could do so, deceased Rama along with his family members came to the village and he came near the house of Laxman Deceased Rama had come to the village to take his mother Gourabai with him to village Badagi, where they wanted to attend some family function. Rama after parking his bullock cart in front of the house of Laxman went and informed his mother Gourabai to be ready to go to Badagi with him. Deceased Rama then went to a shop to purchase Bidis. When deceased Rama was coming back from the shop, he noticed the accused waiting for him. It is the prosecution case that all the accused persons, seeing Rama started abusing him and rushed on him. Hearing the hue and cry, Gourabai (P.W. 12) came out of the house and noticed the said incident and she started dragging deceased Rama towards her house with a view to avoid the quarrel. It is the prosecution case that when Gourabai dragged deceased Rama towards her house, the accused No. 1 fired gun-shots towards deceased Rama and due to that deceased Rama was injured. It is also the prosecution case that some of the bullets also injured Gourabai (P.W, 12). After the gun was fired at deceased Rama, he is alleged to have pounced upon Accused No. 1 and they both fell on the ground and a scuffle took place between them. Jyotappa Accused No. 2, is alleged to have intervened in the quarrel and he fell on deceased Rama and the Accused No. 1 Laxman (P.W. 11) and Awanna (P.W. 14) a noticing the said quarrel, are alleged to have intervened with a view to rescue their brother deceased Rama. Jyotappa Accused No. 2, is alleged to have intervened in the quarrel and he fell on deceased Rama and the Accused No. 1 Laxman (P.W. 11) and Awanna (P.W. 14) a noticing the said quarrel, are alleged to have intervened with a view to rescue their brother deceased Rama. Accused No. 4 Ganpati is alleged to have picked up the gun which was fell even on the spot and is alleged to have run away. Rest of the Accused persons are also alleged to have run away immediately after the incident. Deceased Rama and Gourabai were taken to Bandarkava the in a bullock-cart but unfortunately deceased Rama died on the way. Laxman (P.W. 11) is alleged to have gone to Madrup Police Station and given F.I.R. about the incident. Awanna (P.W. 14) is also alleged to have tried to have initially informed Mandrup Police Station about the incident by telephone but he could not get the telephone line and therefore, he is alleged to have contacted control room, Solapur and given a message to the police that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had murdered his brother and that his mother also was seriously injured. On the strength of F.I.R. given by Laxman (P.W. 11) offence was registered. It is also the prosecution case that when P.S.I. Damodar Gaikwad (P.W. 16) was recording the F.I.R. of Laxman, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 themselves came to the Police Station to lodge a complaint. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were then arrested in the Police Station itself. A gun, a fired cartridge, one miss fired cartridge, 18 live cartridges which were with accused No. 1 were also seized. Blood stained shirt and Banian which the Accused No. 1 was wearing at the time of his arrest were seized under a panchanama. Blood-stained clothes of Accused No. 2 were also seized at the time of their arrest. The Prosecution case is also that as far as Accused No. 3 is concerned, he has produced the blood-stained clothes after taking the police and the panch witnesses to his house." 3. On completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the present appellant and four other accused for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 read with 149,47 148 and 12O-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 37(1) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 4. On completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the present appellant and four other accused for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 read with 149,47 148 and 12O-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 37(1) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 4. After the committal of the case ,the present appellant along with other four accused was tried before the Sessions Court. Charge under sections. 147, 148 302 red with 149, 307 read with 149, 120-B of I.P.C. and 37 (1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act was framed against the accused persons. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On the strength of the evidence led before the Sessions Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had established that Accused No. 1 had committed offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian. Penal Code and keeping with the said finding convicted him and sentenced him as stated earlier. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos. 2 to Sand therefore acquitted them. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the Accused No. 1 has come to this court in appeal. On the strength of evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that deceased Rama died of a homicidal death. The said finding is not challenged before us. There is sufficient evidence to show that deceased Rama had sustained injuries due to gunshot and that the said injuries were ante-mortum. Sufficient evidence is also there to show that due to the said injuries internal injuries resulting in death of deceased Rama were caused and that the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased Rama. Similarly, there is sufficient evidence led by the prosecution which has been accepted by the trial Court, to show that Gourabai (P.W. 12) had sustained injuries due to gunshot and as the said injuries were caused to her due to a gunshot, the trial court found that Accused No. 1 who was responsible for the said injuries had also committed the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. On behalf of the Appellant-Accused No. 1 it is very strenuously contended that though the Accused No. 1 in his statement under section 313 of Cr. 6. On behalf of the Appellant-Accused No. 1 it is very strenuously contended that though the Accused No. 1 in his statement under section 313 of Cr. P.C. has denied the entire incident the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself is sufficient to hold that the accused No. 1 would be entitled to a right of self-defence. Mrs. Dandekar, appearing for the Appellant-Accused contended that the trial Court did not find the evidence of the prosecution witnesses completely truthful. She pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in fact rejected the evidence of the prosecution witnesses - Laxman (P.W. 11) Gourabai (P.W. 12), Awanna (P.W. 14) and Pundlik (P.W. 15) as against Accused Nos 2 to 5 and, therefore, the evidence of these witnesses ought to have been scrutinized very carefully and cautiously against Accused No. 1. It is contended that from the trial court judgment it is clear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the said witnesses-examined by the prosecution had falsely involved accused Nos. 2 to 5 though they had not played any part in the offence at all and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have also rejected the evidence of the said witnesses even against Accused No. 1. Now, it is true that the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution witnesses to the incident have exaggerated and tried to rope in Accused Nos. 2 to 5 though they had actually not taken any part in the incident. It is also true that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did find that the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 did not form any unlawful assembly and they had not gone to the village with the common object of causing death of Rama: The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that the story of threat alleged to have been given by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they wanted to take revenge and that Laxman should point out deceased Rama is not truthful. The learned Additional Sessions judge, it appears did not accept the said case of unlawful assembly and the threat alleged to have been given by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 because the same did not find place in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements recorded by the police of the witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions judge, it appears did not accept the said case of unlawful assembly and the threat alleged to have been given by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 because the same did not find place in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements recorded by the police of the witnesses. Relying on the omission which were brought on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the said case tried to be made out of the unlawful assembly and conspiracy against the Accused Nos. 1 to 5 was not made out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, found that the evidence of the said witnesses about the incident and the involvement of Accused No. 1 was truthful. He found that the Accused No. 1 saw deceased Rama suddenly and some exchange of words in the form of abuses took place between them and in that incident Accused No. 1 find gunshots at deceased Rama resulting in the causing of a fatal injury to him. He also found that Gourabai (P.W. 12)-who was trying to drag deceased Rama also sustained injuries due to the bullets of the said gunshot. Mr. Dandekar, tried to content that in view of the fact that the evidence of Laxman (P.W. 11), Gaurabai (P.W. 12), Awanna (P.W. 14) and Pundik (P.W. 15) is found to be completely truthful, it was necessary to exercise caution and the trial court ought to have considered the defence of the accused No. 1 as probable. She contended that he prosecution evidence itself also shows that accused No. 1 had also sustained two injuries namely. (i) Incised wound and also lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on right frontal region. (ii) Contused lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm on right occipital region. The above said injuries were found by the Medical Officer to have been caused within 24 hours of his examination of Accused No. 1 on 6.4.1989. She also tried to contend that Jyotappa Accused No. 2 was found to be having two contused lacerated wounds and an abrasion injuries on his person and the same were also noticed by the Medical officer on 6.4.1989 and he also found that the same were caused within 24 hours of his examination and, therefore, the defence of the Accused No. 1 is a probable defence. She also pointed out that the Accused No. 1 had also given a complaint to the Police alleging that when he was near the vest of the village and Mosque he was assaulted by deceased Rama with stick and, thereafter, Laxman (P.W. 11) and Awanna (P.W. 14) also joined deceased Rama in the assault and gave him fist blows and kicks. It is on the strength of this material that it is tried to be contended that the prosecution evidence itself along with complaint filed by Accused No. 1 immediately after the incident makes the defence probable and, therefore, when the accused had sustained two injuries on his head which is a vital part of the body, he must have apprehended that he may be either killed or he may sustain fracture injuries and, therefore, if he had fired a gunshot at deceased Rama, it was within his-right of self defence that he had done so. She further contended that no doubt the prosecution witnesses do not state anything about any assault on the Accused No. 1 but when the trial Court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself is not completely truthful, the possibility of their suppressing the part played by deceased Rama. Laxman (P.W. 11), Awanna (P.W. 14), should have been considered as possible and, therefore, the version given by the Accused No. 1 in the complaint filed by him should have been accepted by the Court. As stated earlier, the accused in his statement under Section 313 did not plead any right of self defence. No doubt it is snot necessary for the accused to plead the right of self defence specifically. Even if such a case is made out from the prosecution evidence, and it is found that the accused was assaulted and, therefore, in order to save himself, he had caused the death, he would be entitled to the right of self defence. Now, it is true that in the present case, evidence of P.W. No. 1 Laxman, Gourabai P.W. 12, and Awanna P.W. 14 has not been accepted as completely truthful by the trial Court. The trial court also found as stated earlier that Accused Nos. Now, it is true that in the present case, evidence of P.W. No. 1 Laxman, Gourabai P.W. 12, and Awanna P.W. 14 has not been accepted as completely truthful by the trial Court. The trial court also found as stated earlier that Accused Nos. 2 to 5 did not appear to have participated in the incident and merely because they were present at the time of the incident, when Accused No. 1 fired a gunshot, they cannot be held responsible for the same. The trial court also found that Accused No. 1after the release of deceased Rama, P.W. No. 11 Laxman, P.W. No. 14 Awanna from the jail had obtained a licence of a gun and was always keeping the gun with him whenever he used to be out of his house and, therefore, merely because Accused No. 1 was carrying a gun, when they all went to the village of deceased Rama, one cannot infer that they had gone with the intention or object of picking up a quarrel and causing death f deceased Rama. It is due to this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Accused Nos. 2 to 5 cannot be said to be having a common object and the entire incident was an outcome of a sudden quarrel which took place between deceased Rama and Accused No. 1. It is in this view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Accused Nos. 2 to 5. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did find that the incident was truthful and it was Accused No. 1 who had fired the gunshot. Now it is true that in such state of evidence a very cautious approach is necessary to ascertain as to whether the incident as alleged by the prosecution witnesses took or the incident as claimed by Accused No. 1 in his complaint which he had filed immediately after the incident took place. As stated earlier, it is also true that two injuries are noticed by the Medical Officer on 6th April, 1989, on the head of the Accused No. 1 and similarly three injuries were noticed on the person of Jyotippa Accused No. 2. Now, it is necessary to consider as to whether the said injuries were caused as claimed by Accused No. 1 his complaint had tried to contend that it was deceased Rama, who started assaulting him with a stick and then Accused Nos. Now, it is necessary to consider as to whether the said injuries were caused as claimed by Accused No. 1 his complaint had tried to contend that it was deceased Rama, who started assaulting him with a stick and then Accused Nos. 2 and 3 also joined him and started assaulting him with fist blows and kicks. He also claims in the complaint on which he relies that Accused No. 2 was also assaulted by deceased Rama and P.W. 11 and P.W. 14. Now, therefore, the claim made by Accused No. 1 is that he was assaulted by deceased Rama with a stick and P.W. Nos. 11 and 14 assaulted him with fist blows and kicks, and obviously by using stick, no incised wound could be caused. Similarly, even the fist blows and kicks would not result in incised wounds. The complaint filed by Accused No. 1, on which he tries to rely, does not make out a case of use of any sharp edged weapon at all by any of his assailants. Mrs. Dandekar tried to contend that from the evidence of Medical Officer, P.W. No. 7, it is clear that when Accused No. 1 gave history of the assault he had started that he was assaulted by stone and stick. It is, therefore, contended that stone could cause an incised wound. The complaint of course does not speak of any assault by stone. Apart from this, the injuries noticed on the person of Accused No. 1 are very insignificant injuries of the size of 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm and 1 cm x 1/2 cm. No doubt an argument could be advanced that the result of the assault is not very material. What is material is the apprehension in the mind of person, and if Accused No. 1 was assaulted on his head, though very minor insignificant injuries were caused, he could have apprehended that deceased Rama and P.W. No. 11 and P.W. No. 14 by their assault may cause a fracture injury. In that event, no doubt the accused will be entitled to a right of self defence and he could even cause death of the assailants. But in the present case, There are indications which clearly show that the contention tried to be raised on behalf of the accused does not have much force. In that event, no doubt the accused will be entitled to a right of self defence and he could even cause death of the assailants. But in the present case, There are indications which clearly show that the contention tried to be raised on behalf of the accused does not have much force. First of all, the injuries on the person of Accused No. 1 as well Accused No. 2 are very minor. Secondly, incised would noticed on the right frontal region of the Accused No. 1 by the Medical Officer is not consistent with the contents of his complaint on which reliance is placed by the Accused No. 1 as it does not make out a case of assault by any sharp edged weapon at all. It does not even speak of pelting of any stone. Apart from this the evidence of the prosecution witnesses explains as to how the injuries noticed on the person of the Accused No. 1 could be caused. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that immediately after the gunshot was fired, deceased Rama pounced upon the Accused No. 1 and then a scuffle is staled to have commenced between them and they both fell down on the ground. Now in that scuffle both the injuries noticed on the person of Accused No. 1 which are very minor could have been caused. An attempt is made to contend that the Medical Officer has stated that the injuries as noticed on the person of Accused No. 1 could not have been caused' due to a fall. Now as far as lacerated wound and contused lacerated wounds are concerned, they definitely could be caused due to a fall. Even if the Medical Officer states that they could not have been caused due to a fall, it is difficult to accept the said evidence. As far as the incised wound is concerned if it could be caused by a stone which has sharp edge then if one on the ground some stone is there that also can cause the said injury. As a matter of fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also felt that the said injuries could be also self inflicted as they are minor. As a matter of fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also felt that the said injuries could be also self inflicted as they are minor. Apart from this there could be no apprehension of any fracture injury to be caused to the Accused No. 1 as it is clear from the Statement made in the complaint filed by, Accused No. 1 that he had fired at deceased Rama, when he was at a distance of 30 feet. Now, in the deceased Rama was at a distance of 30 feet, there could be no question of any apprehension in the mind of Accused No. 1 that he was likely to be assaulted and in that assault he may sustain any fracture or any fatal injury. The statement made in the complaint by Accused No. 1 about the said distance also is borne out from the fact that when clothes of "the deceased were examined by the Chemical Analyser, no gun powder was noticed on the same indicating thereby that the gun was fired from a longer distance, in view of this, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Laxman, Gourabai and Awanna P.W. Nos. 11, 12 and 14 respectively, that deceased Rama was shot down by firing a gunshot from a distance appears to be truthful evidence. Gourabai has also stated that as she apprehended that deceased Rama might be fired at, she tried to drag deceased Rama from the spot where the oral quarrel was going on between deceased Rama and Accused No. 1. This was naturally with a view to save him as she definitely could have apprehended the use of a gun by. Accused No. 1 which was hanging on his shoulder. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that it is difficult to accept that deceased Rama would try to assault Accused No. 1 with a stick and that P.W. Nos. 11 and 14 would try to assault even with fist and kicks, Accused No. 1 when he was armed with a gun which could be very clearly seen hanging on his shoulder. This reasoning cannot be considered as unfounded. One cannot expect that the deceased Rama would be so foolish to assault Accused No. 1 with a stick and that his two brothers would try to assault Accused No. 1 with fist blows and kicks while he was possessing a gun. This reasoning cannot be considered as unfounded. One cannot expect that the deceased Rama would be so foolish to assault Accused No. 1 with a stick and that his two brothers would try to assault Accused No. 1 with fist blows and kicks while he was possessing a gun. Therefore, the defence, that is, tried to be made out in the complaint filed by Accused No. 1, and which is being relied upon on behalf of the accused, does not appears to be having much substance. An attempt was also made to contend that though several independent witnesses could have been available for the prosecution, no attempt is made by the prosecution to produce then before the Court. First of all, it is not correct to say that no attempt has been made by the prosecution to adduce independent evidence. Prosecution did examine P.W. 13 Swami, who appears to be independent witness. However, unfortunately, for the prosecution he turned hostile and he did not support the prosecution case. Cross-examination of the said witness by the learned A.P.P. clearly shows that he was confronted with the statement made by him before the police which clearly indicates that he was examined as an eye-witness to the incident. Now, therefore, one cannot find fault with the prosecution that the prosecution did not try to examine any independent witness. Apart from this, one has to consider as to whether the witnesses who are examined by the prosecution even if they are related to the deceased, whether they could be naturally present at the time of the incident. As far as Gourabai is concerned, there cannot be any doubt about her presence at the time of the incident as she actually received gunshot wounds also. As far as Laxman and Awanna are concerned, they are residents of the same village and, therefore, their presence is also natural. One Pundlik P.W. 15 is also examined and he clearly appears to have a grocery shop just near the place of incident and, therefore, his presence at the time of the incident also cannot be doubted. An attempt was made to contend that Pundlik is also related to deceased Rama and his brothers. Even if it is accepted that he is related, merely on that count it will not be proper to throw his evidence as not reliable. An attempt was made to contend that Pundlik is also related to deceased Rama and his brothers. Even if it is accepted that he is related, merely on that count it will not be proper to throw his evidence as not reliable. His evidence clearly shows that after gunshot was fired upon deceased Rama, he had tried to pounce upon Accused No. 1 and a scuffle had taken place and in that scuffle they both had fallen down on the ground. An attempt was made to contend that this story is not found in his statement before the Police. However, the said contention is not borne out from the record. While he was tried to be confronted with certain portions of statements made by him before the police he was asked whether he had stated before the Police that Jyotappa fell on Rama and Accused No. 1, he was not asked in the cross-examination whether he had stated before the Police that deceased Rama had pounced upon Accused No. 1 and that scuffle ensued between them and in that scuffle they fell down. Therefore, in fact, there is no omission in this respect at all which could be said to have been brought on record. Therefore, his evidence clearly must be held to be acceptable in this respect and the said evidence definitely explains the injuries caused to the Accused No. 1 which I may say even at the cost of repetition, are very minor and not of much significance. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the incident did take place and the Accused No. 1 was very much involved in the same and he had fired a gunshot at deceased Rama. No case of self-defence, as tried to be made out, by Mrs. Dandekar, can be said to have been established on the basis of evidence before the Court. Hence, the said theory of self defence has been rightly rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. No reliance could be placed on the same. 8. In the result, there is sufficient evidence which proves that deceased Rama was shot by Accused No. 1 with a gun causing him the fatal injury and due to that he died. Hence, the said theory of self defence has been rightly rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. No reliance could be placed on the same. 8. In the result, there is sufficient evidence which proves that deceased Rama was shot by Accused No. 1 with a gun causing him the fatal injury and due to that he died. Hence, the prosecution has established that Accused No. 1 committed the offence of murder of deceased Rama, hence his conviction of the offence punishable under section 302, I.P.C. will have to be upheld. 9. As far as the offence under Section 307 which the Accused No. 1 is alleged to have committed by causing gunshot injuries to Gourabai is concerned, it is necessary to consider as to whether it could fall within the purview of section 307, I.P.C. It does appear that injuries caused to Gourabai are not on the vital part of the body, but they were caused on her arm and, therefore, the said injuries cannot be said to be sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course of nature. Apart from this, it is also clear that there was no intention of Accused No. 1 to cause any injury to Gourabai. It is only when she tried to intervene to drag deceased Rama, she sustained injuries and, therefore, one cannot attribute any intention to Accused No. 1 to cause fatal injuries to her. At the most he could be held responsible for causing injuries to Gourabai by firing a gunshot. The offence, therefore, would fall under section 324 and not 307. Hence, the conviction of Accused No. 1 of the offence punishable under Section 307 cannot be sustained and the same win have to be altered to one under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, necessary also to consider that if the offence in respect of Gourabai falls under section 324, what sentence is called for in respect of the said offence. The maximum sentence under that section provided is three years hence, the sentence of R.L of five years cannot be sustained and the same will have to be reduced. As the act of firing by a gun is a serious act, it would be proper to give maximum sentence that can be given. 13. The maximum sentence under that section provided is three years hence, the sentence of R.L of five years cannot be sustained and the same will have to be reduced. As the act of firing by a gun is a serious act, it would be proper to give maximum sentence that can be given. 13. In the result, the conviction of the appellant-Accused No. 1 of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded there under are upheld. However, the conviction of the offence punishable under section 307 and the sentence awarded there under is set aside and the conviction is altered to an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant-Accused No. 1 is sentenced to R.L for three years and a fine of Rs. 500 in default to further R.I. for six months. Appeals partly allowed.