ARORA, J.—These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated March 23. 1977, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced accused Nora Ram for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and the remaining accused for the offence under section 323 I.P.C. and acquitted accused Bhala Ram of the offences he was charged with and tried. 2. The incident, which led to the prosecution of the present accused-appellants as well as one Bhala Ram, took place on March 8, 1974, at about 4.00 p.m. in village Pal. According to the prosecution, Balu Ram, Gokul Ram, Binja Ram, Balu Ram S/o Boraji, Chhela Ram, Pokar Ram and Keena Ram, all by caste Bhambhies started from the house of Balu Ram towards the house of his father. They were playing on a chung as it was the next day of Holi. They reached near the water-tap of Meghwalon-ka-bas in village Pal, where Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Chhagna Ram,Himmata Ram, Hasta, Bhala Ram, Chuna Ram, Mana Ram, Girdhari, Loona Ram, Naagji and Haala were sitting. Out of these persons, who were sitting there, Kheta Ram inflicted injury with a Lathi on the right side of the head of Keena Ram and Nora Ram, inflicted an injury by Lathi (Gedi) over the ear of Keena Ram. Girdhari, inflicted one injury on the leg of keena Ram. Nora Ram, inflicted one injury by a Dhariya on the head of Pokar Ram. Mana Ram, inflicted one injury by Lathi near the right eye of Pokar Ram. Pokar Ram and Keena Ram fell down after receiving the injuries. Nathiya, Gokul and Chhela Ram, also, received injuries by Lathis. Several persons assembled there and thereafter they took Keena Ram and Pokar Ram to Jodhpur Hospital, Jodhpur. The cause of this incident, given in the F.I.R., was on account of party-faction in the elections and the installation of a public tap in the Bas of Meghwals and the land dispute regarding the land of Looniya. The report of this incident was registered at Police Station, Jhanwar, on March 8, 1974, at about 11.30 p.m. on the basis of the statement of Balu Ram recorded by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Jhanwar, in village Pal. 3. The report of this incident was registered at Police Station, Jhanwar, on March 8, 1974, at about 11.30 p.m. on the basis of the statement of Balu Ram recorded by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Jhanwar, in village Pal. 3. The appellant Nora Ram was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, for the offence under Sections 148,302,307 and 323/149 I.P.C. while the other accused-appellants alongwith one Bhala Ram, were tried for the offences under Sections 147, 302/149, 307/149 and 323 I.P.C. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twelve witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The accused, in their defence, examined four witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused Nora Ram for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and acquitted him of all the other charges. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, also, acquitted accused Bhala Ram of all the offences. Accused Mana Ram, Chuna Ram, Chhagna, Himmata Ram, Kheta Ram, Mohan, Girdhari, Loona Ram and Hasta were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. but they were acquitted of all the other offences, for which they were charged-with and tried. Aggrieved with the judgment, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused-appellants preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1977. The State, also, filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 304 of 1977 against the accused-respondents as well as Bhala Ram against their acquittal for the other offences. 4. The nature of evidence, produced by the prosecution, consists of the evidence of PW 1 Pokar Ram, PW 2 Binja Ram, PW 6 Balu Ram, PW 7 Chhela Ram, PW8 Gokul Ram and PW 9 Nathiya, who were eye witnesses to the occurrence. Out of these eye-witnesses, PW1 Pokar Ram, PW 7 Chhela Ram, PW8 Gokul Ram and PW9 Nathiya are the injured witnesses. PW3 Jalam Singh was the Head Constable, Police Station, Jhanwar, who recorded the statements and recovered the Dhariya Ex.1. PW 4 Ramu Ram, PW 5 Rehman and PW 11 Sagar Ram are the Motbir witnesses to the recoveries. PW 12 Ram Lal was the Head Constable posted at Police Station, Jhanwar, who investigated the matter only for a day. PW3 Jalam Singh was the Head Constable, Police Station, Jhanwar, who recorded the statements and recovered the Dhariya Ex.1. PW 4 Ramu Ram, PW 5 Rehman and PW 11 Sagar Ram are the Motbir witnesses to the recoveries. PW 12 Ram Lal was the Head Constable posted at Police Station, Jhanwar, who investigated the matter only for a day. Bhopal Singh, the Station House Officer, who investigated the case and presented the challan, was not produced by the prosecution and was produced by the defence as DW 4. PW 10 Dr. P. Dayal was the Medical Jurist, M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur, on the relevant day, who examined the injured Gokul Ram, Chhela Ram, Nathiya and Pokar Ram. He, also, conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Keena Ram. Accused Nora Ram, Mana Ram, Loona, Hasti Mal, Himmata Ram, Bugla and Chhagna, also, received injuries and they were medically examined by Dr. Mutha and their injuries reports have, also, been placed on record and they are EX. D.6 to EX.D.12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that it was a case of sudden free- fight at the place of the occurrence and the accused neither formed an unlawful assembly nor they committed any offence in furtherance of any common object. He, therefore, acquitted them of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 323/149 I.P.C. and convicted the accused with respect to their own act of inflicting injuries. 5. We would, now, like to consider the evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the evidence of the six eye-witnesses, out of which four are the injured witnesses. 6. PW 1 Pokar Ram, who is an injured, has stated that on the next day of Holi, i.e., on the day of Ramashyama at about 4.00 p.m., he, alongwith Prema, Natha, Binja, Chhela and Gokul, was going to Bora Rams house in a Holi Gair. When they reached near the house of Bora Ram, the accused were sitting out-side the house of Sukha and Mana. Accused Nora Ram was armed with a Dhariya and all other accused were armed with Lathis. As soon as they reached there, the accused started giving beatings to them and all were saying "MAAR DO MAAR DO". When they reached near the house of Bora Ram, the accused were sitting out-side the house of Sukha and Mana. Accused Nora Ram was armed with a Dhariya and all other accused were armed with Lathis. As soon as they reached there, the accused started giving beatings to them and all were saying "MAAR DO MAAR DO". Accused Mana inflicted injury on the right side of his head while accused Nora inflicted injury by Dhariya on his head. The other accused, also, inflicted injuries upon him, but who inflicted injuries at what places, he is unable to say. Kheta Ram inflicted injury by Lathi on the head of Keena Ram and thereafter Nora Ram inflicted injury by Dhariya on the head of Keena Ram. After receiving these two injuries, Keena Ram fell down and thereafter Girdhari inflicted one injury by Lathi on the leg of Girdhari. These persons gave beatings to them on account of party-faction. The complainant-party is in the Congress-Party while the accused are in opposite party and, therefore, they had given beatings to them. In cross-examination, he has admitted that after receiving the injuries, he became unconscious and remained unconscious for a month and was not even in a position to speak. He was even unable to understand and is not in a position to say that during this period of one month, who came to him. He received the information regarding the death of Keena Ram only after he was relieved from the hospital and he did not give any statement to the police during this period of one month. He has, also, admitted that the houses of all the accused are in that Gawad and near the place of the incident and Papiya S/o Mana died only two days before Holi, i.e., three days before the date of the incident and it is the normal practice in the village that the people do assemble at the door of the person grieved to pay hommage. This witness has named only four accused persons, who inflicted injuries. According to this witness, Mana Ram and Nora Ram inflicted injuries on his head of kheta Ram and Nora Ram inflicted injuries on the head of Keena Ram and Girdhari inflicted Lathi injury on the leg of Keena Ram. This witness has named only four accused persons, who inflicted injuries. According to this witness, Mana Ram and Nora Ram inflicted injuries on his head of kheta Ram and Nora Ram inflicted injuries on the head of Keena Ram and Girdhari inflicted Lathi injury on the leg of Keena Ram. Thus, this witness assigns the infliction of the injuries to accused Mana Ram, Nora Ram, Kheta Ram and Girdhari and did not name-out any other accused and gave only a general statement that all the other accused were saying "MAAR DO MAAR DO" and started giving beatings to the members of the complainant party. 7. PW 2 Binja Ram has stated that on March 8, 1974, at about 4.00 p.m., he, Pokar Ram, Keena Ram, Gokul Ram, Balu, Chhela Ram and Nathu were going in a Holi-gair. Keena Ram was having a Chang and Pokar Ram was having a Jhinjhar while all other were empty- handed. When they reached near the corner of his house, all the accused came there. Nora Ram was armed with a Dhariya and all other accused were armed with Lathis. Kheta Ram inflicted injury on the right side of the head of Keena Ram. Thereafter accused Nora Ram inflicted injury on the head of Keena Ram by the Dhariya. Keena Ram, after receiving these injuries, fell down and thereafter Girdhari inflicted injury by a Lathi on the leg of Keena Ram. Mana Ram and Nora Ram also, inflicted injuries on the head of Pokar Ram and thereafter all the accused started giving beatings to the members of the complainant party and the injured Pokar Ram, Nathiya, Gokul Ram and Chhela Ram. In cross-examination, he has admitted that all the accused were sitting near the place of the occurrence in the Chowk. The house of all the accused persons are situated in the Chowk. This witness has denied the presence of injuries on the persons of the accused and, also, stated that they did not give beating to any of the accused. This witness, also, implicated only accused Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Girdhari and Mana Ram. 8. PW 6 Balu Ram has stated that on the next day of Holi of the last year, they were going in the Gair at about 4.00 p.m. towards the house of his father Bora Ram and were playing on the Chang. This witness, also, implicated only accused Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Girdhari and Mana Ram. 8. PW 6 Balu Ram has stated that on the next day of Holi of the last year, they were going in the Gair at about 4.00 p.m. towards the house of his father Bora Ram and were playing on the Chang. When they reached near the corner of the house of his father, all the eleven accused were sitting there. Nora Ram was armed with Dhariya while all the other accused were armed with lathis. When they reached near the corner of the house of his father, all the accused followed them by saying "MAARO MAARO" and thereafter Kheta Ram and Nora Ram inflicted injuries on the head of Keena Ram; Girdhari inflicted injury on the leg of Keena Ram, and Mana Ram and Nora Ram inflicted injuries on the head of Pokar Ram. All other accused were crying "MAARO MAARO". Whether the remaining accused inflicted injuries to any members of the complainant- party, he cannot say. This witness, in cross-examination, has admitted that the houses of all the accused are situated near the place of the occurrence and all the accused were sitting out side their house and there was a dispute between the members of the complainant party and the accused party on account of water tap, which was installed in the Bas of Meghwals. He has, also, admitted that two days before the occurrence, Mana Rains son died and the accused are relatives. This witness has, also, named only four accused, viz., Kheta Ram, Mana Ram, Nora Ram and Girdhari, as the assailants. 9. PW 7 Chhela Ram is the other eye-witness who has staled that on the next day of Holi, they were going in the Gair with the Chang. All the accused followed them by saying "MAARO MAARO" and at that time, Mora Ram was armed with Dhariya and the other accused were armed with Lathis. Kheta Ram inflicted injury by lathi on the head of Keena Ram, while Nora Ram inflicted injury by Dhariya on the head of Keena Ram. Girdhari inflicted injury with Lathi on the leg of Keena Ram when Keena Ram had already fell down. Thereafter Mana Ram and Nora Ram indicted injuries with Lathi and Dhariya, respectively, on the head of Pokar Ram. Girdhari inflicted injury with Lathi on the leg of Keena Ram when Keena Ram had already fell down. Thereafter Mana Ram and Nora Ram indicted injuries with Lathi and Dhariya, respectively, on the head of Pokar Ram. Thereafter all the accused started giving beating to the members of the complainant party. He was given beating by accused Hastiya, Looniya, Chuhiya and Mohan by Lathis. This witness was confronted with his police statement Ex.D.3 and he has denied all the portions which were put to him in the cross-examination and slated that he had not stated so before the police. In the statement before the police, this witness has stated that the incident took place near the water-tap while he has denied this fact in his statement before the Court and stated that he never stated so before the police. Certain portions, which he stated in his statement before the Court, when confronted the same with the police statement Ex.D. 3, he stated that he stated so before the investigating officer and he cannot say why those portions do not find mention in his police statement. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he cannot say that which of the accused inflicted which of the injuries to him and on what place, but he received the injuries on right leg and left eye. This witness has received only four injuries, out of which, two were bruises, one was incised wound and one was irregular swelling. The part of the injuries have been assigned to Kheta Ram, Mana Ram, Nora Ram and Girdhari and even as per the statements of Pokar Ram, Binja Ram and Balu Ram, these were the only four accused who gave beatings to them. This witness, in the examination-in-chief, has stated that accused Hastiya, Looniya, Chuniya and Mohan inflicted injuries by Lathis, but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he cannot say that which of the accused inflicted injuries to him and on what parts. This witness, in the examination-in-chief, has stated that accused Hastiya, Looniya, Chuniya and Mohan inflicted injuries by Lathis, but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he cannot say that which of the accused inflicted injuries to him and on what parts. The statement of this witness, thus, clearly shows that later on an improvement has been made by the prosecution in order to implicate all the accused otherwise at the initial stage, the prosecution proceeded only against the four accused, viz., Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Mana Ram and Girdhari and therefore, the evidence of this witness, so far as the part assigned to the accused persons other than these four accused, cannot be relied upon. 10. PW 8 Gokul Ram has stated that on the day of Ramashyama, at about 4.00 p.m., he, alongwith Pokar Ram, Chhela Ram, Nathiya, Keena Ram, Binja Ram and Balu was going for Ramashyama to his fathers house. Keena Ram was having a Chang and when they reached near the water-tap, situated in the Bas of Meghwals, eleven accused persons, present in the Court, were standing there and were armed with Lathis except accused Nora Ram, who was armed with Dhariya. Kheta Ram inflicted injury by Lathi on the head of Keena Ram and Nora Ram inflicted injury on the right side of the head of Keena Ram with the Dhariya. On receiving these injuries, Keena Ram fell down and Girdhari inflicted injury by Lathi on the leg of Keena Ram. Thereafter Mana Ram and Nora Ram inflicted two injuries on Pokar Ram by Lathi and Dhariya, respectively. Chhagna inflicted injury on his right fore-arm and Himmala Ram inflicted injury on his head. Hastiya, Loona, Chuna and Mohan inflicted injuries to Chhela Ram. Bhala inflicted injury to Nathiya and thereafter the accused went towards their houses and the complainant party look Keena Ram and Pokar Ram to hospital. When he was confronted with his statement Ex.D.4, he denied that he stated in his statement before the police that the incident took place near the water- tap. He has, also, admitted that he did not state before the police regarding the scene of the incident and never gave statement before the police in the hospital nor at the police station and the police never enquired from him about the incident and for the first time, his statement has been recorded in the Court. He has, also, admitted that he did not state before the police regarding the scene of the incident and never gave statement before the police in the hospital nor at the police station and the police never enquired from him about the incident and for the first time, his statement has been recorded in the Court. He has, also, admitted in the cross-examination that Mana Rams son died only three days before the date of the occurrence and the houses of all the accused are situated in the Chowk where the incident look place. He has, also, admitted that there was an enmity on account of the election and they belong to the party of Thakur Sahib, who is in Congress-party while the accused belong to the party of Shri Heera Ram Sarpanch. 11. PW 9 Nathiya has stated that on the Ramashyama day of last Holi, the procession of Gair started. Keena Ram, Pokar Ram, Balu Ram, Chhela Ram and he was in the Gair procession. At about 4.00 p.m., when the Gair procession reached near the house of Mana Ram, all the accused were standing there. Accused Nora Ram was armed with Dhariya while all the other accused were armed with Lathis. When they were going, the accused came from behind. Nora Ram inflicted injury on the head of Keena Ram by a Dhariya. Kheta Ram, also, inflicted injury on the head of Keena Ram and Keena Ram fell down. Accused Baliya inflicted injury on his right hand and the other accused, also, started giving beatings. Thereafter they took Pokar Ram and Keena Ram to hospital. This witness, when confronted with the police statement Ex.D.5, where he has stated that 20 to 22 persons were there who gave beatings, he denied to have made such statement before the police. He was confronted by the defence on other points, also, from his statement EX.D.5, but he denied to have stated so before the police. 12. We have critically examined the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its case. It is not in dispute that at the initial stage, when the F.I.R. Ex.P. 5 was registered on the basis of the statement of PW 6 Balu Ram, the number of the assailants was given as four, which included Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Girdhari and Mana Ram, and the other accused were sitting there. It is not in dispute that at the initial stage, when the F.I.R. Ex.P. 5 was registered on the basis of the statement of PW 6 Balu Ram, the number of the assailants was given as four, which included Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Girdhari and Mana Ram, and the other accused were sitting there. The houses of the other accused are, also, adjacent to that Chowk and they were residing in that very locality. Mana Rams son died only three days before the date of the incident and, therefore, the presence of the remaining accused at the scene of the occurrence for paying hommage was most natural and they have been implicated by the prosecution in the crime only on account of their presence at the scene of the occurrence. Even otherwise, the complainant party received only 15 injuries in all and out of which, four injuries have been assigned to the accused Kheta Ram and Nora Ram. There remains only eleven injuries and nine accused. If all the accused were armed with Lathis and would have inflicted injuries on the person of the members of the complainant party then the members of the complainant party would not have received only so much of injuries. Even otherwise, also, the accused party received as many as 17 injuries which have not been explained. The genesis of the occurrence has, also, been changed by the prosecution. The prosecution has, also, failed to explain the injuries received by the members of the accused party, namely, Nora Ram, Mana Ram, Looniya, Hastiya, Himmata, Bhala and Chhagna Ram. The prosecution has, also, tried to shift the place of the occurrence from the water-tap to other place, though it has been specifically admitted by DW 4 Bhopal Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Jhanwar, who investigated the matter and presented the challan that the incident took place near the water-tap. It is really a very strange thing that the prosecution did not like to produce the Investigating Officer in its evidence and the defence has to produce him as its own witness. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has not come-out with a true case and has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and the cause, which led to this incident. The motive, supplied by the prosecution for the incident, does not appear to be probable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has not come-out with a true case and has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and the cause, which led to this incident. The motive, supplied by the prosecution for the incident, does not appear to be probable. The accused party was present at the house of Mana Ram and all the accused came there for condolences and the incident has not taken place as alleged by the prosecution and something must have happened at the place of the occurrence, due to which this free-fight had taken place and the members of the complainant parly and the accused received injuries. It was a case of free-fight and there was no question of any unlawful assembly for the purpose of unlawful object. Neither there was any unlawful assembly nor was there any unlawful object. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned lower Court has rightly acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 147,148,307/149, 302/149 and 323/149. As it was a case of free-fight and the incident took place suddenly at the spur of moment at the place of the occurrence and, therefore, each person can be convicted for his own act and not with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. 13. So far as the evidence, produced by the prosecution connecting accused Kheta Ram, Mana Ram, Nora Ram and Girdhari, are concerned, they are consistent on this point that these four accused gave beatings to the-injured. Kheta Ram inflicted injury near the left eye of Keena Ram while Nora Ram inflicted injury with the Dhariya on the head of deceased Keena Ram and Girdhari inflicted injury with Lathi on the leg of deceased Keena Ram. Likewise, Nora Ram and Mana Ram inflicted injuries to Pokar Ram. So far as the other accused are concerned, though their presence at the scene of the occurrence is proved beyond any reasonable manner of doubt, but they were neither the members of any unlawful assembly nor they took any part in the incident. The First Information Report was registered on the basis of the statement of PW 6 Balu Ram, who disclosed the participation of only four accused, namely, Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Girdhari and Mana Ram. The First Information Report was registered on the basis of the statement of PW 6 Balu Ram, who disclosed the participation of only four accused, namely, Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Girdhari and Mana Ram. PW 1 Pokar Ram, PW 2 Binja Ram and PW 6 Balu Ram have implicated these four accused, only, regarding their participation in the crime and giving beatings to the injured. So far as the remaining accused are concerned, they have only stated that all the remaining accused, also, gave beatings to the members of the complainant party. From the statements of these three witnesses, therefore, the participation of these four accused, namely, Kheta Ram, Mana Ram, Nora Ram and Girdhari, is proved and the participation of the remaining accused has not been proved. PW 7 Chhela Ram, though in the examination- in-chief has stated that Rataniya, Looniya, Chuna and Mohan inflicted injuries to him with Lathis, but in the cross- examination, he has specifically stated that he cannot say which of the accused inflicted injuries to him and on what part of the body and, therefore, the participation of these accused in giving beatings to PW 7 Chhela Ram, is not proved. The statement of PW9 Nathiya regarding implicating these accused in the crime is, also, of a general nature and no specific part has been assigned to the other accused. He has only stated that the remaining accused started giving beatings to the members of the complainant party. He has implicated Bhaliya accused and stated that he inflicted injury on his right arm, but there is no injury on his right arm and in this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned lower Court was justified in acquitting accused Bhala by giving him the benefit of doubt. PW 8 Gokul Ram has stated in the examination-in-chief that Chhagna Ram inflicted injury on his left eye and Himmata Ram inflicted injury on his head. This witness was confronted by the defence from the statement Ex.D.4. He has tried to shift the place of the incident from near the water-tap to some other place. He has, also, tried to make certain improvements in the statement regarding the infliction of the injuries by Nora Ram and Girdhari. This witness was confronted by the defence from the statement Ex.D.4. He has tried to shift the place of the incident from near the water-tap to some other place. He has, also, tried to make certain improvements in the statement regarding the infliction of the injuries by Nora Ram and Girdhari. According to him, he did not inform the police regarding the incident and he was not examined by the police earlier and for the first time, he was examined in the Court. He has, also, denied every contradictions from the police statement Ex.D. 4 and has stated that he had not stated so before the police and the police has wrongly mentioned so. In the police statement, he has not stated who inflicted injuries to Nathiya and Chhela Ram. When this witness was examined for the first time in the Court then no reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness whether the injuries received by these persons are superficial in nature. All the witnesses have tried to implicate all the relatives of accused Mana Ram, who were present there, whether they participated in the crime or not, and have tried to assign one injury to each of the accused. The accused were present at the place of the occurrence for paying hommage to the departed soul at the residence of Mana Ram. Merely because they were present there, they cannot be held guilty for committing the offence, particularly in the circumstances when the prosecution case, at the initial stage, was that these were the accused Kheta Ram, Nora Ram, Girdhari and Mana Ram, only, who inflicted injuries to the members of the complainant party. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the remaining accused and therefore they deserve acquittal for all the charges for which they were tried. But so far as the participation of the accused Nora Ram, Kheta Ram, Girdhari and Mana Ram is concerned, they participated in the crime and inflicted injuries to Keena Ram, Pokar Ram, Chhela Ram, Gokul Ram and Nathiya. 14. Now comes the question, what offence has been committed by the accused. Since there was no unlawful assembly nor was there any unlawful object, therefore, each of the accused is liable for the offence he committed. 14. Now comes the question, what offence has been committed by the accused. Since there was no unlawful assembly nor was there any unlawful object, therefore, each of the accused is liable for the offence he committed. Accused Girdhari inflicted injury by Lathi on the leg of deceased Keena Ram and both the injuries on the leg of Keena Ram were found simple in nature and, therefore, his offence falls within the purview of Section 323 I.P.C. and he was rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. 15. Accused-appellant Mana Ram inflicted injury on the head of Pokar Ram. This injury was grievous in nature, but since he was tried by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. therefore, he could not have been convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and the learned trial Court rightly convicted accused Mana Ram for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. 16. Accused Kheta Ram was,also, convicted and sentenced by the learned lower Court for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and was acquitted of all the other offence. According to the prosecution, accused Kheta Ram inflicted injury on the head of deceased Keena Ram, but no injury was found on the head of deceased Keena Ram caused by a blunt object. A lacerated wound was found on the lateral part of the right elbow of Keena Ram. Even if that injury is treated as being caused by accused Kheta Ram, even then that injury was simple in nature and the learned lower Court rightly convicted the accused-appellant Kheta Ram for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. 17. The learned lower court has rightly acquitted these three accused-appellants of the remaining offences as those offences do not stand proved against them from the evidence produced by the prosecution. 18. The next question, which requires consideration, is, what offence has been committed by accused Nora Ram. According to the prosecution, accused Nora Ram inflicted two injuries by Dhariya, one to Keena Ram and the other to Pokar Ram. So far as the injury received by Keena Ram (deceased) is concerned, it was found grievous in nature and resulted in fissured fracture of right parietal region and according to the doctor, it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. So far as the injury received by Keena Ram (deceased) is concerned, it was found grievous in nature and resulted in fissured fracture of right parietal region and according to the doctor, it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. He inflicted only one injury on the person of Keena Ram and did not repeat the blow. The accused did not repeat the blow and even as per the prosecution case, the accused were eleven in number but only 14 injuries have been received by the members of the complainant party and there is nothing on record to show that the accused intended to cause deliberate murder of Keena Ram. The totality of the established facts and circumstances of the case do show that the occurrence took place most expectedly in a sudden quarrel without any pre-meditation during the course of which the accused inflicted injury on the person of Keena Ram and on the basis of this solitary injury, which was caused by this accused Nora Ram to Keena Ram, he cannot be imputed with an intention to cause the death of the injured and with intention to cause that particular fatal injury, but he can be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause the death of Keena Ram. In the absence of any positive proof that the accused-appellant Nora Ram caused the death of Keena Ram with an intention of causing the death or intentionally inflicted that injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Clauses Firstly or Thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C. cannot be attracted. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant Nora Ram can, at the best, be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause the injury which was likely to cause the death and as such the appellant Nora Ram can be convicted under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. We, therefore, acquit the accused-appellant Nora Ram of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and after his conviction to Section 304 Part II I.P.C. 19. Now coming to the question of sentence : the incident took place in the year 1974 and the accused Nora Ram remained in jail for about two years and 11/2 months while accused-appellant Girdhari and Kheta Ram remained in judicial lock-up for 5 months 26 days and accused Mana Ram remained behind the bars for 17 days. It will not be proper to send the accused behind the bars after the lapse of about 17 years. We, therefore, think it proper to sentence the accused-appellant Nora Ram for the period already undergone by him and impose a fine of Rs. 5000/-, for the offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. So far as accused-appellants Girdhari, and Kheta Ram are concerned, they were sentenced for three months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but they have already undergone the imprisonment for five months and 26 days. But so far accused Mana Ram is concerned, the sentence to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is reduced to the period already undergone by him, but we impose a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment against him. The fine, if so recovered from Nora Ram and Mana Ram, may be given to the legal representatives of deceased Keena Ram. 20. In the result, the appeal, filed by accused-appellants Chuna Ram, Chhagna Ram, Himmata Ram, Mohan, Loona and Hasta is allowed and they are acquitted of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. They are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appeal of accused Mana Ram, Girdhari and Kheta Ram is partly allowed. Their conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. is maintained. So far as accused-appellants Kheta Ram and Girdhari are concerned, they have already undergone the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and as such, they need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged. So far as accused Mana Ram is concerned, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. So far as accused Nora Ram is concerned, his appeal is partly allowed. So far as accused Mana Ram is concerned, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. So far as accused Nora Ram is concerned, his appeal is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. are set-aside and he is convicted under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine, imposed on accused-appellants Nora Ram and Mana Ram is realised, may be given to the legal representatives of deceased Keena Ram. Two months time is allowed to the appellants Nora Ram and Mana Ram to deposit the amount of fine. 21. The appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan has got no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.