The accused appellant brought this appeal from a judgment dated 25.2.86 passed by ShriT. Bhuyan, Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Sessions Case No. 53 (D)/84 convicting him under section 304 IPC and sentencing to RI for 2 year* and to a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, RI for one more year. 2. The case for the prosecution was this at 12.30 PM of 1.7.82 six accused, namely, Md. Mahed Ali Sheikh (appellant), (2) Md. Abdul Hussain Sheikh, (3) Md. Sur Mohammad Sheikh, (4) Md. Sabed Ali Sheikh, (5) Md. Nur Islam Sheikh and (6) Md. Jahirul Haque being armed with weapons formed unlawful assembly with common object to evict Baser Ali from his land and killed him and caused grievous hurt to Newajuddin and Nasiruddin. On FIR a case under section 148/302/149/325/149 IPC was registered against the six accuseds and after investigation IO submitted charge sheet. The case was committed to Sessions Court. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, framed charge under section S48/ 149/326/149 IPC against the appellant and five other accused. They pleaded not guilty. The prosecution then examined 13 PWs including a doctor (PW 10) who conducted post mortem and the IO. From the evidence of doctor it was mot clear that the injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient to cause the death. On evidence the learned Sessions Judge found that the accused Mahed Ali Sheikh struck a blow hitting lower part of the head of the deceased and Abdul Hussain assaulted him causing simple injury; but the death of the deceased was due to cumulative effect of the blow by Mahed Ali and assault by Abdul Hussain. Thus he convicted the appellant (Mahed Ali) under section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced as aforesaid and convicted Abdul Hussain under section 323 IPC and sentenced him only to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Abdul Hussain paid the fine. 4. Mr. Mahanta submitted that in view of the finding by the trial Court that the death of the deceased was due to cumulative effect of the blow by the appellant and the assault by Abdul Hussain, the proper section to be applied to the appellant would be 325. To support this, he relied on Mohinder Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1986 SC 309 . There it was held : "The accused was convicted under S.302 by the trial Court. To support this, he relied on Mohinder Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1986 SC 309 . There it was held : "The accused was convicted under S.302 by the trial Court. In appeal the High Court upholding the guilt of the accused modified the conviction to one under S. 304 Part II and sentenced him to RI of 10 years and fine. The plea of alibi raised by the accused appellant was not acceptable. The evidence as given in the case was of a general type and it was difficult to correlate the blow given by appellant with the internal injury which according to medical evidence led to death. Held, that the accused could be convicted under section 325. Af regards sentence the period of 4 years already suffered by him was sufficient. The accused has settled in life by setting up a typing institute after being enlarged on bail and no useful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at a belated stage. 5. The other case relied on by Mr. Mahanta is Lianthlire vs. The State, AIR 1952 Assam 157. There it was not shown that the injuries caused by the accused caused the death and the case could not be covered by section 304 Part II or by section 325. The accused admitted beating. It was held that h« could be convicted only under section 326 IPC. 6. In the instant case the finding of the learned Sessions Judge was that the deceased died not only due to blow given by the appellant alone but the death was due to cumulative effect of the blow by the appellant and the assault by Abdul Hussain who has convicted only under section 323. Mr. PC Gayan has fairly conceded that in view of such finding of the learned Session! Judge it would be proper to convict the appellant only under section 325 IPC. He, however, submitted that the sentence does not call for modification. 7. I agree with the contention of Mr.Mahanta and accordingly alter the conviction from section 304 Part II to one under section 325 IPC and reduce the sentence of RI from two to one year. The sentence of fine is maintained. The appellant shall now surrender to serve out the reduced sentence.