(1) THERE are six appellants in this appeal. They were tried and convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 Indian Penal Code. On the last count no sentence was awarded. On the first count each one of them was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the High court. (2) THE prosecution case is that all the appellants were of Baiswara Community and they were all residents of village Regarh which is near to the outer signal of railway station Bandhwapara. The deceased Somali also belonged to the same village. According to prosecution one Chhutwa of Regarh village died in suspicious circumstances. Public Witness 8 sent information of his death but the present accused did not permit the person to go to the police station. Consequently no further proceedings could be taken. The deceased used to say that these persons were responsible for the death of Chhutwa because of enmity between them. (3) COMING to the present occurrence on 10/08/1976 at 8.30 p.m. all of them formed into unlawful assembly and surrounded and assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries. It is stated that all of them were found with lathies. The dead body was found lying near the house of Public Witness 12. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. An inquest was also held. Dr Mishra Public Witness 19 conducted the post-mortem. He found several in- juries on the dead body. The prosecution examined several witnesses includ- ing Public Witness es 2, 12 and 17. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court relied on the evidence of Public Witness es 2 and 12 and held that the prosecution established that these appellants had a common object to commit murder and therefore they surrounded and inflicted injuries on the deceased. The High court af- firmed the same. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evi- dence of Public Witness 2 and 12 is not reliable particularly when Public Witness 12 stated that he suffers from night blindness and in these circumstances the evidence of PW 2 alone cannot be accepted and benefit of doubt goes to the appellants. The High court af- firmed the same. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evi- dence of Public Witness 2 and 12 is not reliable particularly when Public Witness 12 stated that he suffers from night blindness and in these circumstances the evidence of PW 2 alone cannot be accepted and benefit of doubt goes to the appellants. (4) IT does not appear from the record that Public Witness 12 suffered from such night blindness that it was so acute as to disable the witness to identify the assailants particularly when occurrence is in front of his house. In any event he is supported by Public Witness 2s evidence. Public Witness 7 and 2 other witnesses were also examined. (5) NOW coming to the nature of the offence it is true that the doctor found a number of injuries. However, it must be noted that even according to the prosecution all the appellants were only armed with lathies and were charged for offence punishable under Section 147 Indian Penal Code. The doctor, Public Witness 19 who conducted post-mortem noticed 17 injuries. Out of them injury Nos. 1, 3, 10, 11 and 14 were described as incised wounds. Though they resulted in bleeding but no other damage was noticed. It is only injury No. 15 which resulted in a depressed fracture of parietal bone and ultimately proved in membrane puncture. Though the doctor in a general way stated cause of death was due to multiple injuries but he has specifically stated that on in- jury No. 15 he noticed a depressed fracture of parietal bone which in- dividually was sufficient to cause death of the deceased. In these circum- stances question that arises is whether all the other accused are also responsible for the death of the deceased, the prosecution has not explained as to how the deceased received incised wounds though they are simple. The prosecution case in general is that all of them were found with lathies. Nobody has stated that which of them caused injury No. 15 which un- fortunately resulted in the death of the deceased. If anyone of the appellants had exceeded the common object and acted on his own, it would be his in- dividual act. In this case unfortunately no witness has come forward as to which of the accused has caused which injury. If anyone of the appellants had exceeded the common object and acted on his own, it would be his in- dividual act. In this case unfortunately no witness has come forward as to which of the accused has caused which injury. In these circumstances we find it difficult to award punishment under S. 302/149 Indian Penal Code. (6) ALTHOUGH post-mortem report says that all the injuries might have caused the death of the deceased but in as much as the accused inflicted in- juries with lathies and particularly when they are simple and on non-vital parts it cannot be said that their object was to kill the deceased. They may have knowledge that the blows given were likely to cause death. (7) ACCORDINGLY we set aside the conviction of the appellants under Sec- tions 302/149 Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and instead convict them under S. 304 11/149 Indian Penal Code and sentence them to seven years im- prisonment. If they have served out the sentence of seven years their bail bonds stand cancelled. (8) APPEAL is allowed subject to the above modification and in nature of the offence the appeal is dismissed.