JUDGMENT 1. - Since these two appeals, ore by appellants Ram Singh, Rewat Singh and Sher Singh and the other by appellant Gulab Puri & Sujpuri, arise out of the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer dated 29-10-1986, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused Kishore Singh of the offences under section 302 read with section 147, 1PC and has convicted remaining accused-appellants, i.e. Sujpur, Ram Singh, Rewat Singh, Sher Singh and Gulab Puri of' the offences under section 301 read with section 147. 1PC and has sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/-for offence under section 302. [PC and six months imprisonment for offence under section 147, IPC. Bow the category were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Sarvashri S.R. Singhvi, Doangar Singh and M K. Garg, appearing on behalf of the appellants do not challenge the incident that these accused-appellants inflicted injuries to 1.1te Shri Urn maid Singh. Ummaid Singh has received numerous injuries and these injuries have been inflicted by these accused-appellants is also supported by the testimony of PW 12 Ramu and PW 13 Smt Kishni who were the star witness of this incident. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if the accused had any intention to kill Shri Ummaid Singh, he remained alive for two days. He was brought to the `dhatri' of Sujpuri on 24-4-1986 and remained alive uredo 28.4.1986. He was seen alive by his mother PW 16 Sringar Kanwar and also by PW i Bheem Singh. Hence, there was no intention to kill Umulaii Singh on the part of the accused-persons, rather when Bheem Singh came and he asked the accused persons as to why they are detaining Shri Ummaid Singh when he was so seriously injured. the accused persons advised him to take Ummaid Singh with him, which offer was declined by PW 1 Bheem Singh and, therefore, it was seriously con-tended by the learned counsel for the appellants that accused-persons cannot be credited with the intention to kill Umrnaid Singh. 3. It was next contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in this case no specific injury has Peen assigned to any body. 3. It was next contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in this case no specific injury has Peen assigned to any body. Along with the present accused-persons, one Kishore Singh was also tried and he has been assigned equal part in this incident_ Rather at places it has been alleged that he was the initiator of the offence. Be that it may, Kishore Singh has been acquired by giving him benefit of doubt and no appeal has been filed against that acquittal by the State Government. In these circumstances, at best the accused can be held guilty of the knowledge to kill Ummaid Singh and, therefore, the case cannot travel beyond section 3(14, Part II, 1PC. Keeping in view of this submission, Shri Deoraj Bohra, Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, also, does not seriously dispute this fact Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are firmly of the opinion that this case does not travel beyond section 304, Part II, IPC, as no specific injury has been assigned to any accused persons and when Kishore Singh has been acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. In these circumstances, the accused appellants cannot be held guilty of offence under section 302 1PC. They are accordingly held guilty of the offence under section 304 Part II IPC. 4. In the result both the appeals are partly accepted and conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants recorded under section 30). IPC are set aside. Conviction and sentence under section ..47 1PC is maintained and their conviction under section 302 IPC is modified and they are held guilty for offence under section 304 Part It 1PC. They are in custody since 7-54.986 and, therefore, we are firmly of the opinion that the period which has already undergone by them will meet the ends of justice. As both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, therefore, the accused-appellants be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. 5. These two appeals stand disposed of accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******