JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant, Sardar Singh, has filed this appeal against his conviction under section - 302 I.P.C. recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, vide judgment dated, August 30, 1982, in Sessions Case No. 41/81, whereby the learned Judge sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further awarded six months' rigorous imprisonment. The rest of the 14 accused were acquitted of all the charges. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that one Baru Singh lodged a report at Police Station, Neem ka Thaisa at 7.15 p.m. on 8th August, 1981 for an incident which had taken place at 3 or 4 p.m. on the same day. It was alleged in the said report that a Panchayat was called at the residence of Baru Singh by Mai Singh, Prem Singh, Amar Singh and others to resolve a land dispute between the relations at 3 or 4 p.m, When the Panchayat was going on, there was exchange of hot words between Banne Singh and Sardar Singh, on which, Banne Singh walked out of the Panchayat. He was followed by all Die 15 accused persons and they assaulted Banne Singh. It was also stated that Banne Singh became un-conscious on account of head injuries and he was taken to hospital for his treatment. The F.I.R. is Ex.P. 1. On this report (Ex.P. 1), crime No. 120/81 was registered initially under section 307 I.P.C. and other minor offences, but, subsequently, Section 302 I.P.C. was added after the death of Banne Singh The post-mortem of Banne Singh was performed by Dr. M.P. Jain, Medical Jurist, Sri Kalyan Hospital, Sikar. He found following injuries on his body: 1. Stitched wound 8 cms. long with six stitches of thread on Rt. fronto-parietal region of scalp parallel to mid line 2.5 cms. away from it. 2. Swelling around left fore-arm 10 cms. X 5 cms with two punctured wounds: (i) 1.5 cms. X 1/2 cms. X1/2 cms. - 7 cms. (ii) 1.5 cms. X. 1/4 cms. X1/2 cms. 10 cms. proximate On opening of the scalp, fracture of right frontal and parietal bones of skull were also found. He also found rupture of membranes on right side. X 5 cms with two punctured wounds: (i) 1.5 cms. X 1/2 cms. X1/2 cms. - 7 cms. (ii) 1.5 cms. X. 1/4 cms. X1/2 cms. 10 cms. proximate On opening of the scalp, fracture of right frontal and parietal bones of skull were also found. He also found rupture of membranes on right side. The doctor also found fracture of left radius and ulna in forearm at lower ends.In the opinion of Doctor, the cause of death of Banne Singh was intracranial hemorrhage with laceration of brain on right side as a result of external injury No. 1 described in Col. No. 2. The post-mortem report is Ex.P. 7 which has been proved by Dr. M.P. Jain. 3. After completion of investigation, the Police submitted a charge-sheet against 15 accused persons including the appellant, Sardar Singh. The learned trial court acquitted the other 14 accused persons, but convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 3021.P.C. holding that he was the author of the head injury which caused death of Banne Singh. 4. Learned counsel initially made submissions for some time on the merits of the case, but later on, he restricted his argument on the question of offence and sentence to be awarded to the appellant. However, we have gone through the statements of the eye-witnesses and minutely considered the judgment under appeal. In our view, the findings of the learned trial Judge that the appellant was the author of the fatal injury to the deceased is well founded and we have no hesitation in agreeing with the said findings. 5. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to what offence is made out against the accused. The learned trial Judge has observed in' para No. 9 of the judgment that proceedings in the Panchayat were going on peacefully, but, all of a sudden, an altercation took place between the appellant, Sardar Singh and deceased Banne Singh for insulting one Madan Lal Purohit. It was also observed that before the Panchayat was called, there was no dispute between the parties and they had good relations. When the Panchayat was going on, the appellant, Sardar Singh, scolded Madan Lai Purohit and asked him to to go out from the Panchayat which was objected by Banne Singh and quarrel ensued. It was also observed that before the Panchayat was called, there was no dispute between the parties and they had good relations. When the Panchayat was going on, the appellant, Sardar Singh, scolded Madan Lai Purohit and asked him to to go out from the Panchayat which was objected by Banne Singh and quarrel ensued. It is said that Sardar Singh, appellant, inflicted a lathi blow to the accused Bane Singh on account which he fell down and thereafter, all other accused persons also assaulted him. The prosecution witnesses, Shri Sukhdev Singh, Prem Singh, Ram Kumar Singh and Bhagwan Singh have also stated that the injury inflicted by the appellant landed on the head of the deceased. It also appears that the accused Man Singh, Hari Singh, Rajendra Singh and Bhagwan Singh had also sustained one simple injury each or so; but, the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding about those injuries that the defence failed to prove that the injuries were received by them in the same occurrence. However, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, it appears that a Panchayat was called to resolve some dispute in relation to a land between the relations and the incident took place all of a sudden when deceased Banne Singh and Sardar Singh had an altercation for scolding Madan Lal Purohit. It appears that scuffle took place in which some members of the accused party might have also sustained simple injuries and the blow given by the appellant landed on the head of the deceased. The background of the incident and all other facts and circumstances, in our opinion, show that the appellant did not intend to cause the particular injury sustained by the deceased and there is no material on record that he had intended to commit his murder. It appears that in a scuffle, the blow given by the appellant landed on the head of the deceased which resulted in his death. However, looking to the nature of the injuries, we are satisfied that the accused-appellant could have the knowledge that the head injury caused by him was likely to cause death of the deceased, Banne Singh. As such, he is guilty under section 304, Part II IP.C. We are, therefore, of the confirmed view that the conviction of the appellant under section 3021.P.C. should be scaled down under section 304 Part II, I.P.C. 6. As such, he is guilty under section 304, Part II IP.C. We are, therefore, of the confirmed view that the conviction of the appellant under section 3021.P.C. should be scaled down under section 304 Part II, I.P.C. 6. Now remains the question of sentence. The appellant has already remained in jail for about 151/2 months. The incident is of the year 1981. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. the age of the appellant, Sardar Singh, has been recorded as 71 years. The statement was recorded on 5.8.S2 and now he is more than 83 years. He has already remained in jail for 151/2 months. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the age of the appellant, we are of the view that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall meet the ends of justice.Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. is set aside and he is convicted under section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced to the period already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months as awarded by the trial court. Three month's time is allowed to deposit the fine. If the fine is not deposited, the trial court shall take steps for his arrest to serve out the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine. *******