Honble JAIN, J. – These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.1.1978 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby he has convicted the accused Ramswaroop u/s 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to seven years. R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment to further undergo one months S.I. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused Om Prakash and Richhpal under Sec. 323 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. (2). The prosecution case briefly stated is that the deceased Ramrakh was the real brother of the accused Ramswaroop. Their relations were not good as property dispute including right to way from the lane was going on. It is alleged that on 31.8.1976 when Ramrakh alongwith his wife Smt. Rameshwari were passing through the lane, Ramswaroop intervened. The two sons of the accused Richhpal armed with pistol and Om Prakash armed with Lathi also came out. According to the prosecution on instigation by his sons, the accused Ramswaroop inflicted a Kassi blow on the head of the deceased Ramrakh and Om Prakash s/o Ramswaroop also gave a lathi blow. It is further alleged that Krishan Chandar PW 6 son of the deceased made alarm due to which the accused went-away. As per the prosecution, the injured narrated the whole story to his wife Smt. Rameshwari who was working in the field. Thereafter, PW 6 went to Ganganagar to lodge FIR Ex. P/7 and in consequence of the report, a case u/ss. 307, 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC was registered. Thereafter, Ramrakh was admitted to hospital and he was medically examined by PW 8 Dr. Bakshi. On 12.9.1976, the injured Ramrakh died. Autopsy of the dead body was conducted vide Ex. P/21. After usualy investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused per- sons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as ten witnesses. In defence, the accused-persons did not produce any witness, however, in their statement u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge after completion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused - appe-llants as stated above. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as ten witnesses. In defence, the accused-persons did not produce any witness, however, in their statement u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge after completion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused - appe-llants as stated above. Hence, the State has filed this appeal for enhance- ment of the sentences awarded to the accused whereas the accused Ramswaroop has filed appeal for setting aside the judgment. (3). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully. (4). It is not disputed that a quarrel took place between the accused Ramswaroop and the deceased Ramrakh on 31.8.1976 wherein the accused inflicted injury with a Kassi on the head of the deceased. Ramrakh has died on 12.9.1976. PW 8 Dr. Bakshi examined Ramrakh when he was admitted to the hospital and it was found that Ramrakh sustained fracture which was caused due to Kassi blow. It has come in medical evidence that the injury was not sufficient to cause death and that because the wound had become septic the injured died. PW 8 Dr. Bakshi has further stated that if the wound had not been septic the injured might have survived and has also stated that there was no haemorrhage in the brain or the membrane nor was any damage to brain at the time of his examination. It is worthwhile to mention here that the incident took place on 31.8.1976 and the injured Ramrakh was admitted to hospital and on 12.9.1976 he died. PW 6 Krishan Chandar and PW 9 Mst. Rameshwari wife of the deceased Ramrakh also in their statements have not made any whisper that the accused Ramswaroop tried to repeat the injury. What emerges out of the entire prosecution case is that in the heat of the moment a solitary blow with Kassi had been inflicted on the head and the act of the accused was not-pre-meditated. As already stated none of the prosecution witness has stated that the accused Ramswarrop tried to repeat the injury and the injury which was inflicted by the accused was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as is evident from the medical evidence. As already stated none of the prosecution witness has stated that the accused Ramswarrop tried to repeat the injury and the injury which was inflicted by the accused was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as is evident from the medical evidence. If the accused Ramswaroop had any intention to cause death he could have repeated the injury or could make full use of pistol which as per the prosecution was there with the co-accused Richhpal, the son of the accused who as per the prosecution case was present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an intention of the accused to commit murder of Ramrakh and the conviction of the accused u/s. 304 Part-I IPC deserves to be set aside. However, the accused Ramswaroop is convicted under Sec. 304 Part II IPC. (5). Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused Ramswaroop for an offence u/s. 304 Part- I IPC and substitute there for one under Part-II of Sec. 304 there of. So far as the appeal filed by the State for converting the sentence u/s. 302 IPC is concerned, in view of above discussion, we find no reason to enhance the sentence. The appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. The incident is of 31.8.1976 and the accused Ramswaroop has already remained in jail. In our opinion, the ends of justice will be served in the circumstances of the case, if the accused Ramswaroop sentenced to the period of imprisonment already under gone by him. The accused Ram swaroop is already on bail, he need not to surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. The appeal filed by the accused Ramswaroop is partially accepted. The appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar stands modified.