Judgment N. L. TIBREWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants have filed a joint appeal against the judgment dated, July 11, 1980 of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 10/1980, whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under Pooran-Under Section 302 IPC-Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in case of default to further suffer R. I. for one year. Under Sec. 147 IPC Two years R. I. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, or in case of default, to further suffer R. I. for one year. Sri Ram Under Sec. 325/149 IPC Suraj Samunder 5 Years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- Ramesh Each and in case of default, to further undergo R. I. for 2 years each. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) IN short, the facts of the case are that on 26th December, 1979 in the morning time, the deceased Bhagwana Teli of village Kathumar was assaulted by the appellants. It is alleged that accused-appellant Suraj was having a spear and he gave a spear blow on the foot, while the appellant Pooran gave a farsi blow on the head of the deceased Bhagwana. For the rest of the appellants, there was a general allegation that they be laboured him with lathis. The cause of the incident is stated that the deceased Bhagwana also used to work as Halwai besides cultivating the land of a co-villager, Ram Swaroop. For the services rendered by Bhagwana as a Halwai, some dispute arose between him and the appellant, Sri Ram for the labour charges. Bhagwana was demanding Rs. 40/-, while Sri Ram accused wanted to pay Rs. 9/ -. His further alleged that one Rewarmal had settled their dispute fixing Rs. 50/- to be paid by Sri Ram to the deceased Bhagwana. On the fateful morning, the deceased had left his house for watering his field P. W. 3, Mani Ram, was also with him as he cultivated another field of one Natthi Lal Seth in the vicinity. Both the fields were at the out-skirt of village Kathumar. While Mani Ram was enjoying Bidi in the field of deceased Bhagwana he saw the accused person proceeding towards the field from two directions. Both the fields were at the out-skirt of village Kathumar. While Mani Ram was enjoying Bidi in the field of deceased Bhagwana he saw the accused person proceeding towards the field from two directions. All the accused persons approached the deceased and asked him to accompany him to the well of Girraj Soti to settle the account. Bhagwana accompanied them, but when they had hardly covered some paces, the appellants, Suraj opened attack with a spear causing an injury on the foot of Bhagwana. Another blow was given by Pooran with a farsi on the head of Bhagwana, where upon, Bhagwana fell down on the ground, then rest of the accused gave lathi blows. The accused persons thereafter, left the place of occurrence. Mani Ram took care of Bhagwana and with the help of Gyarsi (P. W. 1), Hanuman (P. W. 2), Kesar Dev and Sheonath, Bhagwana was shifted to local Government dispensary. PW 8, Vishwa Nath, Head Constable, Police Station Kathumar, reached the hospital having come to know of the incident of Marpit and the injured having been taken to the hospital. He recorded the statement (Ex. P. 4) of Bhagwana at 9. 45 p. m. after seeking permission of the Medical Officer who certified him to be in a fit condition to give the statement. On the basis of the statement Ex. P. 4, First Information Report, Ex. P. 5 was chalked and a case was registered under Secs. 147, 148, 149 and 323 I. P. C. The injuries of Bhagwana were examined by Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (P. W. 10) at 11. 55 a. m. on 26. 12. 1979 and he found the following injuries on his person: -1. Bruise, Diffused on both upper and lower eye lids of rt. side. 2. Abrasion 1. 5. cm x 0. 8 cm on the front of upper 1/3rd of left leg. 3. Lacerated wound 1. 4. cm x 0. 6 cm x 0. 1cm. on the front of upper l/3rd of left leg. 4. Sub conjectival haemorrhage in right eye. 5. Stab wound 2. 2 cm x 0. 2 cm x 0. 8 cm on the lateral aspect of lower 1/3rd of right leg. In his opinion, all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. 4. cm x 0. 6 cm x 0. 1cm. on the front of upper l/3rd of left leg. 4. Sub conjectival haemorrhage in right eye. 5. Stab wound 2. 2 cm x 0. 2 cm x 0. 8 cm on the lateral aspect of lower 1/3rd of right leg. In his opinion, all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. He opined all the injuries to be simple in nature, though, he had advised X-ray examination of scalp and expert opinion of Senior Surgeon for the cause of unconsciousness of the injured. While the patient was being removed to Gheral Hospital Alwar for better treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on the way and, thereafter, the dead body was brought back to Government Hospital, Kathumar, where the autopsy was conducted on next day at 1. 30 p. m. On conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Bhagwana deceased, Dr. Gupta noticed the above mentioned five injuries. He also notice a swelling 0. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm over right frontal region. On internal examination of the dead body, he also found that there was a haemorrhage of right frontal region of scalp 6 cm x 5 cm in size. There was a depressed comminuted fracture of rt. frontal bone as also of temporal and parietal bone of rt. side. A dark and blackish in colour haemotoma of about 8 cm x 5 cm in size between skull and membrance was also notice. In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries found on the body of deceased were anti-mortem in nature. The cause of death was opined as result of coma, resulting from head injury (multiple fracture) extra dural haemotoma by blunt object. ( 3 ) DURING investigation, the site plan of the place of incident (Ex. 6) was prepared on 26. 12. 1979. The blood smeared and control soil was seized from. the place of occurrence vide Ex. P. 7 and Ex. p. 8. Inquest report, Ex. p. 9 was also prepared on 27. 12. 1979. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused persons. All the accused were charged under Secs. 147, 302 and 302/149 IPC. During investigation prosecution examined ten witnesses in all. The accused denied their participation in the incident in their statements under Sec. 313 Cr. p. 9 was also prepared on 27. 12. 1979. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused persons. All the accused were charged under Secs. 147, 302 and 302/149 IPC. During investigation prosecution examined ten witnesses in all. The accused denied their participation in the incident in their statements under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. and two witnesses, namely, Gyarli (DW 1) and Sukha (DW 2) were examined in defence. After completion of the trial, the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above. ( 4 ) THE learned trial court placed reliance on the testimony of PW 3, Mani Ram, the sole eyewitness of the incident and the evidence of other witnesses which corroborated his testimony. It also believed the so-called dying declaration (Ex. P. 4) of the deceased Bhagwana which was recorded by the Head Constable Vishwanath. The learned trial Judge in para 38 of his judgment, taking into consideration the motive of the accused, the number and nature of the injuries and all other facts and circumstances held that the common object of the assembly was no more than to cause grievous hurt to the deceased. Pooran was held to be liable for head injury as such he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. ( 5 ) MR. R. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellants, did not challenge the participation of the accused persons in the crime. He restricted his submissions on two counts. The first submission was that conviction of the appellant, Pooran under Sec. 302 IPC was not sustainable and the finding of the trial court that he caused fatal injury, deserves to be set aside. In other words, the argument of the learned counsel was that Pooran too should have been convicted under Sec. 325 IPC read with Sec. 149 IPC. The second contention was that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by each of the appellants and in lieu thereof, the sentence of fine may be increased. ( 6 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. While elaborating his first contention, learned counsel drew our attention to the injury report, (Ex. P. 27) prepared by Dr. Gupta at 11. ( 6 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. While elaborating his first contention, learned counsel drew our attention to the injury report, (Ex. P. 27) prepared by Dr. Gupta at 11. 55 a. m. On the basis of the injury report, learned counsel contended that no external injury was noticed on the head of the deceased either by a sharp weapon or by a blunt object. He also drew our attention to the inquest report (Ex. P. 9 ). In the inquest report also, no injury was noticed on the head of the deceased. On the basis of these documents it was contended that had it been a fact that the appellant Pooran inflicted a farsi blow on the head of the deceased, external injury on his head must have been noticed and the very fact that no external injury on the head was noticed either by the Doctor or by the witnesses in whose presence the inquest memo was prepared, goes to show that he had sustained no injury on his head. Learned counsel further contended that in the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 4), the deceased has stated that the farsi blow landed on the eye-lids of right side and he did not state that any farsi blow landed on his head. It was also contended that the injuries on the eye-lids was bruise which could not be caused by a sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel drew my attention to the statement of the sole eye-witness, Mani Ram (P. W. 3) wherein he has stated that the accused Pooran gave a farsi blow, but it struck from the reverse side on the head of the deceased and this part of his statement was an improvement as in his statement under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. this fact was not mentioned that the farsi blow landed from the reverse side on the head of the deceased. ( 7 ) AFTER taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, no external injury was found on the head of the deceased. In the Parcha Bayan the prosecution case was that farsi blow inflicted by the appellant Pooran landed on the eye-lids of the deceased. ( 7 ) AFTER taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, no external injury was found on the head of the deceased. In the Parcha Bayan the prosecution case was that farsi blow inflicted by the appellant Pooran landed on the eye-lids of the deceased. No injury by sharp edged weapon was found on the scalp or any part of the face of the deceased. In our considered opinion, the statement of Mani Ram in the trial court was an improvement from his previous statement that the farsi blow landed on the head from the reverse side. Even this part does not find support from the medical evidence as no external injury was noticed by the Doctor while he examined the injuries at the initial stage at 11. 55 a. m. on the day of incident. In cross-examination Dr. Gupta has admitted that when he examined Bhagwana during his life time, he was fully conscious and at the time of his examination he also pointed out the location of the injuries and he also noticed injuries on his person. He also stated that the swelling of the dimension as mentioned in the post-mortem report of the deceased may be caused by strike, that no wound or other injury on the side of the swelling was observed. He also stated that normally a swelling of larger dimension that the one in the present case would be caused if a lathi blow is given at the side of the injury. The witness further stated thin injury No. 4 (in Ex. p. 27) could be the result of a direct injury to the eye and it could not be result of injury No. 1 and injuries Nos. 1 and 4 of Ex. p. 27 may simultaneously be caused by direct contact of the object striking on those places. He also stated that injury No. 11 cannot lead to a fracture in the frontal bone. He further clarified that injuries Nos. 1 and 4 cannot lead to the fracture of frontal bone on the right side. If we take the statement of the Doctor on its face value, then it transpires that injuries Nos. 1 and 4 mentioned in Ex. He further clarified that injuries Nos. 1 and 4 cannot lead to the fracture of frontal bone on the right side. If we take the statement of the Doctor on its face value, then it transpires that injuries Nos. 1 and 4 mentioned in Ex. P-27 could be the result of independent blows and they could not be caused the fracture of the frontal bone. Therefore, even if the version given in the dying declaration (Ex. p. 4) is taken on its face value that the deceased Pooran gave a farsi blow which landed on the eye-lids, cannot made him liable for the fracture of the frontal bone. All these facts and circumstances, in our view create a reasonable doubt that the fatal injury was caused by the appellant with a farsi blow on his head. This possibility cannot be ruled out that the injuries mentioned in Ex. p. 27 were caused by blunt object except the foot injury which was a belt wound. None of the accused-appellants has been proved to be the author of a particular injury mentioned in Ex. p. 27 except the foot injury which has been attributed to the appellant, Suraj and which was found to be simple in nature. The learned trial court has held that the common object of the assembly was not more than to cause the grievous hurt, as such, accused Pooran could be convicted like other accused-appellants under Sec. 325 read with Sec. 149 IPC. His conviction under Sec. 302 IPC is not sustainable. ( 8 ) NOW, the question of sentencing the appellants arises. The incident is of the year 1979 and about more than 15 years have already passed since then. In the year 1980 when the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. by the trial court, the appellant Sri Ram had given his age as 70 years while the learned Judge estimated his age as 55-60 years. The appellant Suraj had given his age as 50 years while the trial Judge estimated his age as 55 years. Similarly, Pooran was 30-35 years in the yearl98o and the appellant Ramesh had given his age as 14-15 years while the trial court estimated his age 21-22 years and the appellant Sam under has given his age as 21-22 years while the trial Judge has estimated his age 22-23 years. Similarly, Pooran was 30-35 years in the yearl98o and the appellant Ramesh had given his age as 14-15 years while the trial court estimated his age 21-22 years and the appellant Sam under has given his age as 21-22 years while the trial Judge has estimated his age 22-23 years. If we stick to the estimates about the respective ages of the accused-appellants as per the trial Judge, the appellant Sri Ram must be more than 70 years by now. Similar is the position of Suraj, appellant whose age was estimated as 55 years. The appellants, Samunder and Ramesh were 21 or even less than 21 years of age at the time of incident. Accused-appellants other than Pooran have already remained in custody during investigation, trial and even after conviction for six months and 20 days, while accused-appellants, Pooran had remained in custody for more than 11 months. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the respective ages of the accused appellants, the object behind the incident and the fact that more than 15 years have passed since the date of occurrence, in our opinion, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by each of the appellants will meet the ends of justice if, in lieu of conviction and sentence of imprisonment, sentence of fine is increased. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we partly allow this appeal. The conviction of the appellants, Sri Ram, Suraj, Ramesh and Sam under Secs. 147 and 325 read with Sec. 149 IPC is maintained. The conviction of Pooran under Sec. 302 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted under Sec. 325/149 IPC. His conviction under Sec. 149 IPC is maintained. All the accused are sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by each one of them for both the offences under Secs. 147 and 325 IPC. However, the sentence of fine is increased and each one of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Sec. 325/149 IPC and Rs. 1500/- under Sec. 147 IPC. Thus, each of the appellants will have to pay a fine of Rs. 6,500/under both the counts. In default of payment of fine, they will undergo two years, rigorous imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment for both the counts respectively. If the amount of fine is recovered from the accused Rs. 30,000/- shall be paid to Smt. Ganga wife of Bhagwana deceased. 6,500/under both the counts. In default of payment of fine, they will undergo two years, rigorous imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment for both the counts respectively. If the amount of fine is recovered from the accused Rs. 30,000/- shall be paid to Smt. Ganga wife of Bhagwana deceased. Three months time is granted to pay the amount of fine, failing which the trial court shall take steps for the arrest of the appellants in accordance with law. The amount of fine shall be deposited by the accused-appellants in the trial court. Appeal partly allowed.