JUDGMENT The judgement and order under appeal, as passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is common to an occurrence which admittedly took place between two sets of people arraigned respectively as accused in the respective cross cases. Separate appeals however have been filed by both the parties. We need not go in to the details thereof. It is enough to mention that we have four accused persons on one side and four on the other. On one side, we have Balaur Singh and his sons, namely, Darshan Singh, Mukand Singh and Sant Sigh as accused persons; on the other side; we have Tara Singh, Naib Singh, Harnek Singh and Karnail Singh appellants - as accused persons. The person who died was Bhag Singh belonging to the latter mentioned party of Tara Singh and three others. The injuries received by Balaur Singh, Darshan Singh Mukand Singh and Sant Singh total up to 19, whereas the injuries on the side of Tara Singh, Naib Singh, Harnek Singh and Karnail Singh deceased distinctively was on his head, caused by menas of a Gandasa - the blow having been given by Darshan Singh, appellant. 2. Bhag Singh did not succumb to his injury instantaneously had to be taken to the hospital for treatment. Apparently, he was attended upon inasmuch as his wound was stitched. He died six days latter. According to the opinion of the Doctor, he died on account of coma and asphyxia because of the head injury. The other injuries on other persons need not be detailed out. 3. The consistent view of the two Courts below is that there was a free-fight between the parties and therefore each and every assailant was accountable for the individual acts performed by him. It is on that basis that cross convictions have been recorded by the Courts below and a measure of sentence has been set inasmuch as those found guilty of grievous hurts, be they be blunt weapon or sharp-edged weapon, have been sentenced to two years R.I.; the ones guilty of causing simple hurt by sharp-edged weapon to one years R.I. and the ones held guilty of causing simple hurt by blunt weapons have been sentenced to six months R.I. there is smattering some fine here and there, in one or the other conviction. 4. 4. On hearing learned counsel and on going through the record, we find that the view taken by the Courts below with regard to the free-fight and accountability of the appellants other than Darshan Singh to the individual injuries they cross-inflicted on each other, was fairly sound. We have no two opinions in that regard. The convictions and sentences of the appellants other than Darshan Singh as recorded by the Courts below are hereby affirmed. 5. Insofar as Darshan Singh, appellant, is concerned, who has been responsible for causing the sole fatal injury to Bhag Singh deceased, we are of the view that he cannot be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The dimention of injury and the situs thereof cannot in the facts and the circumstances be called to be calculated or targeted while being caused by the assailant. In a free-fight there is movement of body of the victim and the assailants who are themselves participants or expected participants in the cross assault on the other side. In such a situation, it cannot conclusively be held that Darshan Singh caused the injury intentionally to achieve that objective. It was a single blow and was not repeated. Furthermore, Bhag Singh died six days later because of complications of coma and asphyxia, resulting on account of the injury, despite the medical attention. We would thus in the circumstances, hold him guilty for offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C., setting aside his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. For the offence altered, we shall think that imposition of seven years R.I. shall be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The same is thus imposed on him. 6. The end result is that the appeals of all the appellants herein save that of Darshan Singh fail and are hereby dismissed. The appeal of Darshan Singh (Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1992) is partially allowed to the extent that his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304, part II, I.P.C, whereunder he is sentenced to seven years R.I. The appeals thus stand disposed of. Order accordingly. For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1956 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.