JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 25, 1993 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chabra, District Baran in Sessions Case No. 284/1992, whereby the appellants Mohan @ Mohan Lal and Ram Pratap have been convicted and sentenced as under:- MOHAN @ MOHAN LAL U/s. 302 IPC : Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 307 IPC : Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/34 IPC : One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150/-. In default of payment of fine to under go 15 days rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 323/34 IPC : Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo 7 days rigorous imprisonment. RAM PRASAD U/s. 302/34 IPC : Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine one months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 307/34 IPC : Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine one months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 323 IPC : Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine 7 days rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324/34 IPC : One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 150/-. In default of payment of fine 15 days rigorous imprisonment. 2. A report was made at Police Station, Chippa Barod at 5.30 p.m. on April 5, 1992 for the incident which has taken place on the same day at 3/3.30 p.m. The prosecution case, as per the report is that informant Raghuveer and his brother Kanhiya Lal were going to their well popularly known as "Bhuwajiwala" and when they reached near another well "Gadedawala", they found the appellants Mohar, Lal and Ram Pratap Making fence of their field, by making encroachment on their field. They asked them to do fencing at the place where it earlier existed. Then, some oral altercation ensued between the parties and the appellant Mohan is said to have inflicted one blow with an axe which landed on the head of Kanhaiya Lal. Raghuveer was assaulted by the appellant Rampratap. They asked them to do fencing at the place where it earlier existed. Then, some oral altercation ensued between the parties and the appellant Mohan is said to have inflicted one blow with an axe which landed on the head of Kanhaiya Lal. Raghuveer was assaulted by the appellant Rampratap. At the time of incident, Brij Mohan, Shanker and Ram Bharose Dhakad were present and both Kanhaiyalal and Rampratap were taken in a tractor to the police station where a written report was lodged. Kanhaiya Lal was unconscious at that time. 3. Initially, the case was registered under Section 307 and 323 IPC. However after death of Kanhaiyalal on April 7, 1992, the offence under Section 302 IPC was also added. Dr. Jitendra Kumar (PW 18) had examined injuries of Raghuveer and Kanhaiya Lal. The injured Raghuveer had sustained the following vide Ex.P 22:- 1. Stab wound 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. over left occipital region-simple-sharp. 2. Bruise 15 x 2. cm. over right to left scapular region-simple-blunt. 3. Swelling 4 x 4 cm over left arm laterally-simple-blunt Abrasion 3 cm long. 4. Swelling 5 x 5 cm. on left forearm over wrist-simple-blunt. 5. Swelling 5 x 5 cm. over left forearm near elbow-simple-blunt. 6. Abrasion 4 x 2 cm. on left knee anteriorly-simple-blunt. The above injuries were found to be simple in nature. 4. Kanhaiya Lal deceased had sustained one incised wound measuring 8 x 1.5 x 1.5 cms. over middle of fronto parietal region of scalp vide injury report Ex.P 23. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted by PW 14 Dr. Leeladhar Kasat vide Post mortem report Ex.P 10. 5. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against both the appellants before the concerned Magistrate and after commitment, they were tried in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chabra. During trial prosecution examined 21 witnesses. One witness namely Shiv Narain was examined as a defence witness. The learned trial Judge, after completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 6. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that conviction of the appellant Ram Pratap under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC is not sustainable in as much as the proved fact do not make out that he shared common intention with the appellant Mohan Lal. 6. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that conviction of the appellant Ram Pratap under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC is not sustainable in as much as the proved fact do not make out that he shared common intention with the appellant Mohan Lal. It was also contended that this accused at the most could be liable for causing simple hurt by blunt and sharp weapon to Raghuveer for which he has already undergone more than five months. For the appellant Mohan Lal, the contention is that the incident took place all of a sudden and there was an oral altercation between the parties, as such, it cannot be said that he intended to commit murder of deceased Kanhaiya Lal or intended to cause such injury likely to cause his death. 7. The statement of the injured Raghuveer was read over. From his statement it is clear that the appellants had no knowledge that the witness Raghuveer and Kanhaiyalal would be passing from the place of incident. It is also clear that the incident took place all of a sudden when oral altercation ensued between the parties on a dispute when fencing of the field was being made by the appellants over the field of the complainant party. The appellant Mohan Lal inflicted only one injury with no attempt to repeat. The facts and circumstances of the case and the origin of the fight indicate that the incident took place all of a sudden without premeditation, and it cannot be said precisely that the appellant Mohan Lal intended to cause the particular head injury. Consequently, he can be held liable only under Section 304 part II IPC instead 302 IPC. His conviction under Sections 307, 325/34 and 324/34 IPC is also not sustainable for the simple reason that after his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, he could (sic) be convicted for the same injury under Section 307 IPC. We are satisfied that there was no meeting of mind between the appellants as the incident took place all of a sudden. The accused appellants, therefore, are liable for their individual acts. Similarly, appellant Ram Pratap cannot be held liable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC for the injuries sustained by deceased Kanhaiya Lal. He can be held liable for the injuries caused by him to the injured Raghuveer. The injuries sustained by Raghuveer are simple. 8. The accused appellants, therefore, are liable for their individual acts. Similarly, appellant Ram Pratap cannot be held liable under Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC for the injuries sustained by deceased Kanhaiya Lal. He can be held liable for the injuries caused by him to the injured Raghuveer. The injuries sustained by Raghuveer are simple. 8. The net result of the above discussion is that conviction and sentences of the accused appellant Mohan Lal under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 323/34 IPC are set aside. He is convicted under Section 304-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Similarly, the conviction and sentences of appellant Ram Pratap under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of both the charges. However, his conviction under Sections 324 and 323 IPC is maintained and he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. He is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds. 9. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. *******