Honble NAOLEKAR, J. – This appeal is directed by the accused-appellants against the convictions and sentences awarded under Section 302/34, I.P.C. for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default further undergo R.I. for two months, for causing the death of Lal Singh; under Section 307/34, I.P.C. for 4 years R.I. for causing grievous injury to P.W.-14 Phool Singh; under Section 325/34, I.P.C. for 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default 1 months R.I.; under Section 323/34, I.P.C. for 6 months R.I. for causing injury to Bherupal Singh P.W.-2, Jabar Singh P.W.-4; and under Section 447, I.P.C. for 3 months R.I. (2) At village Kolar, District Jalore khasra No. 54 is known as Mayariwalon and khasra No. 95 Radawalon. On the basis of the statement given by P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh recorded by the S.H.O and forwarded to the P.S. Modran a case was registered on 26.06.76. It is stated by Bherupal Singh P.W.-2 that in the morning at about 11 he and Jabar Singh were going towards village Dhur. They reached near the field where they saw assault by accused persons Deva, Harji, Baga and Khuma to his father Phool Singh (deceased) and his uncle Lal Singh with sticks. Both of them were lying on the ground and were raising hue and cry. Khuma and Baga were giving beating to Lal Singh whereas Harji and Deva were giving beating to his father with sticks. The wives of Baga, Deva, Harji and Khuma were standing there with Kudaliyas in their hands. When both of them rushed to the spot to rescue his father and uncle Lal Singh, Khuma assaulted him and Harji assaulted Jabar Singh and they started shouting. When they raised hue and cry, Arjun Singh P.W.-6, Karan Singh and Chatar Singh P.W.-5 rushed towards the spot. Seeing them all the accused persons alongwith their wives ran away from the place of incident in chhakara. Thereafter, arrangements were made for transportation of the injured persons for treatment in a jeep and had proceeded towards Jalore. Before they reached Jalore, Lal Singh succumbed to his injuries whereas his father Phool Singh was admitted in the hospital. On the statement, the police had registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. Thereafter, arrangements were made for transportation of the injured persons for treatment in a jeep and had proceeded towards Jalore. Before they reached Jalore, Lal Singh succumbed to his injuries whereas his father Phool Singh was admitted in the hospital. On the statement, the police had registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. (3) The accused were arrested on 26.06.76 and on their information recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the weapons used i.e. lathis wooden-case ( ), sticks measuring 3 8% and one more lathi were recovered from the accused persons. The recovery of the weapons has been proved by P.W.-12 Kesar Singh and P.W.-15 Devi Singh, Investigation Officer. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination and articles 37, 38 and 39 were found containing human blood. The prosecution has examined P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh, P.W.-4 Jabar Singh, P.W.-5 Chatar Singh, P.W.-6 Arjun Singh and P.W.-14 Phool Singh as eye-witnesses. (4) Dead body of Lal Singh deceased was sent for post mortem and autopsy was conducted by P.W.-13, Dr. Banshi Lal Rai. The report of the post mortem is Ex.-P/13. The doctor had found the following injuries on the person of deceased Lal Singh : "i. Contusion 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm, curved downwards in right frontal region 5 cm above lateral end of Right eye-brow with swelling around it. ii. Contusion (bluish-black) 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm oblique on Right temporal region 2.5 cm from middle ear. iii. Contusion 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm vertical, 1 cm above and medial to injury No.2. iv. Contusion 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm, oblique, 2 cm medial to injury No.2. v. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.25 cm x bone deep longitudinally on left parietal region 7 cm above left ear and 11 cms above left Eye brow. vi. Fracture of both bones of Right fore arm 13 cms above Right wrist, with contusion 1 cm x linear over posterior side of Right forearm over fracture site. vii. Contusion ` shaped 1.75 cm (each arm) x 0.5 cm on posterior side of Right hand just below right wrist. viii. Laceratedwound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm, longitudinally on middle of anterior side of right leg. ix. Contusion (dark bluish black) 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm oblique in middle of lateral side of left arm with swelling around. viii. Laceratedwound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm, longitudinally on middle of anterior side of right leg. ix. Contusion (dark bluish black) 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm oblique in middle of lateral side of left arm with swelling around. x. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on lateral side of left arm 2.5 cm above lateral condyle. xi. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on ulnar side of left wrist, just below the lower end of left ulna, which is dislocated. xii. Fracture of shaft of left radius 5 cm above left wrist. xiii. Contusion 3 cms x 2 cms irregular over middle of left illiac crest. xiv. Contusion 7 cms. x 1.5 cms oblique on medial part of left scapular region, just below upper border of shoulder region. xv. Contusion 15 cm x 1.5 cm oblique on right scapular region from Achromian region to vertebral column. xvi. Contusion 7 cms x 2 cm posterior side of lift back along 10th rib. xvii. Contusion 1 cm x 0.5 cm over first lumbar vertebrae. xviii. Contusion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on left patella lateral border. xix. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm just below patella lateral end left side. xx. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm over left Tibial tubrosity." As per Dr. Banshi Lal Rai, P.W.-13 the cause of death of Lal Singh was due to coma and shock due to ante mortem head injury, wounds and fractures. (5) K.P. Singh (Phool Singh) was examined by P.W.-13 Dr. Banshi Lal Rai. His injury report is Ex.-P/10. According to the medical report, he has sustained as many as 14 injuries. On X-ray being taken, it was found that 11th and 10th left ribs were fractured. Injuries No.1, 2 and 3 are as under : "i. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x linear x bone deep Right Frontal region 9 cms above middle of Right Eyebrow; simple - blunt. ii. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep Vertically oblique on Left Parietal region 13 cms above left Ear; Simple blunt. iii. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x Linear x muscle deep oblique on left parietal 13 cms above left Ear just in front of injury No.2; Simple - blunt. They are on head" (6) P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh was examined by P.W.-13 Dr. Banshi Lal Rai. Medi- cal report is Ex.-P/11. iii. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x Linear x muscle deep oblique on left parietal 13 cms above left Ear just in front of injury No.2; Simple - blunt. They are on head" (6) P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh was examined by P.W.-13 Dr. Banshi Lal Rai. Medi- cal report is Ex.-P/11. He is found to have sustained 11 injuries. According to the doctor, the injuries were simple in nature and could have been caused by lathis, which were seized from the accused persons. (7) Jabar Singh was examined by the doctor. He was found to have sustained 2 injuries. His injury report is Ex.-P/12. According to the doctor, the injuries sus- tained were simple in nature. It could have been caused by lathis Ex.-5 to Ex.-9 seized from the accused persons. (8) The accused appellants Harji, Baga and Deva have pleaded right of self defence of person and property, whereas the accused-appellant Kumbha (Khuma) has pleaded alibi, which is not found true by the Court below and on minute scru- tiny of the entire evidence we do not find that any material is placed on record whereby we can reach a different conclusion. (9) In a statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. of the accused-appellant Harji, he came out with a story of self defence. According to him, the field where the incident took place belongs to them. Baga, Deva and he went there on sunrise to perform agricultural operations before sowing alongwith four ladies. They commenced the agricultural operations, after sometime when they were consumingwater near the cart, Phool Singh, Lal Singh, Bherupal Singh, Jabar Singh, Arjun Singh and Chatar Singh came there. They hurled abuses and asked them why they were performing agricultural operations. On that they said that the field be- longs to their forefathers and, therefore, they are performing agricultural operations. Lal Singh assaulted Deva by kulhari and caused injury to his right hand and injury to Baga on the head. Lal Singh and Phool Singh assaulted him on the head by kulhari. Bherupal assaulted him by pipe and caused injury on his left hand. To ward off the assault, in their defence, they took out `NdMs dh xkrk. The attack was retorted using `NdMs dh xkrk which caused some injuries to the members of the complainant party. The ladies thereafter assaulted Lal Singh and Phool Singh. Bherupal assaulted him by pipe and caused injury on his left hand. To ward off the assault, in their defence, they took out `NdMs dh xkrk. The attack was retorted using `NdMs dh xkrk which caused some injuries to the members of the complainant party. The ladies thereafter assaulted Lal Singh and Phool Singh. All persons ran away except Bherupal Singh, Phool Singh and Lal Singh who remained there injured. They were examined by the doctor who found injuries sustained by them. Thus it is the case of defence that when they were performing the agricul- tural operations in their field, the deceased Lal Singh alongwith Phool Singh, Bherupal Singh, Jabar Singh, Chatar Singh and Arjun Singh came there and tried to stop them using force from performing agricultural operations and they thereafter assaulted them in retaliation. Some injuries were caused to them. This has been done in assertion of their right of self defence of property and person. (10) It is deposed by Phool Singh P.W.-14 that on 25.06.76 at about 9 in the morning he went to the field for performing agricultural operations called `Asood. After sometime, Harji, Baga, Khuma and Deva came in two carts with 4 hals and entered his field and started ploughing it. He requested them not to do that. They did not pay and heed and started ploughing the field. After aboutan hour, when the accused persons went to drink water, heagain requested them not to cultivate the field. Harji responded by saying he is creating nuisance, finish him off. Then all the accused got up, took out sticks from the cart and attacked him. Khuma, Harji and Deva inflicted injuries on his head. Baga inflicted injuries on neck, he fell down and started shouting. On hearing his shout, Lal Singh his younger brother reached the spot from nearby field where he was performing agricultural operations. When he reached near him, all the four accused persons assaulted him with lathis and he fell down on the ground. Khuma and Baga continued giving beating to Lal Singh and Harji and Deva continued giving beating to him. Bherupal Singh and Jabar Singh reached the spot and tried to rescue them. On that, Harji and Khuma assaulted Bherupal Singh and Harji gave beating to Jabar Singh. Khuma and Baga continued giving beating to Lal Singh and Harji and Deva continued giving beating to him. Bherupal Singh and Jabar Singh reached the spot and tried to rescue them. On that, Harji and Khuma assaulted Bherupal Singh and Harji gave beating to Jabar Singh. Lal Singh got up and tried to run towards the village but when he reached near a Jal tree all the accused persons again assaulted him and Lal Singh fell down. When the witness tried to get up Harji and Deva attacked him. The accused fled away from the place seeing Karan Singh, Chhatar Singh and Arjun Singh appearing at the spot. In the cross-examination, the accused has admitted that accused Harji said : `kill him, the statement that the accused persons took out the lathis from the cart, that when he tried to get up Harji and Deva again assaulted him, after giving beating to Bherupal Singh and Jabar Singh the accused persons again gave him beating does not find place in his police-diary-statement. He further said that he told and police that all the accused appellants assaulted Lal Singh when he tried to escape but why names of only Baga and Khuma find place in the police diary hedoes not know. (11) From the evidence of P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh and P.W.-4 Jabar Singh, it appears that they were not at the spot right from the beginning of the incident as P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh has said that he and Jabar Singh reached the field on hearing the hue and cry of his father Phool Singh and uncle Lal Singh and they saw Khuma, Baga, Deva and Harji assaulting Lal Singh and his father with lathis when they were lying on the ground. Similar is the statement of P.W.-4 Jabar Singh. They have depo- sed about the assault made on them when they tried to intervene. P.W.-5 Chhatar Singh and P.W.-6 Arjun Singh reached the place of incident even thereafter as admitted by them, that when they saw Khuma and Baga assaulting Lal Singh and Deva and Harji assaulting Phool Singh, Bherupal Singh and Jabar Singh were at the place of occurrence watching it. They are also the witnesses for the attack on Bhe- rupal Singh and Jabar Singh by the accused persons. They are also the witnesses for the attack on Bhe- rupal Singh and Jabar Singh by the accused persons. (12) The presence of the accused persons on the place of incident and causing injuries to Lal Singh, K.P. Singh (Phool Singh), Bherupal Singh and Jabar Singh is amply proved by the evidence of K.P. Singh P.W.-14, Bherupal Singh P.W.-2 and Jabar Singh P.W.-4 and the evidence of P.W.-5 Chhatar Singh and P.W.-6 Arjun Singh and in the background of the plea of self defence of person and property claimed by the accused-appellants. (13) To find out whether the accused had a right of self-defence of person and property, it is necessary for this Court to find out as to who were in possession, how and in what right at the time of incident, how the incident started and who were the assailants i.e., who had attacked and who had defended because the right of private defence of person and property depends upon the right to hold property and has to be exercised under certain limitations, if there is sufficient time for recourse to the public authorities the right is not available, more hurt than necessary could not be caused, there should be a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt to the person or damageto the property concerned. The right is recognised under Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code subject to restrictions contained in Section 99, I.P.C. to defend his own body and the body of any other person and/or the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person. (14) The accused-appellants have filed certain documents to show their possession over the land in dispute in their own right as owners thereof. Ex.-D/13 is khasra-bandobast for the years 2006 (Samwat) i.e., settlement-record of fields no. 54 and 95, Mauza Kolar in the name of Jagirdar. Ex.-D/25 is khasra-girdawari of samwat-years 2012 to 2015 and 2016 to 2019, showing possession of Rawata-father of the accused. Ex.-D/26 is khasra-girdawari of the relevant fields of samwat years 2020 to 2024 bearing endorsement that the fields have been regularised in the name of Samratha. Ex.-D/25 is the record of Jamabandi of the year 2025 to 2028 showing the name of Samaratha in the column of agriculturist in possession. Ex.-D/16 is copy of khasra-girdawari of the year 2029 to 2032. It shows khatedar-tenant to be Sama- ratha. Ex.-D/25 is the record of Jamabandi of the year 2025 to 2028 showing the name of Samaratha in the column of agriculturist in possession. Ex.-D/16 is copy of khasra-girdawari of the year 2029 to 2032. It shows khatedar-tenant to be Sama- ratha. In the remark- column, the document bears endorsement that the fields are cultivated by Ania s/o Rawata and that as per mutation-order dated 16.06.75 Anias name is recorded as khatedar-tenant in place of Samaratha. Ex.-D/10 is a registered sale-deed executed by Samaratha in favour of Ania - brother of the accused. Ex.-D/22 dated 22.10.75 is receipt of payment of land-revenue of the fields by the brother of the accused. Ex.-D/23 is a mutation- register entry dated 16.06.75 permitting the change of name from Samaratha to Ania. Ex.-D/27 dated 09.10.75 is pass-book issued by the Revenue Department in the name of Ania - brother of the accused. Ex.-P/22 to Ex.-P/30 are land-revenue receipts of the payment of land-revenue by Lal Singh but they do not indicate as for which khasra the land revenue has been paid. It is admitted position that Lal Singh and other members of the complainant- party are khatedar of other khasra-number. (15) Phool Singh P.W.-14 in his deposition has said that in the village khasra No.95 is also called Jetanada and that they had some dispute regarding this field with Ania and Somaratha. This field was recorded in the name of Samaratha in the revenue-records. On 15.02.75, when he went to cultivate the field Samaratha informed him that this field was given to him and at that time he came to know that there is a dispute regarding this field; and, thereafter, he filed the suit for declaration of title on 20.02.75. During the pendency of the suit he came to know about the transfer of land by Samaratha to Ania - brother of the accused. (16) The prosecution has heavily relied upon for possession of the complainant party, on the basis of the stay order granted by the Collector, on 15.01.76 in appeal preferred by Phool Singh against the order passed by the Tehsildar directing mutation of the name of Ania - brother of the accused-appellant on khasra No.54 and 95. By this order, Samaratha and Ania were restrained from disturbing the possession of land in question. It contains endorsement of service upon Ania. To prove the service P.W.-3 Moola Ram was examined. By this order, Samaratha and Ania were restrained from disturbing the possession of land in question. It contains endorsement of service upon Ania. To prove the service P.W.-3 Moola Ram was examined. Ania, however, deposed that the thumb- impression on the order is not of him. The prosecution has not proved the thumb-impression by examining the expert. Besides this fact, there is no evidence on record that the accused-persons were aware of the stay order granted against Ania. We have lingering doubt of the jurisdiction and authority of the Collector to pass the order in terms it is passed in appeal preferred against the order of mutation. We are not at all satisfied that Ania was served with the stay order. It may be that the Sale-deed executed in favour of Ania is in question before the Court but so long it is not set aside by the competent Court a purchaser has right to defend his property. A right of private defence of person and property even extends to a trespasser, after he has accomplished or completed possession and the person claiming right of possession has acquiesced in the circumstances. (17) On consideration of revenue-records, statement of Phool Singh and other circumstances, we are satisfied that the brother of the accused-appellant was in cultivating possession of the suit-land well prior to the date of the incident. Lal Singh and others had no authority to take or interfere with the possession of land without recourse to lawful remedy which admittedly was initiated by him by filing suit on 20.02.75. On the relevant date i.e., 25.06.76 the accused-appellants had a right of private defence of property. (18) We now turn to consider the right of self-defence of person and property. On 25.06.75, Harji, Baga and Deva were medically examined by D.W.-3 Dr. Krishna Gopal, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mandoli, and their medical reports are Ex.P/18, Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/20. Harji received the following injuries : "i. One incised wound 5 cms x 1 cm x 1 cms placed at Middle of Scalp. Parallel to Sagittal suture 1/2 cm towards left side. ii. One incised woud 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm parietal eminence left side vertically. iii. One incised wound 2 cms x 0.5 cm x 1 cm at Right parietal eminence - Horizontally. iv. Parallel to Sagittal suture 1/2 cm towards left side. ii. One incised woud 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm parietal eminence left side vertically. iii. One incised wound 2 cms x 0.5 cm x 1 cm at Right parietal eminence - Horizontally. iv. Bruise 3 cms x 3 cms at left shoulder joint." According to the doctor, injuries No. 1 & 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No. 4 was caused by blunt object. Injuries No. 1 and 3 could be caused by kulhari and injury No. 4 could be caused by iron pipe. Vaga received the following injury : "Incised wound at left perietal eminence placed obliquely (Horizontally) 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm." As per Dr. Krishan Gopal, the injury was simple and was caused by sharp ed- ged weapon. The injury could be caused by kulhari. Deva received the following injury : "Incised wound at left hand Dorsal aspect wound starting from middle of Hand Medial side 5 cms above the wrist joint, and end at Root of Little finger pointing towards palmer aspect." As per Dr. Krishna Gopal, the injury was simple and could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like kulhari. In cross- examination, he stated that the injuries on the accused persons were deep and,therefore, they could not be superficial. The injuries could not be said to be self-inflicted. As per the doctor, the injuries on the person of Deva was deep and his tendon and muscles were protruding out. (19) In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the inference that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and thus is not presenting the true version of the incident and as to what happened; or the witnesses who have denied the injuries on the person of the accused-appellants are lying - on the most material points, therefore, their evidence is unreliable or that the defence version, if any, which explains the injuries on the person of the accused is probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. (20) To explain the injuries on the person of the accused-persons the prose- cution has examined P.W.-1 Padama who stated that he followed the accused-persons while they fled away from the place of incident and saw Baga inflicting injury on Harjis head with an axe. Deva inflicted injury to himself. The witness has not said anything about the injury on Baga. The police-diary statement of this witness was recorded after three days of the incident although he was available on 26.06.76 as admitted by Chhater Singh. It is difficult to believe that self-inflicted injury would be caused on the head by a sharp-edged weapon like kulhari because little more force or error of judgment may result in the injury being fatal. In the light of the doctors statement that the injuries are not self-inflicted; and, from the late recording of the statement by the police it appears to us that this witness is a got up witness and has been introduced to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case in respect of the injuries on the person of the accused. We are of the opinion that this witness cannot be relied upon for the purpose of explanation of the injuries on the accused-appellants. (21) When we decipher the facts and consider the circumstance brought on record the fact emerged, as it appears to us, that on 26.06.76 in the morning the accused-appellant went to the field Radawala and while they were performing the agricultural operations Phool Singh and Lal Singh arrived at the field armed and asked them to stop immediately the agricultural operations. Phool Singh and Lal Singh attacked accused-appellants; and, thereafter, some altercation took place and to repel the attack the accused have caused injuries on Phool Singh and Lal Singh. Both of them fell down on the field but the appellants did not restrain themselves and continued their assault on the persons lying on the field. In the meantime, P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh and P.W.-4 Jabar Singh arrived at the place of incident on hearing the hue and cry. They saw the attack on Phool Singh and Lal Singh while they were lying on the ground. They tried to intervene and were assaulted. P.W.-5 Chhatar Singh and P.W.-6 Arjun Singh reached just after them and saw the assault on P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh and P.W.-4 Jabar Singh as well as on Phool Singh Lal Singh from a distance. They saw the attack on Phool Singh and Lal Singh while they were lying on the ground. They tried to intervene and were assaulted. P.W.-5 Chhatar Singh and P.W.-6 Arjun Singh reached just after them and saw the assault on P.W.-2 Bherupal Singh and P.W.-4 Jabar Singh as well as on Phool Singh Lal Singh from a distance. Lal Singh was even attacked when he tried to escape from the place. The case of the defence that all persons viz., Phool Singh, Lal Singh, Bherupal Singh, Jabar Singh, Chhatar Singh and Arjun Singh attacked them cannot be believed in its totality. If such a large number of persons initiated the attack and assaulted the accused-appellants they would not have sustained so less injuries found on their bodies and, at the same time, cause so many injuries on the members of the complainant party. It was only Lal Singh and Phool Singh who were instrumental to the incident. Considering all the facts, we are satisfied that the accused appellants had inflicted injuries on Phool Singh and Lal Singh in right of private defence of person and property. (22) The question is whether all the injuries caused to Phool Singh and Lal Singh and, thereafter, to Bherupal Singh and Jabar Singh were in exercise of exceeding the right of self-defence. While considering this question and appreciating the conduct of the person whose right of self-defence is involved, it is true, that some allowance has necessarily to be made for his apprehensions. When a person is faced with threat of death or grievous injury his conduct cannot be adju- dged in jurisdical perspective as at such a moment the upper most consideration is to ward off the danger and save one self and his property. But, at the same time, it has to be kept in mind that law does not permit use of force than necessary. The Court while dealing with the question as to whether more force is justified has to take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. We have already rea- ched the conclusion that the assault by the accused- persons continued even after Phool Singh and Lal Singh and fallen down helplessly. Lal Singh even tried to escape from the place of incident but he was chased and attacked. Later on, when Bherupal Singh and Jabar Singh tried to intervene they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Lal Singh even tried to escape from the place of incident but he was chased and attacked. Later on, when Bherupal Singh and Jabar Singh tried to intervene they were also assaulted by the accused persons. The injuries caused to the deceased, even in self-defence, were such that clearly indicate that the accused-appellants exceeded the right to private defence of person and property. We are also of the view that the injuries caused to Phool Singh, Jabar Singh and Bherupal Singh were caused exceeding the right to private defence. Under Section 300 the culpable homicide is a murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention to cause death. But, as per exception-II, the culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given by law and causes death of a person against whom such right is exercised. Thus the accused if while exercising the right of private defence of person and property exceeded the same in good faith and caused death of a person it will not be culpable homicide amounting to murder. The appellants had a right of private defence which they have exceeded, therefore, the death of Lal Singh will amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (23) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of the accused-appellants under Section 302/34, I.P.C. for life is converted into conviction and sentence under Section 304 (Part- I), I.P.C. and accordingly we sentence the accused-appellants to undergo 6 years rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentences under Section 307/34 for 4 years R.I., 325/34 for 3 years R.I. and 324/34, I.P.C. for 6 months R.I. alongwith fine of the accused-appellants are maintained. The sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence under Section 447, I.P.C. is set aside. The accused-appellants are on bail. Their bail-bonds stand cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence after setting off the period of custody/imprisonment already undergone by each of them.