JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November z5, 1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 170/1993, convicting the appellants under Section 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. Under Section. 302/34 IPC, each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine, to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 323/34 IPC they were sentenced to undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each. In default of payment of fine to undergo 15 day's rigorous imprisonment, The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case are extensively set out in the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court and they indicate that the incident flared up all of a sudden when Rs. 150/- were demanded by deceased Gulba @ Gulab Chand from the appellants Vijay Singh, Kallu and Nannu. As per the prosecution case, Rs. 150/- were outstanding against accused persons as the price of grass, which they had purchased from Bheru Lal on the guarantee of the deceased. From the record it also transpires that the parties had their houses in the same locality at a short distance as shown in the spot map Ex.P/11. It further transpires that the accused and the deceased were having good relations prior to the incident and the accused were treating the deceased as their brother-in-law (Jija). So far as the actual`marpeet' is concerned, the prosecution case is that the appellant Parbat Singh and Vijay Singh inflicted one farsi blow each on the head of the deceased and the appellant Nannu gave a lathi blow on the hand of the deceased. No injury to the deceased was caused by appellant Kallu. For him, the case of the prosecution is that he caused simple injuries to LW. 1 Mangilal. 3. Immediately after the incident, P.W. 3 Suit. Kamli widow of Banshi, an eye-witness of the incident, went to Police Cowki of Kalukhedi Police Station Dangipura at 5.00 p.m. on July 29, 1993 and reported the matter detailing out the names of the accused and the name of the deceased. This information was recorded in `rojnamcha aam' and is Ex.P/8A on the. record. Kamli widow of Banshi, an eye-witness of the incident, went to Police Cowki of Kalukhedi Police Station Dangipura at 5.00 p.m. on July 29, 1993 and reported the matter detailing out the names of the accused and the name of the deceased. This information was recorded in `rojnamcha aam' and is Ex.P/8A on the. record. On this information, the police reached in the village at 6.00 a.m. on July 30, 1993 and recorded Parcha Bayan of P.W. 1 Mangi Lal. This Parcha Bayan was sent to the Police Station Dangipura where crime No. 35/1993 was registered at 8.00 a.m. on 31st July, 1993. After registration of the case, investigation in the case was made by SHO Radha Kishan. During investigation, inquest report Ex.P/10 of the deceased Bulga @ Gulab Chand was prepared at 6.30 a.m. on 30th July, 1993 and on the same day at 7.00 a.m. site-plan Ex.P/11 was prepared. The police also seized blood stained clothes of the deceased and blood stained and control soil from the place of incident. The autopsy of the dead body of deceased Gulba @ Gulab Chand was conducted by P.W. 22 Dr. S.D. Pathak and he found the following three injuries : 1. Incised wound 5 x 1 cm x bone deep on right parietal region. 2. Incised wound 6 x 1 cm x brain deep on the occipital region. 3. Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on the right hand. In the opinion of the doetor, the mode of death was coma due to head injury and laceration of brain and Intra Crebral Haemotoma. 4. After usual investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against all the four appellants in the court of learned Magistrate, from where the case was committed to.the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. The learned Sessions Judge, made over the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar for trial. 5. During trial, charges under Sections 302/34, 307, 323/34 and 452 IPC were framed against all the appellants. At the trial, prosecution examined 22 witnesses to seek conviction of the appellants. The plea of the accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. was of denial. One witness, namely, Devi Lal was examined in defence. After completion of rival, the learned trial curt convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated hereinbefore. 6. Mr. At the trial, prosecution examined 22 witnesses to seek conviction of the appellants. The plea of the accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. was of denial. One witness, namely, Devi Lal was examined in defence. After completion of rival, the learned trial curt convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated hereinbefore. 6. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants during his arguments did not dispute that the incident had taken place at the time and place of the occurrence. He also does not dispute the prosecution case that each of the appellants Parbat Singh and Vijay Singh inflicted a farsi blow on the head of the deceased. He also does not dispute that the appellant Nannu inflicted a lathi blow on the hand of the deceased causing simple injury. However, he restricted his contentions on the offence/offences committed by accused persons and the sentences to be awarded to them. Inspite of concession made by Mr. Gupta, we went through the entire material on record including statement of eye-witnesses, namely P.W. 1 Mangi Lal, P.W. 2 Smt. Kalli and P.W. 2 Smt. Kamli. After going through the entire evidence we are satisfied that the incident took place at the time and place of the incident and in the manner as stated by the prosecution witnesses, specially as stated by P.W. 1 Mangi Lal, who is an injured eye-witness and whose presence at the time of the incident cannot be disputed. 7. With regard to the offence, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that admittedly, there was no enmity or malice between the parties prior to the incident and that the incident flared up all of a sudden when Rs. 150/- were demanded by the deceased from the appellants which were outstanding against them for the price of grass supplied by one Behru Lal in which the deceased had stood as a guarantor. Learned counsel further contended that none of the appellants Vijay Singh and Parbat Singh repeated any farsi blow and there is no opinion of the doctor that any particular injury inflicted by any of them caused the death of the deceased or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that taking the prosecution case on its face value, the offence against the appellants Parbat Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that taking the prosecution case on its face value, the offence against the appellants Parbat Singh. and Vijay Singh does not travel beyond Section 304 part II IPC even if Section 34 IPC is employed. For appellant Nannu, the contention is that he caused a simple injury on the hand of the deceased without any repetition. As such, his case does not travel beyond Section 323 IPC. Similar is the position of appellant Kallu who caused simple injuries to P.W. 1 Mangi Lal. 8. After giving our deep and careful consideration to the above submissions, we are in agreement with the contentions raised by Mr. Gupta. Admittedly, the appellants had no previous enmity. The evidence on the record, on the other hand, shows that they were having good relations and the accused used to treat the deceased Gulba @ Gulab Chand as their brother-in-law (Jija). The incident was an offshoot of a very insignificant and petty matter. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are convinced that the appellant did not intend to commit murder of the deceased. They also did not intend to cause any particular injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and there is no medical evidence also that any particular injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. However, the appellants Vijay Singh and Parbat Singh inflicted one farsi blow each on the head of the deceased as such, they can be presumed to have the knowledge that there act could cause the death of deceased. We, therefore, are of the view that offence under Section 302/34 IPC is not made out against any of the appellants and it is scaled down to under Section 34-11 read with Section 34 of the IPC so far the appellants Vijay Singh and Parbat Singh are concerned. Nannu inflicted a simple lathi blow on the hand of the deceased. His offence does not travel beyond Section 323 IPC. Similar is the position of the appellant Kallu who had caused simple injuries to P.W. 1 Mangi Lal. The appellants Kallu and Nannu have remained in jail for about six months or so. From the record it also transpires that appellants Vijay Singh and Parbat Singh were 20-22 years of age at the time of incident. Similar is the position of the appellant Kallu who had caused simple injuries to P.W. 1 Mangi Lal. The appellants Kallu and Nannu have remained in jail for about six months or so. From the record it also transpires that appellants Vijay Singh and Parbat Singh were 20-22 years of age at the time of incident. As such a lenient view deserves to be taken against them. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC are set aside. Instead the appellants Vijay Singh and Parbat Singh are convicted under Section 304II read with Section 34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment: The conviction and sentence of all the appellants under Section 323/34 IPC are maintained. The substantive sentences of the appellants Vijay Singh and Parbat Singh.shall run concurrently. The appellants Kallu and Nannu have already undergone the sentence of imprisonment awarded for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC. They are on bail hence, they need not surrender to their bail bonds, which are hereby, cancelled. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******