JUDGMENT 1. - Initially 8 persons were put on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, in Sessions Case No. 51/93 and learned Judge, after completion of trial, convicted the appellant Siya Ram under Section 302 IPC and the appellants Hari Ram and Ramraj U/ss. 302 with Sec. 34 IPC. All of them were sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant Samay Singh was convicted and sentenced U/s. 323 IPC to six months rigorous imprisonment. The rest of the accused persons have been acquitted of all the charges, vide judgment dated, August 23, 1994. This joint appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order. 2. The facts of the case need not be detailed out extensively as the learned counsel for the appellants restricted his contentions about the nature of the offence committed by the appellants and the sentence to be awarded to them. 3. In order to appreciate the arguments, the necessary facts in brief may be stated thus: The members of the complainant party and the accused persons were having their agricultural lands at short distances. The incident had taken place at about 4 p.m. on April 8, 1993 on a petty dispute, which flared up when some goats belonging to the appellant Siya Ram started grazing grams which were lying stored on a threshing floor belonging to the complainant. Members of the complainant party were in their fields at a short distance while the accused persons and their women folk are stated to be in their field at a short distance. One boy, namely Amar Singh aged 10-12 years was looking after the grams and it is alleged that the appellants gave him beating with slaps and fists when he drove away the goats belonging to the appellant Siya Ram. It is further alleged that the members of both the parties assembled there including women folk and there was some altercation and in that altercation, accusation against the appellant-Siya Ram is that he inflicted one `jelly' blow on the head of the deceased Hargyan. Against the appellants-Hari Ram and Ramraj, the accusation was that each one of them inflicted a simple injury with lathi to the deceased Hargyan. Against the appellants-Hari Ram and Ramraj, the accusation was that each one of them inflicted a simple injury with lathi to the deceased Hargyan. Against the appellant-Samay Singh the allegation was that he caused simple injury to the informant Hukam Singh. A written report of the incident was made by Hukam Singh at Police Station, Todabhim on the same day at 7.15 p.m. on the report, crime No. 63/93 was registered under various offences including 302 IPC After usual investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet against 8 accused persons including the appellant. No charge-sheet was filed against any woman belonging to the accused party. Offence U/s. 302 IPC being triable by the Court of Sessions, the accused were tried by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, who convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the incident flared up all of a sudden between the neighbours and there was no pre-meditation or meeting of minds between the accused persons and that the learned trial court committed serious error in invoking Sec. 34 IPC for convicting the appellants Hari Ram and Ramraj U/s. 302 IPC. Learned counsel contended that Sec. 34 was not invoked against the appellant Samay Singh who was also there alongwith Hari Ram and Ramraj. According to the learned counsel, the appellants Hari Ram and Ramraj could be convicted for their Individual act of causing simple injury to the deceased. For the appellant Siya Ram it was contended that taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, it is not established that he intended to commit murder of the deceased. Learned counsel contended that members of both the parties assembled there on hearing cry of a boy Amar Singh and there appears to have taken place some oral altercation. It was also contended that only a single blow is said to have been inflicted by the appellant Siya Ram without any repetition and it could not be said precisely or definitely that he intended to cause the particular injury to the deceased. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the offence against the appellant-Siya Ram U/s. 302 IPC is not made out and at the most he could be convicted U/s. 304 Part-II IPC. 5. After hearing learned Public Prosecution and after minutely examining the entire material on record, we find great force in the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the offence against the appellant-Siya Ram U/s. 302 IPC is not made out and at the most he could be convicted U/s. 304 Part-II IPC. 5. After hearing learned Public Prosecution and after minutely examining the entire material on record, we find great force in the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. 6. As stated earlier, the incident was not pre-meditate one and it flared up all of a sudden on an in significant dispute about grazing of gram of the complainant party by the goats of the appellants. If further transpires that members of both the parties including women-folk had assembled hearing cry of the boy Amar Singh. We also find some force that if the appellant Siya Ram intended to commit murder, Amar Singh would have been the first target who drove away the goats. The incident appears to have flared up on the spur of the moment without any meeting of minds or premeditation. In the facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that Sec. 34 IPC should not have been invoked for the appellants Hari Ram and Ramraj or the injury caused by the appellant Siya Ram to the deceased. They could be held responsible for causing simple injury to the deceased. Similarly we are also convinced that the appellant Siya Ram neither intended to commit murder of deceased nor intended to cause injury on the head of the deceased which proved to be fatal. In our considered view, offence u/s. 302 IPC is not made out against him and the same can be conveniently scaled down U/s. 304 Part II IPC. 7. The result of the above discussion is that conviction and sentence of the appellant Siya Ram U/s. 302 IPC and the appellants Hari Ram and Ramraj U/s. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC are set aside. Instead, the appellant Siya Ram is convicted u/s. 304 Part II IPC and the appellants Hari Ram and Ramraj are convicted U/s. 323 IPC. The conviction of the appellant Samay Singh U/s. 323 IPC is maintained. The appellant-Siya Ram is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The amount of fine if realised shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Hargyan. The appellant-Siya Ram is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The amount of fine if realised shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Hargyan. The appellants, Hari Ram, Ramraj and Samay Singh who have been found guilty for the offence U/s. 323 IPC are sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by each of them. They are on bail and need not surrender to their bail bonds.The appeal succeeds in part as aforesaid. *******