JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.1.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra District Baran whereby each of the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 11/34 and sentenced to undergo two years RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default thereof to further undergo six months SI) and each of them was also convicted under Section 11/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months SI. Appellant Mangilal was also convicted under Section 11 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo ten years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The facts, briefly stated, giving rise to this appeal are that on a written report (Ex.P.4) lodged on 18.8.1997 by one Badrilal, Crime No. 368/97 was registered at P.S. Atru. It was alleged in the report by Badrilal that on 18.8.1997 at 5 P.M., his father Shankerlal and younger brother Ramnarain were working at a well which has been in joint possession of Badrilal (informant) and Pannalal and there has been dispute between complainant party and Mangilal (appellant). It was also alleged in the report (Ex.P.4) that with an intention to kill his father and younger brother, Mangilal, Rajmal and Pannalal duly armed with "kutia" and lathis respectively came at the well and started beating causing grievous injuries on the head and right hand of his father by Mangilal; on the right hand palm and near ear on the head of his brother Ramnarain by Rajmal and Pannalal thereby, the blood oozed out of their injuries. According to the FIR, at the place of occurrence, Ramgopal and Dhannalal if had not come to rescue otherwise his father and brother would have been killed then and there. Thereupon, crime was registered for offences under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 34 Indian Penal Code but during investigation, injured Shankerlal died on 21.8.1997 thereby, offence under Section 11 Indian Penal Code was added. 3. As per post-mortem report dated 21.8.1997 (Exh.P.20) the cause of death of deceased Shankerlal was opined by the Medical jurist as Coma as a result of the head injury (on the parietal region) besides fractures of right lungs and liver caused' by sharp edged weapon which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This evidence of Medical Jurist stands fully corroborated by other independent witnesses who were present at site. 4. This evidence of Medical Jurist stands fully corroborated by other independent witnesses who were present at site. 4. After usual investigation, the investigating agency filed challan and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session, where the appellants and co-accused Muralilal were charged with offences punishable under Sections 302, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and pleaded trial. During trial, as many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused were examined under section 11 Criminal Procedure Code where they took the plea of alibi but they did not produce any witness in defence. 5. After hearing the parties and after scrutinising the evidence led before it, the learned trial Court by a well reasoned judgment discussed the entire evidence on record thoroughly and arrived at the conclusion that on the basis of evidence of injured Ramnarain (PW3) and Ramgopal (PW2) (eye witnesses), that the fatal blow on the head of deceased Shankerlal was struck by Mangilal (appellant) only, and since the doctor did not opine any of the injuries found on the deceased as dangerous to cause death, but the deceased died who was removed to hospital in a state of 'coma' and three days after the date of incident Dr. Ashok Mundra in his post mortem report (Exh.P.20) dated 25.8.1997 has opined that the death has been due to coma as a result of ante mortem head and brain injuries described in this P.M. Report, with cumulative effect of injury to right Lung, Liver and Multiple fracture sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In the injury report of Shankerlal (deceased) vide PMR No. 468/97 dated 21.8.1997 prepared by the same day, the Doctor has observed, as under: Antemortem Injuries: 1. Stiched wound-5cm long on centre of Parietal Scalp Antero Post. 2. Incised wound-3x half cm x bone deep on Right Parietal scalp 2 and half on Right to injury No. 1. 3. Incised wound-half x 1/4th cm x skin deep on Left ear pinna. 4. Stiched wound-1cm long on back of Right elbow fracture of Right Olecranon process. 5. Contusion (Rail track)-15x2 & half cm oblique just below Right nipple on chest. 6. Contusion-5x3 cm on Left Forearm Middle medially. 7. Abrassion (2 in number)-1 x 1cm each on back of Lt. Shoulder. 8. 4. Stiched wound-1cm long on back of Right elbow fracture of Right Olecranon process. 5. Contusion (Rail track)-15x2 & half cm oblique just below Right nipple on chest. 6. Contusion-5x3 cm on Left Forearm Middle medially. 7. Abrassion (2 in number)-1 x 1cm each on back of Lt. Shoulder. 8. Incised wound-1 x half cm x skin deep on back of Lt. Pinna. 9. Abrassion-1 x half cm on center of scapular region. 6. The trial Court on due appreciation of evidence vide its judgment & order dated 15.1.1999, found the accused appellant No. 2 (Mangilal) guilty of offence punishable under Section 11 Indian Penal Code and therefore, while the trial Court acquitted the accused- appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 Indian Penal Code and instead convicted the accused for the offence of culpabable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Indian Penal Code for causing death of Shankerlal who died as a result of head injury while other appellants were convicted with the aid of Sections 325/34 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code for the injuries caused to Ramnarain (PW3) as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 7. During the course of hearing after arguing the matter at length, Shri D.K Soral, learned counsel for the. appellant fairly and frankly conceded that he does not press the appeal as regards the conviction of the accused-appellants on merits but he would like to confine his arguments only on the question of sentence. Accordingly, Shri Soral submitted that even according to the trial Court, the appellants had no motive or intention to commit murder of Shankerlal (deceased) otherwise, he along with co-accused would have repeated blows on the person of Shankerlal and in view of the nature of the injuries found on the persons of the deceased or injured, Ram Narain (PW3) and Ram Gopal (PW2) so also the fact that the appellant (Mangilal) has been undergoing incarceration since 1997, a lenient view may be taken for reducing the sentence under Section 11 Indian Penal Code, 325/34 Indian Penal Code. Shri Soral has relied upon the decisions in the matters of Madhu Sudan vs. State of Orissa ( AIR 1994 SC 474 ) Moraram vs. State of Rajasthan (1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 373-DB) and Brij Mohan vs. State (1986 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 699-DB) , wherein for similar offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code sentence of the accused was reduced to the period undergone while the fine amount was increased. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and examined their rival contentions so also relevant material from the summoned record as well as legal position on the subject. Prima-facie, I am of the view that the medical evidence shows that there is only one injury on the head of deceased Shankerlal that proved to be fatal. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellants had any knowledge or motive which has not been proved or established, that the injuries inflicted on the deceased by appellant Mangilal were likely to cause death. So, the trial Court rightly convicted Mangilal under Section 11 Indian Penal Code. Similarly, for the injuries caused to injured Ram Narain (PW3) and deceased by each of the appellants, keeping in view the nature of injuries on the person of deceased as well as injured PWs 3 and 6 where the lathi blows were inflicted, in my considered view, the appellants have rightly been convicted under Section 325/34 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code as is proved on the prosecution evidence on record. However, keeping in view the nature of injuries as well as the sentence imposed on the accused which appears to be harsh and excessive and also the fact that fine imposed, in my view ends of justice would be met if the sentence of 10 yrs. RI as imposed by the trial Court on appellant Mangilal for offence under Section 304 Indian Penal Code is reduced to 5 yrs RI and for offence under Section 325/34 Indian Penal Code from 2 years RI to the period already undergone by each of the appellants. The conviction under Section 11/34 Indian Penal Code is maintained and sentence is also reduced to the period already undergone in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As a result of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 11/34 Indian Penal Code is maintained and sentence is also reduced to the period already undergone in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. As a result of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of accused appellants Pannalal son of Kajod and Rajasthan alias Rajmal son of pannalal are reduced to the period already undergone by them whereas, the fine of Rs. 500/- as imposed by the trial Court on each of the said appellants is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo 6 months SI. Appellants Pannalal and Rajasthan alias Rajmal shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 10. As regards sentence of accused appellant Mangilal son of Pannalal is concerned, his sentence is reduced from 10 years RI to 5 years RI whereas, the fine of Rs. 1,000/- as imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo 6 months SI. The fine as enhanced by this Court after its realisation from the accused appellants shall be paid to the family members of deceased Shankerlal by way of compensation.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******