ORDER This order will dispose of four appeals, criminal appeal no. 707/1992 filed on behalf of seven appellants; criminal appeal nos. 708-09/1992 filed on behalf of five appellants; criminal appeal No. 135/1993 filed by one appellant and criminal appeal No. 800/1999 filed by the complainant (appellant No. 6 in criminal appeal no. 707/1992) against acquittal of Bhagwat, respondent No. 2. All these appeals are by special leave. 2. Shorn of all the details, we may only notice that as a result of some dispute over possession of land which originally belonged to one Deochand (absconding accused), an occurrence took place on 22nd July, 1983. According to the appellants they were given possession of the land measuring 4 Kanals by Deochand after executing a registered sale deed whereas the case of the complainant party is that they were already in possession of the land and the appellants came to forcibly dispossess them. The appellants in the first cited three appeals were charged for offences under section 302/149 IPC and 148 IPC. The trial court convicted 13 appellants for offences under section 302/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under section 302/149 IPC and to a sentence of one year RI for an offence under section 148 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The case arose out of the murder of Gajraj Singh. Against their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed appeals in the High Court but without any success. In the cross case out of which criminal appeal no. 800 of 1999 arises, the High Court intervened and acquitted Bhagwat, who had been convicted by the trial court for murder of Narain, belonging to the accused party. 3. The trial court as well as the High Court have carefully analysed the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the defence. The appreciation of evidence by both the courts appears to us to be proper and does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Faced with this situation, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in the first cited three appeals drew our attention to the medical evidence of Dr. M.P. Vyas PW-3 who had performed post-mortem on the dead body of Gajraj Singh. According to Dr. Faced with this situation, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in the first cited three appeals drew our attention to the medical evidence of Dr. M.P. Vyas PW-3 who had performed post-mortem on the dead body of Gajraj Singh. According to Dr. Vyas injury No. 2 on the deceased was caused by some sharp edged weapon while injury No. 9 was caused on him by a hard and blunt weapon like lathi. These two injuries, it was stated, were enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The witnesses went on to say that even one of these injuries was enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that all other injuries on the deceased were simple in nature. In further examination, the witness admitted that except injuries 2 and 9, all other injuries, even collectively, were not enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. None of the injuries suffered by Gajraj Singh deceased was on the vital part of his body. 4. In vain have we searched through the evidence led by the prosecution to find the author of either of the two injuries, i.e. injury No. 2 or injury No. 9. It is the prosecution case that while some of the appellants were armed with lathis, one appellant had a barchi, another an axe and third a ballam. Other appellants were empty handed. None of the witnesses have been able to say as to who caused which injury and in particular as to who caused injury No. 2 or 9 to deceased Gajraj Singh. Injury No. 2 was an incised wound over the left upper arm while injury No. 9 is a contusion over left mammary region, under which fourth, fifth and sixth ribs were found fractured. 5. Our independent analysis of the evidence on the record shows that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with the object of taking forcible possession of the land and if necessary to give beating to the complainant party to achieve their object. During this fight, Narain, belonging to the accused party received a fatal blow at the hands of Gajraj Singh deceased whereafter complainant party was assaulted and Gajraj Singh received injuries to which he later on succumbed. 6. During this fight, Narain, belonging to the accused party received a fatal blow at the hands of Gajraj Singh deceased whereafter complainant party was assaulted and Gajraj Singh received injuries to which he later on succumbed. 6. Looking to the manner in which assault took place over the land, which was in the possession of the complainant party it appears to us that the appellants did not intended to cause murder of deceased Gajraj Singh. The offence committed by the appellants in the established facts and circumstances of the case, resulting in the death of Gajraj Singh was only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellants can definitely be clothed with the knowledge that the injuries caused by them were likely to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death of Gajraj Singh. The offence under the circumstances, would fall under Section 304 (Part-II)/149 IPC and not under Section 302/149 IPC. We, therefore, accept these three appeals partly and hold that the offence committed by the 13 appellants is not one under Section 302/149 IPC but one under Section 304 (Part-II)/149 IPC. So far as the offence under Section 148 IPC is concerned, that has been proved to have been committed by the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt and we maintain the conviction and sentence of the 13 appellants on that count. 7. Coming now to the question of sentence for the offence under Section 304-II/149 IPC, in our opinion, a sentence of eight years RI would meet the ends of justice. We make an order accordingly. 8. The appellants in the first cited three appeals are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall be taken into custody to undergo remaining part of the sentence, if any. 9. So far as criminal appeal No. 800 of 1999 is concerned, after hearing Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The same is hereby dismissed. Appeal allowed partly. ************* Parallel Citations of other Journals : Chhidamilal & Ors. v. State of M.P., 2002(3) Supreme 40 : 2001(9) JT 42 : 2001(4) All.Crl.L.R. 685 : 2002(2) Crimes 157 00027