ORDER Leave granted. 2. The three appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life passed on each of them. One more person was associated with them and he too was convicted along with them. His name is Dhani Ram. He died during the trial. 3. The case against the appellants is that on account of family dispute they had with the deceased all the accused went to the paddy field of the deceased by noon time and had an altercation with him. It was followed by beating the deceased with Lathis. One of them used a knife. As the Trial Court and the High Court found the prosecution story to have been proved we are not inclined to re-open the findings. 4. The post-mortem report showed that the deceased had sustained two small incised wounds on the Supper part of left wrist. One lacerated injury is of 3 cm x 1 cm scalp deep on the right side of head. All others were contusions. 5. Evidently, the incised wounds on the wrist were so simple that they would not have contributed to the death of the deceased. The lacerated wound on the right side of the head was associated with a bone fracture and there was blood clot in the brain memory. The death of the deceased would have precipitated on account of the said injury. We do not know who among the four assailants would have inflicted the said injury on the head. It is possible that one of them including Dhani Ram (who died in the meanwhile) could have caused that injury. Even assuming that the said injury was caused by one of the appellants all that can be said is that they inflicted an injury on the head with a stick. The resultant consequence which followed like the haemorrhage in the brain cannot possibly have been intended by the person who inflicted the said injury. Hence, it is difficult to bring the offence within the ambit of the Thirdly clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. We, therefore, alter the conviction from Section 302, IPC to Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. This requires commensurate reduction in the sentencing aspect. 7. Second appellant-Keshwa Nandan is aged 68 years. Hence, it is difficult to bring the offence within the ambit of the Thirdly clause of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. We, therefore, alter the conviction from Section 302, IPC to Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. This requires commensurate reduction in the sentencing aspect. 7. Second appellant-Keshwa Nandan is aged 68 years. The role attributed to him in the offence is that he dealt a blow with knife. But as pointed out above the injury resulted therefrom is a very minor one on the left wrist. The first appellant is aged 85 years now. In regard to first and second appellants we are inclined to reduced the sentence to imprisonment for the period already suffered by them. We do so. In regard to third appellant-Paras Nath we impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed partly. **************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Uttam Prasad & Ors. v. State of U.P., 2001(5) Supreme 430 : 2001 (3) Crimes 392 00024