Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant Kameshwar Rai has been convicted under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellants Brij Nandan Rai and Sheo Balak Rai have been convicted under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.1.85 the informant Ravindra Rai gave his Fardbeyan before the Officer Incharge, Pirbahore Police Station Patna at P.M.C.H., Rajendra Surgical Ward in an injured condition at about 8.45 P.M. alleging therein that on 26.1.85 when the informant went to see Sarswati Puja near Mahabir temple in his village, he saw that the appellants were armed with Chhura. It has been stated that the brother of the informant was managing the Puja of Sarswati Jee. The appellant Kameshwar Rai was sleeping in the Pandal wearing shoe. The other appellants were also sleeping in the Pandal. The brother of the informant deceased Bijendra Rai asked the appellant Kameshwar that he should not be in the Puja Pandal having shoe. Upon this the co-accused Ganesh Rai (sinceacquitted) and he accosted appellant Kameshwar to kill the deceased whereupon appellant Kameshwar gave several Chhura blows on the person of Bijendra. Thereafter the cousin brother of the informant Chandeshwar Rai came forward to rescue him but he was also assaulted by appellant Brij Nandan and co-accused Uma. When the informant went to save his brother he was also assaulted by appellant Sheo Balak by Chhura which hit his left side of shoulder. Thereafter the witnesses came and saw the occurrence. The genesis of this occurrence was alleged to be rivalry due to election of Puja Committee. Appellant Kameshwar wanted that his brother should sit on Puja but the villagers wanted the deceased Bijendra to perform the Puja and eventually he was assaulted for performing Puja. It has been stated that after the occurrence the injured were taken to Parsa State Dispensary where they were given first aid and from there they were referred to P.M.C.H., Patna for better treatment where they were treated and deceased Bijendra died after two weeks of the occurrence. It has been stated that after the occurrence the injured were taken to Parsa State Dispensary where they were given first aid and from there they were referred to P.M.C.H., Patna for better treatment where they were treated and deceased Bijendra died after two weeks of the occurrence. It has been further stated that at Patna itself a police Jamadar of Pirbahore P.S. recorded the statement of the informant Ext. 2 and thereafter Danapur P.S. case was registered on the basis of the statement of the informant. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly cognizance was taken and trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 14 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Deni Rai, eye witness, P.W. 2 is Jagar Nath Singh, a co-villager, P.W. 3 is Dindayal Rai, cousin brother of the informant, P.W. 4 is Chandreshwar Rai, injured, P.W. 5 is Harendra Pd. Singh, a formal witness. He had recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant at P.M.C.H. P.W. 6 is informant-Ravinder Rai. He is also an injured. P.W. 7 is Ram Naresh Rai, a formal witness. He had seized the blood stained clothes of the injured persons. P.W. 8 is Dr. Ratnakar Pd. Srivastava. He had conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Bijendra Rai. P.W. 9 is another doctor, Dr. Naval Kishore Jha. He had prepared injury report of the injured persons. P.W. 10 is Dr. Birendra Pd. Trivedi. He had given the first aid to the injured at Parsa Hospital, P.W. 11 is Mustak Ahmad. He is Compounder of Parsa Hospital. P.W. 12 is Brij Kishore Pandey, I.O. of the case. P.W. 13 is Balbhadra Mishra, a format witness. He had collected the blood stained clothes of the deceased and P.W. 14 is Sudama Prasad. He is also a formal witnesses. 5. P.W. 6 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in his Fardbeyan. According to him, on the date of occurrence i.e. 26.1.85 his brother was managing the Puja of Sarswati Jee. When he reached at the Pandal before 7.30 A.M. he saw appellant Kameshwar was sleeping having shoe in the Pandal. The other appellants were also sleeping with him. He has stated that his brother Bijendra (deceased) asked the appellant Kameshwar not to sleep in the Pandal having shoe. When he reached at the Pandal before 7.30 A.M. he saw appellant Kameshwar was sleeping having shoe in the Pandal. The other appellants were also sleeping with him. He has stated that his brother Bijendra (deceased) asked the appellant Kameshwar not to sleep in the Pandal having shoe. Upon this, the co-accused Ganesh Rai reached and ordered appellant Kameshwar to kill the deceased Bijendra, upon this appellant Kameshwar gave several Chhura blows over the person of the deceased. Thereafter his cousin brother Chandreshwar Rai came forward to save him but he was also assaulted by appellant Brijnandan. According to him, when he went to save his brother he was also assaulted by appellant Sheo Balak by Chhura which hit him on his shoulder. He has stated that this occurrence was seen by many persons including Deni Rai and Dindayal Rai etc. The genesis of the occurrence and assault was alleged to be the rivalry between the parties because of election of Puja Samiti. After the occurrence they were taken to Parsa Hospital where they were given first aid by P.W. 10, the doctor and were referred to P.M.C.H. Patna. According to him, his brother Bijendra died after sixteen days of the occurrence. He has further stated that his Fardbeyan was recorded at Patna by a Police Jamadar of Pirbahore Police Station. 6. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 are the witnesses on the factum of occurrence. They have all supported the factum of occurrence that the appellant Kameshwar deliberately was sleeping in the Panda/wearing shoes which was objected by Bijendra (deceased). The other appellants were also sleeping in the Pandal. When the deceased asked Kameshwar why he was sleeping having shoes in the Pandal the co-accused Ganesh Rai instigated appellant Kameshwar and he on the instigation of Ganesh inflicted several Chhura blows on the person of the deceased. They have stated that the informant and his cousin brother were also assaulted by the appellants when they went to save the deceased. RWs. 2, 7, 10, 13 and 14 are formal witnesses. 7. P.W. 8, Dr. R. P. Srivastava had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Bijendra on 12.2.85. He found the following antemortem injuries on the person of Bijendra : (1) Partially healed wound 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of right fore arm below elbow. RWs. 2, 7, 10, 13 and 14 are formal witnesses. 7. P.W. 8, Dr. R. P. Srivastava had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Bijendra on 12.2.85. He found the following antemortem injuries on the person of Bijendra : (1) Partially healed wound 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of right fore arm below elbow. (2) Partially healed wound 1/4" x 1/4" on the front of right fore arm below the elbow. (3) Healed scar 1 1/3" x long on the left shoulder. (4) 3/4" x 1/4" x muscle deep wound on the front of upper part of the left side of chest covered with pus. (5) 1/2" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep wound on the left side backof chest through which a drainage of tube was put. The doctor has given the reason of death as septic infaction of lung and pleura. 8 P.W. 12 Investigating Officer has stated that he was Officer Incharge of Pirbahore P.S. He recorded the Fardbeyan of the informant and also the statement of the other witnesses. He registered the first information report on the basis of the statement of the informant. He also visted the place of the occurrence and gave full description of the place of occurrence. He also inspected the dead body of the deceased and sent requisition for his post mortem examination. 9. From the evidence so adduced and materials available on the record it is apparent that the prosecution could prove its case beyond reasonable doubts that the appellants voluntarily gave Chhura blow to the deceased and also the informant P.W. 6 and P.W. 4 which has also been corroborated by the doctor who examined the injured and also by P.W. 8, Dr. R. P.Srivastava who had conducted post mortem examination of the deceased. The Investigating Officer has also supported the case of the prosecution. As such, I am of the view that the court below has rightly convicted appellant Kameshwar for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II and the other appellants Brij Nandan and Sheo Balak under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of these appellants. 10. As such, I am of the view that the court below has rightly convicted appellant Kameshwar for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II and the other appellants Brij Nandan and Sheo Balak under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of these appellants. 10. However, coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the occurrence took place in 1985 more than 15 years ago and the appellants had no intention to kill the deceased and hurt the injured informant and P.W. 4. It has been further submitted that there is no previous conviction and criminal antecedent against them and whatever happened it happened in a spur of moment for a triffling matter. Moreover, they have remained in jail for some time. Therefore, it requires consideration on the point of sentence. Having regard to the submission aforesaid and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellants Sheo Balak Rai and Brij Nandan Rai is reduced to the period they have already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each to be deposited by them within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In default of payment of fine, the substantive sentence passed by the court below shall automatically be restored. It is made clear that the amount of fine if and when realised from these appellants, shall be given to the father of the deceased, if alive or his brother. So far appellant Kameshwar Rai is concerned, who had given severa Chhura blows on the person of deceased Bijendra, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met if the sentence of ten years of this appellant awarded by the court below is reduced to five years. Subject to the modification in the sentence these two appeals are dismissed.