Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. All the appellants have been convicted under section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 5.7.96 at 2.00 P.M. daughter of appellant Gul Mohammad aged 6 years and daughter of the informant aged 4 years were quarrelling and the wife of Gul Mohammad abused the informant. The informant protested against the action of the wife of Gul Mohammad. In the meantime husband of the informant came from his house and told them that it was a dispute between the children and why they were quarrelling. It has been alleged that appellant Gul Mohammad, appellant Md. Karu, co-accused Maqsud and appellant Amina Khatun armed with Lathi and Pitna assaulted the husband of the informant. He received injury on his head and other parts of the body and fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Thereafter the informant with the help of her father brought her husband to the hospital for treatment. During treatment her husband died in the hospital on 7.7.96. Thereafter the statement of the informant was recorded by A.S.I. of Police and on the basis of her statement first information report was drawn up. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since co-accused Maqsud was a minor his case was split up from the case of these appellants. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions where the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellants pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Prosecution in support of its case examined altogether eight witnesses including the informant P.W. 6. P.W.1 is Sk. Rahman, P.W. 2 is Md. Kamaruddin Sah, P.W. 3 is Basir Rahman, P.W. 4 is Md. Kamal, P.W. 5 is Sk. Mojib, a formal witness, P.W. 6 is Nazra Nishan, informant, P.W. 7 is Shyam Jee Singh, I.O. of this case and P.W. 8 is Dr. S.M. Thakur, who had conducted postmortem examination on the deceased Juber Alam on 8.7.96. 4. P.W. 1 claimed to be an eye witness of the case. Kamal, P.W. 5 is Sk. Mojib, a formal witness, P.W. 6 is Nazra Nishan, informant, P.W. 7 is Shyam Jee Singh, I.O. of this case and P.W. 8 is Dr. S.M. Thakur, who had conducted postmortem examination on the deceased Juber Alam on 8.7.96. 4. P.W. 1 claimed to be an eye witness of the case. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was at his Darwaja and saw the appellants along with co-accused Maqsud assaulting the deceased Jebair Alam. Having sustained injuries he fell down and became unconscious. According to him, the appellants assaulted the deceased with Lathi and appellant Amina Khatun assaulted him with Pitna. According to him, when he went to save Jubair he also received Lathi blows. On Hulla several persons reached there. Thereafter the injured proceeded towards P.S. on a rickshaw. P.W. 2 has also supported the case of the prosecution and claims to be an eye witness of the occurrence. According to him, when he was returning after attending Namaz he saw the appellants assaulting the deceased. He has stated that the appellants gave indiscriminate assault on the deceased. He fell down and became unconscious. He also went to save the deceased but he received Lathi blow. Thereafter he was taken to hospital on a rickshaw. P.W. 3 has also supported the version of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He also saw the appellants armed with Lathi and appellant Amina Khatoon with Pitna. The deceased having received injuries fell down and became unconscious. He is father-in-law of the deceased. According to him, he and his daughter took the injured to Police Station and thereafter the police sent them to the hospital where Jubair was treated and ultimately he died on 7.7.96. P.W. 4 has stated that when he was going to his Sasural, he saw the occurrence. He has also stated that the appellants assaulted the deceased and having received injuries he fell down and became unconscious and thereafter he was taken to hospital where he died. P.W. 5 is a formal witness of the inquest report. He has proved his own signature on the inquest report Ext. 1. 5. P.W. 6 is the informant She is the wife of the deceased Jubair. According to him at the time of occurrence she was in her house along with her husband. She has stated that the occurrence took place on 5.7.96. He has proved his own signature on the inquest report Ext. 1. 5. P.W. 6 is the informant She is the wife of the deceased Jubair. According to him at the time of occurrence she was in her house along with her husband. She has stated that the occurrence took place on 5.7.96. When they heard Hulla her husband went to the place of occurrence and her husband told that this was a dispute of children thereupon Appellant Gulam Mohammad abused her and gave Lathi blow on her husband. Appellant Karu also assaulted her husband with Lathi and appellant Amina Khatoon gave a Pitna blow on the head of her husband and her husband fell down due to assault and became unconscious. Thereafter she along with her injured husband came to the police station and the police sent them to the hospital where her husband was treated and died. According to her, her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. She has stated that the witnesses Quamruddin and Sk. Rahman, Kamal and Mojim came there and saw the occurrence. P.W. 7 the Investigating Officer had investigated the case. He has stated that at 10.15 P.M. he recored the statement of the informant in the hospital. He has proved the Fardbeyan Ext. 2. On the basis of the Fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was drawn up (Ext. 3). He has also proved the inquest report Exts. 1 and 1/1. He has stated that he inspected the place of occurrence, had given the vivid description of the place of occurrence. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination. 6. P.W. 8 Dr. S.M. Thakur conducted post mortem on the deceased Juber Alam on 8.7.96 and found the following injuries : (1) Diffuse swelling all round the skull. On dissection of skin extra vesation of blood is seen underneath the skin (2) fracture (depressed) of perital bone at its middle right angle to sagital seture (3) Abrasion 2" x 1" over right shoulder (4) Swelling back of the left elbow (5) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" lower third of left leg (6) Bruise with Swelling 3" x 1" just above right knee. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. 7 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. as the occurrence took place in the after noon of 5.7.96 and statement of the informant was recorded on 7.7.96 in the hospital. It has been also submitted that after having received injury the deceased was firstly taken to police station from where he was sent by the police in the Sadar Hospital, Katihar, Since the husband of the informant was unconscious no statement could be recorded and when he died the statement of the informant was recorded by the police in the hospital and a formal F.I.R. was drawn up. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. and it has been fully explained. It has been also stated that there was omnibus allegation and no overt act has been alleged by the P.Ws. during trial. The informant P.W. 6 wife of the deceased in her deposition has stated that appellant Karu and co-accused Maqsud started assaulting her husband with Lathi. Thereafter Amina Khatoon also hit her husband with Pitna on his head and her husband fell down and became unconscious. P.W. 1 has also stated that he was sitting at his Darwaja and saw that the appellants assaulted the deceased who became unconscious and eventually died in the hospital. P.W. 1 has also stated that when he came to save the deceased, he was also assaulted. As such, it appears from the deposition of P.W. 6 coupled with P.W. 1 that all the appellants assaulted the deceased with Lathi whereas appellant Amina Khatoon assaulted him with Pitna on the head of the deceased. Dr. P.W. 8 who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased also found as many as six injuries. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are chance witnesses and claimed that they had seen the occurrence. From their deposition in cross examination it appears that actually they came when the deceased was fallen down after receiving injuries and there were many persons assembled there. Therefore, it has been contended that there was possibility of the deceased being assaulted by some one else. From their deposition in cross examination it appears that actually they came when the deceased was fallen down after receiving injuries and there were many persons assembled there. Therefore, it has been contended that there was possibility of the deceased being assaulted by some one else. But, it was broad day of July and occurrence took place at the Darwaja of the informant and it has been stated that it all started with the quarrel of children on which appellant Gul Mohammad started abusing informant and there was scuffle between them and the deceased was assaulted by the appellants. That apart, no such suggestion has been put forth by the defence during examination of prosecution witnesses. Neither there was any previous enmity between the appellant and the informant. From the discussion above and the evidence so adduced I find that the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of culpable homicide (sic not?) amounting to murder and accordingly convicted the appellants under section 304 Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant Gul Mohammad is an old man of 66 years and Amina Khatoon is a lady. She has also remained in jail for about four months. It has been also submitted that the appellants Karu Mian and Gul Mohammad have remained in jail for 22 months. Therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to these appellants. Having regard to the submission raised on behalf of the appellants and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that since appellant Gul Mohammad is above 66 years old, it will not be proper to send him again in jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. As such, ends of justice will be met if the period of sentence of appellant no. 2, Gul Mohammad is reduced to the period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs. 4000/-. Appellant No. 3, Amina Khatoon is a lady and she has remained in jail for more than three months. Her sentence is also reduced to the period already undergone by her with a fine of Rs. 4000/-. 2, Gul Mohammad is reduced to the period already undergone by him with a fine of Rs. 4000/-. Appellant No. 3, Amina Khatoon is a lady and she has remained in jail for more than three months. Her sentence is also reduced to the period already undergone by her with a fine of Rs. 4000/-. The amount of fine shall be deposited by the appellants within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and in default, they will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. So far appellant No. 1, Karu Mian alias Md. Karu is concerned, his sentence of seven years awarded by the court below is reduced to five years. It is made clear that the amount of fine if and when realised from the appellants aforesaid, shall be paid to the informant Nazbun Nisha widow of the deceased Juber Alam by way of compensation. With the aforesaid modification in sentence this appeal is dismissed.