JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - These two appeals are by the two convicted persons in S.T. No. 19/95 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Phulbani, Both of them faced the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 302/450/324/34 I.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the accused Appellant Jhasaketan Nag alias Sapa (Appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 298/96) guilty of the offence u/s 304 Second Part and Section 450, I.P.C. Accordingly, the trial Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer a further rigorous imprisonment for four months for the conviction u/s 304, I.P.C. No separate sentence was passed for his conviction u/s 450. I.P.C. So far as it relates to accused-Appellant Sunil Sahoo (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 1996), trial Court found him guilty of the offence under Sections 450 and 324, I.P.C. This Appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine Rs. 1,000/- for his conviction u/s 450, I.P.C. and no separate sentence was imposed on him for his conviction u/s 324, I.P.C. 2. Since both the appeals arise Cut of common judgment of conviction in S.T. No. 19/95, therefore, both the appeals have been listed for analogous hearing. While Mr. A.K. Mahakud, Learned Counsel for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 1996 is present, Learned Counsel M/s B.K. Mohanty and associates who filed Vakalatnama in favour of the Appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 1996 have not appeared. Thus, on request, Mr. Mahakud, Learned Counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 1996 agrees to address the Court in favour of the Appellant in Jail Criminal Appeal and for that he does not want any further time to prepare because he has already prepared the case for advancing argument. Thus, argument is heard from Mr. Mahakud on behalf of the Appellants in both the Criminal Appeals and from Mr. A.K. Misra who represents the State. 3. A trifle quarrel among the children belonging to families of Informant and accused persons as alleged by the prosecution, laid the foundation of the occurrence by quarrelling with each other. Thus, argument is heard from Mr. Mahakud on behalf of the Appellants in both the Criminal Appeals and from Mr. A.K. Misra who represents the State. 3. A trifle quarrel among the children belonging to families of Informant and accused persons as alleged by the prosecution, laid the foundation of the occurrence by quarrelling with each other. Because of that the four accused persons which includes the Appellants trespassed into the house of the informant under the leadership of the Appellant Jhasketan Nag alias Sapa (hereinafter described as 'Sapa'). As alleged, Appellant Sum Sahoo also accompanied him into the house of the informant. Gandaram Mahahira. the deceased in this case, when wanted to ascertain as to what happened, the Appellants dragged him from inside the house upto the village Dando and Appellant Sapa first dealt a blow by a lathi on the head of the deceased, which resulted In a bleeding injury. On sustaining that blow Gandaram Manahira fell down and thereafter as alleged, Appellant Sunil and Ors. dealt lathi blows on different parts of the body of the deceased. When the informant Sapneswara manahira (P.W. No. 2) intervened to save his father, as alleged, he was also assaulted by them as a result of which he also sustained a bleeding injury on his head but as per the evidence of tire Doctor such injury was simple in nature. Persons who witnesses the occurrence includes (P.W. No. 3) Sambhu Bhoi and P.W.4 Sunder Manahira. P.W.4 is also a brother of the deceased. When the eye-witnesses numbering about 7 and 8 Intervened, accused persons left that place. On the verbal report lodged by P.W. No. 2 investigation was undertaken, the deceased and P.W. No. 2 were give in medical treatment at Kantamal hospital and about 7 days after that occurrence, deceased succumbed to the injuries. In a nutshell i.e. the entire prosecution case. 4. In order to substantiate the charge prosecution heavily relied on the occular evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 and the corroborating evidence of the two Doctors P.W. No. 5 who granted the injury certificate and P.W. No. 8 who conducted the post mortem examination so also the evidence of P.W. No. 6 as witness to the seizure and P.W. No. 7 the Investigating Officer. Of the various documents marked Exts. 1 to 14, Ext.7 is the F.I.R., Exts. 2 and 3 are the injury reports and Ext. Of the various documents marked Exts. 1 to 14, Ext.7 is the F.I.R., Exts. 2 and 3 are the injury reports and Ext. 14 is the post mortem report. Similarly Ext. 4 is the opinion report of the Doctor opining that M.Os. III and IV the two lathis to be the possible weapon of offence. 5. Trial Court found the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 consistent and corroborating to each other relating to the proof of the occurrence in the aforesaid manner and it found the supporting evidence from the documents marked as Exhibits (noted above) to prove a case of homicidal death of the deceased after sustaining injuries and P.W. No. 2 sustaining simple hurt and the Appellants being the author of such injuries. Trial Court further recorded the finding that Appellant Sapa is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 304 and not u/s 302, I.P.C. because it reveals from the evidence that the occurrence took place because of previous quarrel and the said Appellant had no intention to kill the deceased though dealt lathi blows on the vital part of the body. He also found him guilty u/s 324, I.P.C. for causing simple hurt by lathi to P.W. No. 2. The trial Court as well found active participation of the Appellant Sunil Sahoo in the said occurrence by trespassing into the house of the informant and helping Appellant Sapa in dragging out the deceased from the house and thereafter giving thenga blows causing simple injuries. Accordingly, while finding no evidence to book the Appellant Sunil for the offence under Sections 302 or 304, read with Section 34, I.P.C. the trial Court found the evidence on record sufficient to bring home the charge for the offence under Sections 450/324, I.P.C. Accordingly, he convicted the Appellant Sunil. 6. After placing the evidence on record, Learned Counsel for the Appellant finds himself in a predicament to criticise the impugned findings and the judgment inasmuch as the evidence which was necessary were not brought on record in course of examination-in-chief but the defence counsel during the course of cross-examination put such questions and brought such material evidence that in helps the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in the aforesaid manner. Therefore in the process of advancing argument Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that Appellant Sapa and Sunil were arrested on 24.4.1994 and remanded to Jail Custody on that day and that as per the order of the trial Court on 28.6.1995, Appellant Sunil was released on bail and therefore-he has suffered imprisonment as under trial prisoner for a period of one year and two months. On the other hand, Appellant Sapa, has already served the sentence imposed against him. Under such circumstance, he argues that while maintaining the conviction and sentence of Sapa. the sentence imposed on Appellant Sunil for three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1.000/- be modified end reduced to a sentence of the period which he has already undergone as under trial prisoner because the offence under Sections 450 and 324, I.P.C. is not that heinous a crime. Learned Standing Counsel as a matter of duty opposes to the aforesaid prayer relating to modification and reduction of sentence of Sunil. 7. After hearing argument from the parties and perusing the evidence on record, this Court finds that the trial Court has recorded the finding of conviction on sound and proper appreciation of evidence on record. Indeed the evidence on record does not leave the Appellants to get rid of the order of conviction. This Court also finds substance from the argument of the Learned Counsel that Sapa has already suffered the punishment. Thus, taking into consideration aforesaid facts and submission, while maintaining the impugned order of conviction, this Court modifies the sentence with respect to Appellant Sunil. Accordingly, for his conviction u/s 450 and Section 324, I.P.C. Appellant Sunil is convicted for a period of one year two months for each of the offence with a direction to run such sentences concurrently and with further direction to set off the period already undergone as under trial prisoner. 8. Accordingly, while dismissing the Jail Criminal Appeal of Appellant Sapa and the Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 1996 by maintaining the order of conviction sentence imposed on Appellant Sunil is modified and reduced in the manner indicated above. Final Result : Dismissed