ORDER 1. Father and son are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2002. Umesh Jha is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2002. Father of b Umesh Jha, namely, Kameshwar Jha died after his conviction and dismissal of appeal by the High Court. 2. Kameshwar, his son Umesh and Rajeshwar and his son Akhilesh were charged for the murder of Lachhman Jha and for inflicting injuries on his two sons Dinesh Jha and Ajay Jha. The trial court convicted Rajeshwar and Akhilesh for offences under Sections 302/34 and Section 302 IPC c respectively. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Akhilesh was also convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. Kameshwar and Umesh were convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution to prove its case examined, besides other witnesses, d two injured witnesses. PW 8 is the informant injured witness. PW 3 is the other injured witness. Both are sons of the deceased. PW 5 has been examined by the prosecution as an independent witness. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that at about 6.45 a.m. on 14-61992 when Lachhman and his two sons PW 3 and PW 8 were levelling the land, Rajeshwar passed through the nearby road and objected to the levelling e of land by them. Rajeshwar got annoyed at the reply of Lachhman and his sons that the land belonged to them and on that account he went to his cowshed which was located close by and returned at the place of occurrence, namely, the land which was being levelled, with his son Akhilesh and also accompanied by Kameshwar and his son Umesh. Kameshwar and Umesh were having lathis with them. Akhilesh came to the place of occurrence with f farsa. Farsa- and lathi-blows were given to Lachhman and his sons. Akhilesh gave farsa-blow to PW 3. being the younger brother of the informant PW 8. He tried to save himself but it hit at his left arm. The deceased tried to save his son but Akhilesh hurled a farsa-blow on his head which he saved with his hand but the second farsa-blow was inflicted on his head causing head injury to the deceased. being the younger brother of the informant PW 8. He tried to save himself but it hit at his left arm. The deceased tried to save his son but Akhilesh hurled a farsa-blow on his head which he saved with his hand but the second farsa-blow was inflicted on his head causing head injury to the deceased. On the statement of Dinesh Jha, PW 8, recorded at 8.00 a.m., an FIR was registered. 5. The appellants initially seems to have taken the defence that they were not on the spot as it appears from the suggestions given to the witnesses but the appellants had also lodged a counter-case which amply established their presence at the place of occurrence. Having regard to the evidence, the four accused, as noticed earlier, were convicted and their convictions were maintained in appeal and three of them have challenged their conviction, the fourth having died after the judgment of the High Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants have not disputed the incident. The only contention urged on behalf of Rajeshwar and Akhilesh is that it is not a case of premeditated murder. The contention is that on account of the land dispute on the spur of the moment, the injuries were inflicted and that the intention to kill Lachhman has not been established. In short, the submission is that the offence under Section 302 has not been established and the conviction, therefore, deserves to be converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. 7. Insofar as appellant Umesh is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel is that even according to the case of the prosecution as established from the evidence adduced, it only stands established that he inflicted lathi-blows on PW 3 and PW 8. The further submission is that there is no evidence to establish that he had either inflicted any injury on deceased Laehhman or had any intention to commit murder of Laehhman independently or with the aid of Section 34. 8. Taking first the case of Umesh, it cannot be and has not been disputed by Mr RB. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State that the only evidence against him is that he and his father gave lathi-blows to PW 3 and PW 8 and there is no evidence to establish any intention on his part to commit the murder of deceased Lachhman. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State that the only evidence against him is that he and his father gave lathi-blows to PW 3 and PW 8 and there is no evidence to establish any intention on his part to commit the murder of deceased Lachhman. In this view, conviction of Umesh for offence under Sections 302/34 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, to this extent, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court confirming that of the trial court. Insofar as PW 8 Dinesh Jha is concerned, according to PW 12 Dr. Lallan P. Singh, his injuries were simple in nature. Out of three injuries two were on the arm and one on head. But the injury that is attributed to Umesh is an arm injury which has been opined to be simple in nature. Of the two injuries inflicted on PW 3 Ajay Kumar, one is attributed to Umesh. It was an injury on his little finger. It has been opined to be grievous in nature. The appellant Umesh is, therefore, convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC for having caused grievous injury to Ajay Kumar. He is also convicted for offence under Section 323 for having caused simple injury to PW 8 Dinesh Jha. The incident pertains to the year 1992. Umesh has been in custody for near about IO months. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met, if for the offences for which Umesh has been now found guilty, he is awarded the sentence already undergone. Umesh was released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13-7-2001. The bail bonds in respect of Umesh are discharged. 9. Reverting to Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2002, namely, the case of Rajeshwar and Akhilesh, though it cannot be doubted that the genesis of the incident was a land dispute, but it cannot be said merely on that account that the two appellants had no intention to commit the murder of Lachhman. The injuries suffered by the deceased were these: "(1) Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the middle of the head directed anteroposteriorly on opening of the scalp, underlying tissues were found infiltrated with blood and blood clots with bruised margin on left panche (sic) and frontal bones were found cut. The injuries suffered by the deceased were these: "(1) Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the middle of the head directed anteroposteriorly on opening of the scalp, underlying tissues were found infiltrated with blood and blood clots with bruised margin on left panche (sic) and frontal bones were found cut. Organised blood clots were found on the surface of the brain underlying the wound. (2) Incised wound I 1/2" x 1/2" x I" hypothenar area of the left hand cut, fracture of 4th-5th metacarpal bones was found, infiltration of blood, both the injuries according to the doctor, PW 9 were ante-mortem and were caused by some heavy sharp weapon such as farsa. The doctor opined that Injury (I) was grievous and dangerous to life and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course." 10. The prosecution has also proved the injuries inflicted by these two appellants on the two injured witnesses. The injuries inflicted on Dinesh Jha by these appellants are as follows: "(i) An incised wound on the dorsal aspect of the lower end of the right forearm. About 4" x 6" x I" x bone-deep above right wrist actively bleeding. It was simple in nature as found in X-ray Plate No. 373. (ii) Incised wound over the scalp just longitudinally and in the midline 6" x I" x bone-deep actively bleeding. It was simple in nature as found in X-ray Plate No. 373." 11. The injury inflicted by Akhilesh on Ajay Kumar Jha was as follows: "(1) An incised wound over the dorsal aspect of lower end of left forearm 2" x 1/2" x 1/2", nature - simple wound, was actively bleeding." 12. The prosecution case that stands established and has rightly not been disputed on behalf of the appellants is that on finding Lachhman and his two sons levelling the land, Rajeshwar went to his cowshed and came back to the place of occurrence as noticed earlier. His son was carrying afarsa. Both the father and the son inflicted injuries on Lachhman and his two sons. The deceased father tried to save his son. He was able to ward off the I st injury by taking it on his hand. The second injury was inflicted on the middle of his head. It became fatal. The result was his death on the spot. Both the father and the son inflicted injuries on Lachhman and his two sons. The deceased father tried to save his son. He was able to ward off the I st injury by taking it on his hand. The second injury was inflicted on the middle of his head. It became fatal. The result was his death on the spot. Under these circumstances, when the evidence has been properly appreciated by the courts below. it cannot be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the f intention of the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased simply on account of the genesis of the incident being a land dispute. If the intention was only to stop the other side from levelling the land, it stood achieved by injuries on arms and finger. It is well settled that the intention can be formed at the time of the incident itself. On this factual matrix, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr Verma, the learned Senior Counsel that there was no premeditation. Having regard to these circumstances, we do not think that g the offence deserves to be converted from Section 302 and/or Sections 302/34 to offence under Section 304 Part II. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2002 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2002 is partly allowed in the terms abovestated.