ORDER : Doraiswamy Raju, J. - The above appeal has been filed by the appellants who were accused in Sessions Case No. 112 of 1992 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) for charges of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The learned trial Judge, after considering the materials on record in the shape of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, with a further fine of Rs 5000 to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment in default of payment thereof and further convicted them under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code with a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, therefor, in addition to a fine of Rs 5000, in default of payment of which to undergo a further six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, the appellant-accused pursued the matter before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 1995. A Division Bench of the High Court in the judgment dated 17-4-2002, agreed with the findings of the learned trial Judge and while affirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Hence the above appeal. 2. Even at the time of granting leave, the same was confined by order dated 28-10-2002, to the nature of offence only. Consequently, we consider it inappropriate to make detailed reference to the entire episode and the learned counsel also did not delve much into the length and depth of the entire evidence except inviting our attention to such of the materials on record and documents relevant to a consideration of the restricted leave granted by this Court. 3. Shri Maganbhai Barot, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants invited our attention elaborately to the medical evidence tendered through PW 2 and sought to impress upon us that Injury 3 found on the deceased was considered to be mainly a simple injury from the medical point of view and that in the absence of any intention on the part of Accused 3 to whom the said injury was attributed to cause the death of the victim or to cause such injury as is sufficient in the normal course to cause his death, there is hardly any scope for his conviction under Section 302. It is further contended that since there is no material to prove that the remaining accused shared any common intention with A-3 either to cause death or to cause such injury which is likely to cause death of the victim, their conviction also under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code was also unsustainable. The learned counsel was vehement in his contention that if at all, the case as substantiated by the prosecution on the evidence brought on record, at best could make out only an offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code and nothing more. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent State invited our attention to the portions of the evidence as well as the judgments of the courts below and while adopting the reasoning of the courts below contended that there is no scope for a rethinking even on the nature of the offences committed by the appellants and their concurrent conviction by both the courts below and the sentence imposed therefor, calls for no interference in this appeal. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5. To substantiate a case for conviction of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for the commission of murder it is not the mere factum of death of a victim alone which is sufficient. The necessary ingredient envisaged under Section 300 Indian Penal Code has to be proved by cogent, convincing and sufficient legally accepted evidence. 6. Murder is considered to be an aggravated form of culpable homicide and to render it a murder the case must come within the four clauses of Section 300. Consequently, it needs consideration at the threshold as to whether any of the accused has done any act by which he has caused the death of another person. Incidentally, it requires a consideration as to whether such act(s) amounted to culpable homicide, as envisaged under Section 299. If the evidence on record could evoke a positive answer in affirmation, the stage for consideration of the applicability or otherwise of Section 300 in the light of the clauses elucidating the offence as well as the exceptions engrafted therein arise. Incidentally, it requires a consideration as to whether such act(s) amounted to culpable homicide, as envisaged under Section 299. If the evidence on record could evoke a positive answer in affirmation, the stage for consideration of the applicability or otherwise of Section 300 in the light of the clauses elucidating the offence as well as the exceptions engrafted therein arise. If the facts proved by the prosecution do not satisfy any one of the clauses contained in Section 300, it would only be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304, the further question as to under which part of the said provision depending upon the nature of evidence and the necessary ingredients proved to attract one or the other of such part. Even, if the prosecution is able to prove that one or the other clauses of Section 300 is satisfied, yet if the evidence could establish that the case falls under any one of the exceptions still the offence said to have been committed would only be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of the Penal Code. Thus, culpable homicide will not also amount to murder if the case falls within any of the exceptions in Section 300 and only by such process of reasoning and elimination, a case for murder can be held proved. 7. The case on hand and the nature of materials brought on record through the evidence of PWs examined, disclosed that it centred around a dispute over the payment of Rs 20 in return for the sweets said to have been purchased and though the occurrence is attributed to all the four who seem to have assaulted the victim and others in the family with sticks as a sequel to some wrangle with PW 4. There was no legally acceptable evidence to prove any premeditation or prior planning to attack the victim as well as others who suffered injuries or intention to cause the death of anyone or all of them. The entire event appears to have taken place on the spur of the moment due to heated exchange between PW 4 and the first appellant and the entire occurrence took place immediately as an aftermath of this altercation. The entire event appears to have taken place on the spur of the moment due to heated exchange between PW 4 and the first appellant and the entire occurrence took place immediately as an aftermath of this altercation. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no sufficient evidence to the contra to justify any finding or to prove that the accused or for that matter even A-3 had any intention or a plan and common design to commit acts which exposed them to the prosecution in question. Though the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that all the accused could be punished only for offences under Section 323 or 325 Indian Penal Code, keeping in view the fact that the injuries caused by the third accused particularly Injury 3 was directly responsible to cause the haemorrhage in the brain resulting in the death of the victim though there was no intention to cause such death or any such injury as is likely to cause in the normal course the death or that the accused could be attributed with the knowledge that the injury likely to be caused may result in death. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, find that an offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code alone has been sufficiently made out and substantiated by the prosecution. To that extent we are unable to agree with the contra-findings of the courts below. The other accused could not be attributed with any responsibility for the injury caused by the third accused and there is nothing on record to show that they shared any common intention in the absence of any evidence to establish a premeditated design or plot to kill or even cause such injury as the one caused by the third accused which resulted in the death of the victim. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of Appellants 1, 2 and 4 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. So far as conviction of the accused under Sections 323 and 324 is concerned, the same is affirmed but at the same time so far as the sentence imposed on Appellants 1, 2 and 4 is concerned, we modify the same and sentence them to the period already undergone by them. They shall be set at large, if not required in any other case. They shall be set at large, if not required in any other case. So far as Appellant 3-accused is concerned, for altered charge under which he stands convicted, namely, Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code, he shall undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and continue in detention to serve the remaining period of sentence. 8. The appeal stands allowed on the above terms.