JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - By this judgment, I propose to dispose of two cases viz. Criminal Appeal No. 1172-SB of 1999 (Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2000 (Gurmit Kaur v. Makhan Singh) as both arise out of the same judgment of learned Sessions Judge dated 29.11.1999, vide which Makhan Singh appellant-herein stands convicted and sentenced as under : U/s 304 Indian Penal Code RI 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 000/-, in default to suffer further RI for three months. U/s 353 Indian Penal Code RI for one years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one months. U/s 186 Indian Penal Code RI for two months. However, all the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution story runs thus : On 28.1.1998 Dilbagh Singh driver (since deceased) had received injuries at the hands of the present appellant by a brick blow. Since he was unable to make a statement upto 1.2.1998, the present case was registered on the statement of one Kanwarjit Singh Conductor of Punjab Roadways, wherein he stated that on 28.1.1998 at about 6.40 P.M. Bus No. PB-12-8403 was being driven by Dilbagh Singh driver (since deceased) and he was on duty on the said bus as Conductor; that when the said bus reached village Nadalon, all the passengers alighted from it; that Dilbagh Singh and the complainant were going towards Kot Fatuhi; that the moment the bus reached bus stand Ishpur, the appellant came from behind on scooter No. PB-24-4318 and parked the scooter in front of the bus and started hurling filthy abuses to the driver, saying as to why he had not given way to him; that Dilbagh Singh got down from the bus; that the present appellant gave him fist blow and in the meantime the complainant also came out of the bus in order to save Dilbagh Singh; that the appellant hit Dilbagh Singh with a brick lying nearby on the road; that the brick hit on the forehead of Dilbagh Singh as a consequence of which he fell down and was immediately removed to the hospital, where he ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 12.2.1998. 3. After completion of investigation the appellant was sent up to face trial. 3. After completion of investigation the appellant was sent up to face trial. He was charged under Sections 302/353 and Indian Penal Code and he now stands convicted and sentenced as already indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. Gurmit Kaur widow of Dilbagh Singh driver has come up in revision praying for enhancement of the sentence as also the fine awarded by the trial Court. 5. I have heard Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhandari, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have also perused the entire record minutely. 6. However, none has turned up on behalf of the revision petitioner in Crl. Revision No. 191 of 2000. 7. Mr. Gill assails the impugned judgment only on the ground that even if the prosecution story is taken to be true as it is, the appellant at the most can be convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code for the reason that the occurrence has flared up all of a sudden when Dilbagh Singh (deceased) had not given way to appellant, who was on a scooter, which resulted into exchange of hot words between them. He then contends that in this occurrence the appellant has also received as many as five injuries, as is clear from the statement of Dr. S.P. Panga, (PW2). From this, the learned counsel develops that in fact the deceased had also given injuries to the appellant, which is otherwise his plea as is clear from the statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code The learned counsel thus contends that keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, at the most the offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code is attracted. The trial Court has, however, not given any categorical finding in this regard. For the other offences, the learned counsel has not joined any issue on any count. 8. In the alternative, the learned counsel prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence contending that the appellant remained in custody for about 7 months and 10 days during trial and after conviction he remained in the jail for about 1 year and 5 months and as such he has undergone two years out of the actual awarded sentence. 8. In the alternative, the learned counsel prays for reduction in the quantum of sentence contending that the appellant remained in custody for about 7 months and 10 days during trial and after conviction he remained in the jail for about 1 year and 5 months and as such he has undergone two years out of the actual awarded sentence. In this context my attention has been drawn to the order passed by this Court on 26.4.2001 vide which the appellant was granted the concession of suspension of sentence mainly on the ground that his detention in the jail was for about two years. 9. The learned State counsel while opposing the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant submits that the injury attributed to the present appellant brings the offence within the ambit of Section 304 Indian Penal Code Part-I Indian Penal Code. With regard to quantum of sentence also, the learned counsel submits that the appellant does not deserve any leniency. 10. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides and rescanning the entire record, I am in agreement with the contention raised by Mr. Gill so far as gravity of the offence is concerned. Admittedly there was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The occurrence had flared up on the spur of moment on account of exchange of hot words between them. The complainant has not said even a word about the injuries on the person of the present appellant, which are in fact five in number, out of which one injury is on the head and another on the nose. These injuries are possible by blunt weapon as admitted by Dr. S.P. Bagga (PW2). From this it can be very comfortably gathered that the deceased and the appellant had a physical fight with each other. The plea taken by the appellant is that Makhan Singh (deceased) had also given him injuries with fist blows. The case of the prosecution, if appreciated in its entirety, an unequivocal and irresistible conclusion drawn is that the present case would fall within the mischief of Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code only. The learned trial Court has not made any effort to segregate the present case from that angle. Therefore, this Court has done this exercise after getting assistance from both the sides. The learned trial Court has not made any effort to segregate the present case from that angle. Therefore, this Court has done this exercise after getting assistance from both the sides. Consequently, it is held that the instant case falls within the four corners of Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and the appellant now stands convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. 11. As already indicated above, the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the impugned judgment of conviction on any other count. Otherwise also, I have once again closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record. In my view there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment so far as the conviction under Sections 186/353 Indian Penal Code is concerned. The conviction for these charges is, thus, upheld. 12. Reverting to the sentence part. The occurrence relates to the year 1998. The appellant has faced the ordeal of protracted trial for the last about 6 years. Admittedly, the appellant has also received as many as five injuries in the occurrence. This Court in a very recent judgment in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 119-SB of 1992, decided on 4.2.2004 while relying upon three judgments of Honble Apex Court rendered in Mohammad alias Biliya v. State of Rajasthan, 2000(10) Supreme Court Cases 486, Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 577 and Baldev Singh and another v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 372 and maintaining the conviction under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code, has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. However, the fine was increased. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone by him under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. He shall, however, pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code, in default of payment to undergo RI for one year. Ordered accordingly. The appellant shall deposit this amount within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. In case the fine of Rs. 1,000/- as imposed by the trial Court already stands deposited, it shall be adjusted towards the enhanced amount of fine. 13. Ordered accordingly. The appellant shall deposit this amount within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. In case the fine of Rs. 1,000/- as imposed by the trial Court already stands deposited, it shall be adjusted towards the enhanced amount of fine. 13. For the other offences i.e. under Sections 353 and 186 Indian Penal Code, the substantive sentence and fine shall remain as it is. With the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence part, Crl. Appeal No. 1172-SB of 1999 stands dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2000 also stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.