JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by three accused persons in a matter arising out of the decision of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 13/2000 (State v. Prabhu Lal & Ors.) dated 19.10.2000 . The accused persons were tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. A prosecution was initiated after a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Dhairyvad by Kanji. According to the First Information Report, while Khubchand (hereinafter to be referred as 'the deceased') got down from the Bus at the Bus Station at about 8.00 PM. in the evening, the accused who were armed with different weapons gave blows to the deceased. He was shifted to the Hospital to get him treated but on the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. It was further alleged in the First Information Report that there was enmity between the parties because there was theft of a cycle involved in it. The trial court after considering the evidence of PW1 Kanji and PW2 Gautam came to the conclusion that the accused persons were responsible for causing injuries to the deceased. As the deceased succumbed to the injuries, offence under Section 302 IPC was made out. Subsequently, all the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused were sentenced to life and were also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. 3. Challenging the conviction of the accused persons, learned counsel for the accused appellants submits that there is variance in the testimony of the eye witnesses i.e. PW 1 Kanji and PW2 Gautam so far participation of Kalla is concerned. As regards other two accused persons namely Prabhu Lal and Kachru Mal, it is submitted that none of the injuries caused by them to the deceased can be said to be the cause of death death. The post-mortem report shows that the deceased had died due to the one injury suffered on spleen. There is no allegation against any of the accused persons of causing that injury. That being the position, it is submitted that there was no evidence that any of accused persons were responsible for causing the injury on spleen. The post-mortem report shows that the deceased had died due to the one injury suffered on spleen. There is no allegation against any of the accused persons of causing that injury. That being the position, it is submitted that there was no evidence that any of accused persons were responsible for causing the injury on spleen. Even the injury on spleen is a remote reason for the death of the deceased and it cannot be said that only the injury on the spleen was responsible for causing death. The cause of death may also be falling down. The injuries as suffered by the deceased in the circumstances, it cannot be said as to who out of the accused persons inflicted injury on the deceased which is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. In this regard, it is submitted that no offence under Section 302 can be said to be made out against the accused persons. 4. Learned counsel further submits that PW2 Gautam stated in his statement that he had not seen Kalla inflicting injuries to the deceased. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that on a public place like Bus Stand if the accused persons took law in their hand and made assault on innocent persons without any purpose, then, such accused persons should be dealt with severally because if they are not punished, then, every person will take law in his hand and cause injury to others and, then, it is very difficult to control law and order. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 7. The injuries sustained by the accused (?) are seven in number. None of these injuries can be related to the injury on the spleen of the deceased. According to the Doctor, the cause of the death of the deceased is injury an the spleen. In terms of the post-mortem report, we find that it cannot be said that the injuries caused by the accused persons were the cause of the death of the deceased. Once the court came to the conclusion that the injuries inflicted are not the injuries responsible for causing the death of the deceased then it remains to be seen as to what is the evidence against the accused persons. Once the court came to the conclusion that the injuries inflicted are not the injuries responsible for causing the death of the deceased then it remains to be seen as to what is the evidence against the accused persons. Seven injuries were attributed to the accused persons, one of which is a simple incised wound and six injuries are in the nature of abrasions and contusions. This shows that the accused persons might have caused injuries to the deceased but they did not have any intention of causing his death as furthermore, none of the injuries were grievous. There is an incised wound which will bring the matter under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Thus, in our view, the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out and it is proper to alter the offence from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 324/34 IPC. Accused Prabhu Lal and Kachru Mal have served the sentence about more than four years. Kalla has remained behind the bars for considerable time. 8. In the result, the appeal of appellants Prabhu Lal, Kachru Mal and Kalla is partly allowed and their conviction under Section 302/34 IPC is altered to one under Section 324/34 IPC. Their sentences are reduced to the substantive sentences already undergone by them. Prabhu Lal and Kachru Mal who are in custody may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Accused Kalla is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal allowed sentence reduced to already undergone. *******