ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The sole appellant along with seven other persons was tried and by judgment rendeed by the trial court while other persons were acquitted, three accused persons, namely, Mohan Shankarrao Narke, Murlidhar Manohar Narke and Babasaheb Murlidhar (the appellant herein) were convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs 1000 each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. They were further convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs 500 each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The convicted accused persons' preferred an appeal before the High Court whereas the State filed an appeal assailing the order of acquittal of the accused persons and challenging the conviction of the accused persons convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. During pendency of the appeal, accused Murlidhar Manohar Narke died, as such his appeal abated. So far as the accused Mohan Shankarrao Narke is concerned, his appeal has been allowed and he has been acquitted. The appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and appeal filed by the State challenging conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC has been allowed in part and he has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for sharing the common intention with accused Murlidhar Manohar Narke who died during pendency of the appeal and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant preferred one regular appeal before this Court and another by special leave challenging his conviction. 3. We have been taken through the evidence on record and the post-mortem report. From a bare perusal of the post-mortem report, it would be clear that the deceased received several injuries on vital parts of the body and head injury said to have been inflicted by accused Murlidhar Manohar Narke was fatal and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. From a bare perusal of the post-mortem report, it would be clear that the deceased received several injuries on vital parts of the body and head injury said to have been inflicted by accused Murlidhar Manohar Narke was fatal and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was quite justified in altering the conviction of the appellant from Section 304 Part II IPC to Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgments. 4. Accordingly, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.