Judgment B. Prasad, J.-The accused appellants in this case have been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh in sessions Case No. 24/2000 by the Judgment dated 17.08.2001. The accused appellants are alleged to have entered into the house of PW. 1 Moorti at about 9 p.m. of the day of occurrence and at that time the accused alleged to have entered into the house and abducted Hakam Ali after breaking open the door of the room in which Hakam Ali alongwith Murti had concealed themselves to save themselves from the accused. 2. It is further alleged in the prosecution case that the accused took away Hakam Ali to the house of Khan Mohammed and after some time he was brought back in the injured condition. The injuries to the deceased were numerous but, as per the prosecution story, there was no such witness who could describe and assigned injuries to particular accused persons. It is, therefore, not clear that who was the assailant of a particular injury, learned Counsel for the accused appellants submitted that offence under Section 302, IPC, cannot be made out even if facts are admitted as stated by the prosecution. 3. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death is said to be neuro ganic shock and haemotoma due to cumulative effect of all the injuries. It becomes difficult to fish out a particular accused being responsible for the death. More particularly in the circumstances where PW. 6 Dr. Sushila Choudhary who conducted the post-mortem has said that injury No. 3 a contusion on right parietal region resulting into haematoma, it is said to be the basic reason for death. Who was the author of this injury has not been made clear by the prosecution evidence and, therefore, those who caused other injuries cannot be held accused under Section 302, IPC. The offence will not travel beyond Section 325, IPC. In the background where the accused has remained behind the bars more than 5 years learned Counsel only argued the point of offence. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into the details of the prosecution case. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to point out as to which particular accused caused which particular injury. In this background the fatal injury according to PW. 6 Dr. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into the details of the prosecution case. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to point out as to which particular accused caused which particular injury. In this background the fatal injury according to PW. 6 Dr. Sushila Choudhary who conducted the post-mortem being injury No. 3 cannot be attributed to any particular accused and, therefore, it is not clear as who was the author of the fatal injury? In these circumstances, we deem it proper that offence as made out under Section 302, IPC, cannot be said to be made out. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the accused had an intention of eliminating Hakam Ali. If they had an intention of eliminating him, they would have immediately caused such injury which would have finished Hakam Ali. Number of injuries only suggested that they had an intention of giving him such beating which may teach some lesson for an undisclosed misdemeanor committed by the deceased. 6. In the interest of justice we consider it appropriate that offence deserves to be converted from Section 302, IPC, to a lesser magnitude. We think offence under Section 304-I, IPC, is considered to be made out and in that light sentence of life imprisonment is set aside and the accused is awarded a sentence of seven years R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/-in default, the accused will undergo one months R.I. They are behind the bars they shall serve out their sentence as awarded.