ORDER 1. Five accused persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, in the State of Rajasthan for various offences punishable under the Indian h Penal Code, the main offence being under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). All the accused persons were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 323 IPC and Section 452 IPC. Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC. All the accused persons filed an appeal challenging their conviction and sentences. The State of Rajasthan also preferred an appeal against the acquittal of these accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the first accused Bhagirath, died and his appeal abated. The High Court. by a common judgment, held that the second accused Devkaran, is guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the other three accused Kana, Sangram and Ram Karan, were found guilty of offences under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They were also found guilty of other minor offences for which they were charged. The accused persons have filed this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State. 3. Bhagirath, since deceased, was the father of the four appellants herein. It appears that there was a property dispute between Bhagirath and his brothers Jawana Ram and Dhanna. Some time prior to the incident on 20-12-1977, a heap of "murda loong" had been collected on the disputed land. The accused persons came to this place and started to remove the leaves therefrom. Jawana Ram raised objection and the accused persons started beating him. Dhanna, brother of Jawana Ram, came there and tried to pacify the assailants. The accused persons then started beating him. According to the prosecution, the first accused Bhagirath, gave a blow of lathi on the head of Dhanna and he fell down. Thereafter, the accused Devkaran gave a blow oflathi on his head and all other accused started beating him. Dhanna, brother of Jawana Ram, came there and tried to pacify the assailants. The accused persons then started beating him. According to the prosecution, the first accused Bhagirath, gave a blow of lathi on the head of Dhanna and he fell down. Thereafter, the accused Devkaran gave a blow oflathi on his head and all other accused started beating him. The accused Devkaran beat Jawana Ram and also trespassed into the house wherein Sugnai was there and she was also beaten by him. The injured Dhanna, Jawana Ram and Sugnai were taken to the hospital at Ajmer and on the way, Dhanna died. 4. Jawana Ram later gave statement to the police narrating the whole incident and PW 13 Inder Singh conducted the investigation. He held inquest on the dead body and the injured persons were examined by the doctor. Postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. Injured Jawana Ram had sustained a series of bruises and evidently been beaten by some blunt weapon. The post-mortem examination of Dhanna revealed that he had sustained a lacerated wound on the right parietal region and there was a lacerated wound on the left side of skull on temporoparietal region. The doctor was of the opinion that Injury 2, which was on the base of the skull was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 5. Some of the accused in this case had set up a plea of private defence. hree accused, Ram Karan, Kana and Sangram stated that they were not h present at the place of occurrence and were falsely implicated. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended before us that the property in question was in the possession of Bhagirath and the injured Jawana Ram and deceased Dhanna caused obstruction to the appellants while they were removing the leaves which belonged to them absolutely. It is also submitted that the appellants had also sustained injuries at the hands of Jawana Ram and Dhanna and the appellants were justified in causing injuries to Dhanna and Jawana Ram. We do not find any force in this contention. The nature of injuries sustained by the appellants would be evident from Exhibits D-4 and D-5. Ram Karan had sustained two scratches and two minor abrasions while Bhagirath had sustained one lacerated injury and one abrasion. We do not find any force in this contention. The nature of injuries sustained by the appellants would be evident from Exhibits D-4 and D-5. Ram Karan had sustained two scratches and two minor abrasions while Bhagirath had sustained one lacerated injury and one abrasion. They were also all minor in nature and had not caused any serious fracture to any bones. The nature of injuries of these two accused persons would only prove that they had engaged in some scuffle and the persons who caused injuries to the appellants were not evidently armed with any weapon. 6. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants on the ground that they had right of private defence since they were owning the land and the leaves belonged to them; and Dhanna and Jawana Ram caused obstruction to them. The said finding has rightly been reversed by the High Court. On a reappreciation of the evidence, it is clear that these four appellants have participated in causing injuries to deceased Dhanna and the other two injured persons. It may be noticed that Dhanna sustained two injuries on his head. The first injury was on the parietal region which, according to the evidence of PW 9, was caused by Bhagirath. Then he fell down and the appellant Devkaran caused the injury on the base of his head and that resulted in Injury 2 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, as stated in the post-mortem certificate. It is clear that this injury must havebeen caused by Devkaran and that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is also evidence to show that a series of other injuries were caused by the other appellants, including Devkaran. From this it is clear that the accused Devkaran has committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and the High Court was fully correct in finding him guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and we see no reason to interfere with such a finding. 7. As regards the complicity of other appellants, it is clear that they had caused a series of injuries to Dhanna, Jawana Ram and Sugnai but it is difficult to believe that they shared common intention with Devkaran in causing the death of Dhanna. 7. As regards the complicity of other appellants, it is clear that they had caused a series of injuries to Dhanna, Jawana Ram and Sugnai but it is difficult to believe that they shared common intention with Devkaran in causing the death of Dhanna. The entire incident had started on a minor dispute between the parties and they were evidently not there to cause death of Dhanna. He came all of a sudden to intervene in the melee that had been taking place between Jawana Ram and other appellants. 8. Under these circumstances, the appellants Kana, Sangram and Ram Karan are found not guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302/149 IPC but they are found guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. As the incident occurred in the year 1977, we take a lenient view in the matter of sentence and sentence each of them to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The conviction and sentence of the appellant Devkaran for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is confirmed. 9. The appellants, who are on bail, shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. Their bail bonds are cancelled accordingly. 10. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.