JUDGMENT 1. - Mangal Singh and Hari Singh, the appellants herein, along with six others, were placed on trial in sessions Case No. 26/1996 (97/2000) before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh District, Alwar. Learned trial Judge vide judgment dated November 2, 2001 while acquitting co-accused persons convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for three months. U/s. 323 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. U/s. 447 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2-3. It is the prosecution case that on December 27, 1995 informant Man Singh (Pw. 3) submitted a written report (Ex.P-6) at Police Station Kherli to the effect that on the said day around 5-6 AM Lachho wife of Mangal threw wastage in the bada of informant which was objected by Jawan Singh, thereupon accused namely Mangal Singh, Amar Singh, Vijay Singh, Hari Singh, Lachho, Kabula, Ramratti and Phoolan armed with lathis, pharsis etc., attacked Jawan Singh. Hearing hue and cry when Man Singh reached on the spot he was also beaten up. Jawan Singh and other injured were removed to hospital. On that report a case under sections 148, 149, 302, 323 and 341 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Laxmangarh (Alwar). Charges under sections 147, 302, 323/149 and 447 IPC were denied by the appellants and trial was claimed. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.PC., the appellants claimed innocence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel we have gone through the evidence on record. 5. Prior to death the injuries sustained by Jawan Singh were examined vide injury report (Ex.P-4) thus: 1. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x Bone sagittal plane parietal region of skull. 2. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep in the sagittal plane on the parieto occipital. 3. Haematoma 4 cm. x 3 cm. right frontal region. 4. Haematoma 6 cm. x 5 cm. Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x Bone sagittal plane parietal region of skull. 2. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep in the sagittal plane on the parieto occipital. 3. Haematoma 4 cm. x 3 cm. right frontal region. 4. Haematoma 6 cm. x 5 cm. left fronto parietal region. 5. Bruise 5 cm. x 2 cm. lateral side of prox right forearm. 6. Bruise 15 cm. x 3 cm. oblique on the face lumbar region. 7. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. dorsum of left hand. Dr. Amar Singh Rathore (Pw. 2), who performed autopsy on the dead body, deposed that as per post mortem report (Ex. P-5) the cause of death was coma due to injuries to skull, brain vessels and brain haemorrhage. Smt. Mohna (Pw. 6) vide injury report (Ex. P-1) received following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. right parietal region. 2. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. dorsum of right wrist. Smt. Gulab (Pw. 4) vide injury report (Ex.P-2) received following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. dorsum of dorsal phalanx right index finger. 2. Lacerated wound 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. dorsum of prox. right mid finger. 3. Bruise 3 cm. x 1 cm. back of little finger right side. 4. Bruise 10 cm. x 1 cm. right glosted region. Man Singh (Pw. 3) vide injury report (Ex.P-3) received following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. left parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. left parietal region. 3. Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1 /2 cm. right occipital region. 4. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. right index finger (dorsally). 5. Bruise 2 cm. x 1 cm. on dorsum of right thumb. 6. Abrasion 4 cm. x 2 cm. on left iliac. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently criticised the impugned judgment of learned trial Judge and urged that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the material facts of the case. There are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses and they cannot be termed as wholly reliable witnesses. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment. 7. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial we find that informant Man Singh (Pw. There are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses and they cannot be termed as wholly reliable witnesses. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment. 7. Coming to the evidence adduced at the trial we find that informant Man Singh (Pw. 3) in his deposition stated that on the day of incident around 6 AM while Lachho threw wastage in the bada the same was objected by Jawan Singh thereupon accused namely Mangal, Lachho, Kabula, Hari Singh, Ramratti, Bijji, Phoolan came armed with lathis and attacked Jawan Singh. Hari Singh inflicted lathi blow on the head of his brother Jawan Singh, other lathi blow as inflicted by Mangal, as a result of which he fell down. Bijji gave lathi blow on his (Man Singh) head at left side, thereafter Mangal inflicted lathi blow, Hari Singh inflicted lathi blow on his head at back side which was saved by him and sustained injuries on fingers. Lachho inflicted lathi blow at his back and Kabula at his side. His wife Gulabo was also beaten up. Mohna wife of deceased was also beaten up. In his cross examination, Man Singh however admitted that at the time of incident it was dark and there was no light in the bada. Testimony of Man Singh gets corroboration from the statements of Gulabo (Pw. 4) and Mohana (Pw. 6). 8. Having carefully analysed the evidence of informant Man Singh (Pw. 3), Gulabo (Pw. 4) and Mohana we find that the prosecution succeeded in making out a convincing case for recording conviction under sections 304 Part I, 447 and 323 IPC against the appellants Mangal Singh and Hari Singh. It appears from the record that the deceased himself had started the scuffle and after hot exchanges, the appellants in a fit of anger inflicted lathi blows. Their act appears to us sudden and unpremeditated. Because of the hot exchanges the appellants appear to have lost their temper and committed the crime. There was no previous enmity and the appellants did not take undue advantage of the situation. The appellants might be said to have caused a bodily injury as is likely to cause death, thus they are guilty under section 304 Part I. In the facts of the instant case there is every justification to alter the conviction recorded under section 302 into one under Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellants might be said to have caused a bodily injury as is likely to cause death, thus they are guilty under section 304 Part I. In the facts of the instant case there is every justification to alter the conviction recorded under section 302 into one under Section 304 Part I IPC. On the facts and circumstances of the case the imposition of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine would sufficiently meet the requirements of justice and to this extent the judgment of the court below shall stand altered and modified. 9. As a result of above discussion, we partly allow the appeal of appellants and instead of section 302 IPC we convict the appellants under section 304 Part I IPC and sentence each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Their conviction and sentence under sections 447 and 323 IPC are however maintained. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The impugned judgment of the trial Judge stands modified as indicated above. Appeal Partly allowed as above. *******