By Court.- A1, A4, A7, A6, A8 and A3 in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 1988 are the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 156/1990 R and A2, A5 and A9 in the same Sessions Trial are the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 201/1990R. The above two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as both the appeals are against the same Sessions Trial. 2. In this judgment, the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 156/1990R and the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 201/1990R will be referred as A 1 to A9 in the same order as they were arrayed before the Sessions Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. A 1 to A9 were charged under section 307, 302 read with Section 149, 447, 147 and 148 LRC. The Trial Judge, on the evidence adduced, while finding the appellants guilty under section 302 read with Section 149, sentenced all of them to imprisonment for life. On finding the appellants guilty under section 307/149, 447, 148 and 147 I.P.C., the Trial Judge did not award any separate sentence. The present appeals are against the said conviction and sentence. 4. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these appeals, are as follows:- The deceased, Parsuram Chaudhary, was a resident of Rabda Tola within the, police station limits of Chainpur and within the district of Palamau. There was a dispute pending between the deceased family and the accused group. P.W.5 Vijay Chaudhary is the cousin of the deceased Parsuram Chaudhary and P.W. 2 Girwar Chaudhary is the younger brother of RW. 5, P.W. 5 Vijay Chaudhary and his younger brother, P.W. 2, erected a fence in the field over which there was a dispute between the two groups. The fence was erected after Sawa seeds were sown. On the date of incident at about 8.00 p.m., the accused hurled abuses, went to the place where the fence was erected and questioned as to who erected the fence. Kailash Chaudhary, father of Vijay Chaudhary P.W. 5, and RW. 1 Keswar Chaudhary, uncle of RW. 5, alorlgwith the deceased Parsuram Chaudhary went to the place where the accused were standing and abusing. The deceased, Parsuram Chaudhary, was holding a Lantern in his hand. On seeing RW. Kailash Chaudhary, father of Vijay Chaudhary P.W. 5, and RW. 1 Keswar Chaudhary, uncle of RW. 5, alorlgwith the deceased Parsuram Chaudhary went to the place where the accused were standing and abusing. The deceased, Parsuram Chaudhary, was holding a Lantern in his hand. On seeing RW. 2 Girwar Chaudhary and P.W. 5 Vijay Chaudhary, the accused questioned them and A1 Ram Chandra Chaudhary, A2 Bhawani Chaudhary A3 Madador Chaudhary, A4 Hira Chaudhary and A5 Prit Chaudhary, A7 Chanarik Chaudhary and A8 Munarik Chaudhary as well as A9 Dudhkal Chaudhary, who were having lathis in their hands and AS Dwarika Chaudhary, who was having a Garasa in his hand, attacked P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5. Kailash Chaudhary also suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. The deceased Parsuram Chaudhary questioned them and he was also attacked by the accused. AS Dwarika Chaudhary gave a Garasa blow on the head of Kailash Chaudhary. A2 Bhawani Chaudhary, AS Prit Chaudhary A9 Dudhkal Chaudhary assaulted Parsuram Chaudhary, the deceased, with lathis; A5 also assaulted the deceased Parsuram Chaudhary on his head. Thereafter P.Ws. 2, 5 and Kailash Chaudhary raised alarm and the accused ran away from the place. The villagers gathered and on the next day, a fardbeyan was laid at 2.00 p.m. by P.W. 5 at the police station, which was registered as a crime. Investigation was taken up by the officer (he was not examined during trial) and after the inquest, the body of Parsuram Chaudhary was sent to the hospital for autopsy. 5. On receipt of the requisition, P.W. S, Dr. M.P. Singh, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Parsuram Chaudhary and he found the following injuries:- (i) Multiple contusions ranging from 4" to 10" X 2" to 3" over upper part of the chest back-caused by hard blunt substance may be by lathi. (ii) Incised wound over mid of scalp 4" x 1/2' x brain deep which may have been caused by garasa. ..." The Doctor issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death was on account of haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries suffered by him and the death must have occurred about 12 to 40 hours prior to the autopsy. 6. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed. 7. The appellants were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. 6. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed. 7. The appellants were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They denied all the incriminating circumstances. No witness was examined on their side. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is contradiction between the evidence of the witnesses as to the overt act attributed to the accused. He submits that the overt act attributed to the accused as given in the fardbeyan, Ext. 5, is at variance with the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5 as regards the overt act attributed to the accused. He submits that the investigating agency did not seize either the Torch or the Lantern and therefore, it would have been impossible for the witnesses to have identified the accused. Learned counsel finally submits that even if it is presumed that the prosecution case is to be believed, the offence committed by the accused will not fall within the ambit of Section 302 I.P.C. and that as the occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel, they are entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. On the above contention, we have heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State. 9. There is no dispute and in fact, it is not disputed that Parsuram Chaudhary died on account of homicidal violence and the same stands proved through the evidence of the Doctor, P.W. 6, who conducted autopsy and who issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate. 10. The prosecution before the trial court examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 as witnesses to the occurrence and of them P. W. 1 and P.W. 5 have suffered injuries. Kailash Chaudhary, who also suffered injuries during the course of same transaction, died before the trial commenced due to natural causes. It is not the case of the defence that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5, who were present suffered injuries at different point of time and at a different place. Once the accused admits that P.Ws. 1 and 5 suffered injuries during the course of same transaction during which Parsuram Chaudhary also suffered injuries, then it becomes clear that the witnesses who suffered injuries were present at the time of occurrence. They, therefore, become natural witnesses. On going through the evidence of P. Ws. Once the accused admits that P.Ws. 1 and 5 suffered injuries during the course of same transaction during which Parsuram Chaudhary also suffered injuries, then it becomes clear that the witnesses who suffered injuries were present at the time of occurrence. They, therefore, become natural witnesses. On going through the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 5, which is fully supported by the medical evidence as brought out through the two Doctors, P.Ws. 7 and 9 respectively and the injury certificates, Exts. 3/1 and 3/2, we find that there is no infirmity in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The minor contradiction, brought to our notice by the learned counsel between the fardbeyan and their evidence, is of no consequence for this Court to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses. We accept their evidence and hold that the accused caused injuries not only on the deceased but also on the witnesses. 11. The other contention of the counsel that since no Torch or Lantern was seized by the Investigating Officer, it would have been difficult for the witnesses to have identified the accused is to be only rejected straightway. It is not the case of the defence that the accused were total strangers to the witnesses and in fact, according to the prosecution, there was altercation between the two groups and therefore, it could not have been difficult for the witnesses to have identified the accused from their voice. The mere fact that no Lantern or Torch was seized by the Officer is, therefore, not fatal to the prosecution. We accordingly reject the said argument. 12. As regards the last contention of the counsel that the accused have committed the offence during a quarrel and hence they are entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C., we find that there is some substance in the said argument. 13. The facts which we have extracted above show that after the fence was erected over the disputed land, the appellants started abusing and when the witnesses went there and questioned them, a wordy altercation ensued and the deceased Parsuram Chaudhary also joined in the said altercation. During the said altercation, A5 Dwarika Chaudhary caused injury on the head of the deceased with a Garasa. During the said altercation, A5 Dwarika Chaudhary caused injury on the head of the deceased with a Garasa. We, therefore, of the view that the conviction of the appellants' under section 302 read with section 149 I. P. C. is to be set aside and instead A5 Dwarika Chaudhary alone is to be found guilty under section 304 Part I I.P.C. as he caused injury on the deceased during a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion without taking undue advantage and he did not also act in an unusual and cruel manner. We, therefore, while acquitting him (A5) under section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., find him (A5) guilty under section 304 Part I I.P.C., for which he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 14. As we have already held that the occurrence had taken place during a quarrel, each of the accused-appellants is responsible for the individual overt act committed by them. 15. According to the evidence of P.W. 1, he was attacked by A 1 Ram Chandra Chaudhary, A3 Madodar Chaudhary, A4 Hira Chaudhary, A5 Dwarika Chaudhary, A6 Prit Chaudhary and A9 Dudhkal Chaudhary. Though they were charged under section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C., we do not find any material that they attacked P.W. 1 with a view to commit his murder. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the aforesaid appellants (A 1 Ram Chandra Chaudhary, A3 Madodar Chaudhary, A4 Hira Chaudhary, A5 Dwarika Chaudhary, A6 Prit Chaudhary and A9 Dudhkal Chaudhary) under section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and instead we find them guilty under section 323 I.P.C. for causing simple injury to P.W. 1. According to the prosecution, P.W. 2 was attacked by A2 Bhawani Chaudhary, AS Dwarika Chaudhary, A6 Prit Chaudhary and A9 Dudhkal Chaudhary and P.W. 5 was attacked by A2 Bhawani Chaudhary, AS Dwarika Chaudhary, A6 Prit Chaudhary and A9 Dudhkal Chaudhary. On going through the evidence of the two witnesses, we find it difficult to accept the prosecution version that they were attacked with a view to commit their murder by the above accused. On going through the evidence of the two witnesses, we find it difficult to accept the prosecution version that they were attacked with a view to commit their murder by the above accused. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellants (A2 Bhawani Chaudhary, A5 Dwarika Chaudhary, A6 Prit Chaudhary and A9 Dudhkal Chaudhary) under section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and instead we find them guilty under section 323 I.P.C. for causing injury to P.W. S as well as for causing simple injury to P.W. 2. 16. The conviction of the aforesaid appellants under section 307 I.P.C. is set aside and instead each of them is convicted under section 323 I.P.C. As the Trial Judge did not award any separate sentence on them, we do not propose to impose any sentence for the conviction under section 323 I.P.C. It is reported that AS Dwarika Chaudhary is in jail. If he has already served the sentence of seven years, he will be released from the jail custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case(s) and if he has not served the sentence of seven years, he will continue in prison till he serves the sentence of seven years. 17. The conviction of the appellants under sections 147 and 148 I.P.C., as there was no unlawful assembly with common object, is set aside. 18. The appellants, Chanarik Chaudhary (A7) and Munarik Chaudhary (A8), are acquitted as no specific overt acts' are attributed to them.