JUDGMENT 1. Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1991 is at the instance of the complainant, Bhuneshwar Prasad, against the acquittal of A-1 to A-10; whereas Cr. Appeal No. 73 of 1991 is by the accused-appellants (A-12 & A-11) against their conviction and sentence and since both the cases arise out of a single Sessions Case, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 2. The appellants are A-12 and A-11 in Sessions Trial No. 27/1988. In this judgment, they will be referred as A-12 and A-11, in the order, as they were arrayed before the trial court. They were tried alongwith acquitted accused, who were arrayed as A-1 to 10. The trial judge framed charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code against A-1 to A-10 and Section 148 against A-11 and 12. The appellants, A-12 and A-11, were also charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitted accused, A-1 to A-10 were charged under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial judge, while acquitting A-1 to A-10, found A-12 and A-11, the appellants herein, guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC and also under Section 302 IPC and each one of the accused-appellants was sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, no separate sentence was imposed under Section 148 IPC. The appeal is against the said conviction and sentence. 3. The occurrence took place, according to the prosecution, at village Baheri within the police limits of Sadar (Muffasil), district-Hazaribagh. On 30.11.1986 at 8.15 p.m., the deceased Rameshwar Mahto was counting paddy bundles and PW-11, his younger brother, Bhuneshwar Prasad, was present with him. At that time, the 1st accused, Chandra Mahto, caught hold the Collar of the deceased and fisted him. A-3, A-11, A-8 and A-12 also beat the deceased. A-11 brought a tangi from his house and inflicted a blow on Rameshwar Mahto. It is the further case of the prosecution that Page 877 the deceased was also assaulted with another tangi blow. Thereafter, all the accused went away from the place. Fardbayan, Ext.3, was given by PW-11 at the police station at 9.00 p.m. upon which an FIR was registered. Investigation in the crime was taken up by Banshidhar Sahay, who was examined as PW-14. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, Rameshwar Mahto, by preparing inquest report, Ext.1. Thereafter, all the accused went away from the place. Fardbayan, Ext.3, was given by PW-11 at the police station at 9.00 p.m. upon which an FIR was registered. Investigation in the crime was taken up by Banshidhar Sahay, who was examined as PW-14. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, Rameshwar Mahto, by preparing inquest report, Ext.1. After the inquest, dead body was sent to the hospital for autopsy. 4. On receipt of the dead body and the requisition, Dr. Subodh Shankar Sahay, PW-10, conducted autopsy and he found the following injuries: Incised wound 2" x 1" x bone deep in front of right ear with fracture of mandible. The doctor issued Ext.2, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death is on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the above injuries. 5. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against all the accused. They denied all the incriminating circumstances, when they were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They examined D.W.1, Ram Raghubir Thakur, Ranger, to show that A-4 was elsewhere and not present at the time of occurrence. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in the above appeal contends that even if the prosecution case is accepted, the occurrence took place on a quarrel and at that time A-11 and A-12 without any premeditation inflicted injuries and, therefore, the trial court ought not to have convicted the appellants under Section 302 and under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel further submits that the trial judge having acquitted A-1 to A-10, on the ground that there was no common object, was not justified in convicting the appellants under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in the revision, submits that there is evidence of three witnesses and particularly the evidence of PW-3, which shows that the accused 1 to 10, who are the opposite parties in the revision, have inflicted injuries indiscriminately on the deceased and that the trial judge committed an error in acquitting them. 8. We have considered the contentions, perused the document and material placed before us and also heard Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State. 9. There is no dispute that Rameshwar Mahto died on account of homicidal violence. Dr. 8. We have considered the contentions, perused the document and material placed before us and also heard Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State. 9. There is no dispute that Rameshwar Mahto died on account of homicidal violence. Dr. Subodh Shankar Sahay, who conducted autopsy and who issued Ext.2, the post mortem certificate, was examined as PW-10 and on going through his evidence, we are fully satisfied that the prosecution has established the fact that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. 10. The prosecution in the trial court relied upon the evidence of PW-3, Bhutka Mahto, PW-4, Janki Mahto, PW-8, Ashok Kumar, PW-11, Bhuneshwar Prasad and PW-13, Jitendra Bage, to establish that the deceased was attacked by the accused. 11. We have perused the evidence of the above witnesses and their evidence shows that while the deceased was counting paddy bundles, the 1st accused, Chandra Mahto, caught hold the Collar of the deceased, leading to a quarrel, during which he was fisted. At that time A-11 and A-12 beat the deceased by giving blows with Tangi. On going through their evidence, we find that the occurrence had taken place in a quarrel and during the said quarrel, A-11 and A-12, who are the appellants in the appeal, have inflicted injuries on the deceased, Rameshwar Mahto. 12. In view of the above evidence that the occurrence took place on a quarrel and without any premeditation, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, who were arrayed as A-12 and A-11 respectively, before the trial court are to be convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We, accordingly, set aside their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and instead found them guilty under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for which each one of them is sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 148 IPC, as we have already found that the occurrence had taken place in a quarrel. 13. We do not find any merit in the revision. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 148 IPC, as we have already found that the occurrence had taken place in a quarrel. 13. We do not find any merit in the revision. In fact, though PW-3 stated that a tangi blow was inflicted on the back side of the head of the deceased by A-1, Chandra Mahto, his evidence was contradicted by PW-8, who stated that the said tangi blow was inflicted by A-11. 14. We find no illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the trial court to set aside the acquittal of A-1 to A-10 and to order for their re-trial. We, therefore, dismiss the revision and modify the conviction and sentence of A-11 and A-12, by partly allowing the appeal. It is reported that the appellants are on bail; their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the court below for serving the remaining sentence. The court below is also directed to take all coercive steps for their arrest.