By Court.- The appellants were arrayed as A 1, A3, A4 and A5. The second appellant Langra Uraon died after filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by Langra Uraon was allowed to be abated on 28.4.1993 by this Court. 2. The appellants will be referred as A1, A3, A4 and A5 and Langru Uraon, who died pending the appeal, will be referred as A2 for the sake of convenience. They were charged and tried under section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. A1 Latan Uraon, A2 Langru Uraon and A5 Punia Devi were also charged under section 324 I.P.C. The Trial Judge, finding the appellants guilty under section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. A1 and A5 as well as Langru Uraon were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 324 I.P.C. The appeal is against the said conviction and sentence. 3. Langru Uraon A2 and Ladugal Uraon A4 are the sons of A 1 Latan Uraon. Punia Devi AS is the wife of A 1. A3 Akli Devi is the daughter-in-law of A 1. They were residents of the village-Chaingadda and in the same village, the deceased Bhikkhu Uraon with his family was residing PW. 2 Runa Devi is the wife of PW. 16 Sukar Uraon and the mother of the deceased. P.W. 1 Bandhan Uraon is the nephew of PW. 16 Sukar Uraon, who is the father of the deceased Bhikkhu Uraon. PW. 8 Prem Prakash Mahto and PW. 14 Baldeo Uraon were not the residents of the same village but known to the parties. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a dispute pending with regard to enjoyment of a piece of land. This is said to be the motive. 4. At 6.00 a.m. on 12.7.1987 the deceased Bhikkhu Uraon with his father PW. 16 Sukar Uraon accompanied by PW. 1 Bandhan Uraon went to the land for the purpose of ploughing it. They also wanted to sow Urid. When they were at the field, A 1 to A5 went there and prevented the deceased and PW. 16 from ploughing the land. There were exchange of hot words between the parties and soon thereafter there was scuffle between them. A5 Punia Devi inflicted an injury on the leg of PW. 1 with an axe. When they were at the field, A 1 to A5 went there and prevented the deceased and PW. 16 from ploughing the land. There were exchange of hot words between the parties and soon thereafter there was scuffle between them. A5 Punia Devi inflicted an injury on the leg of PW. 1 with an axe. A 1 Latan Uraon gave an axe blow on the hand of PW. 16 and Langru Uraon A2 (since dead) inflicted a blow with a spade on his head, when he attempted to save P.W. 1. P.W. 2 Runa Devi and her son, the deceased Bhikkhu Uraon, intervened to save PW. 16 but they were also assaulted. Bhikkhu Uraon was caught hold of and after he was surrounded, all the accused persons caused injuries on his person. On hearing the cries, the witnesses arrived at the scene and the accused ran away from the place. The fardbeyan, Ext. 4, was given at the police station, on which Ext. 5, F.I.R., was registered and investigation was taken up by Raj Kishore Prasad, who was examined as PW. 18 before the trial court. After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital for autopsy and the injured PWs. 1, 2 and 16 were also referred to the hospital for treatment. 5. PWs. 1, 2 and 16 appeared before Dr. Arvind Agrawal, Senior Surgeon of Ghandhinage C.C.L. Hospital at Ranchi. P.W. 1 Bandhan Uraon was examined at noon and on his person, the Doctor found a lacerated wound over his right leg measuring 6" in length and it was found to be muscle deep. When X-ray was taken, the Doctor found fracture of right tibia. He issued Ext. 3, the injury report, with his opinion that the said injury was grievous in nature. PW. 2 Runa Devi was thereafter examined and on her person, the Doctor found six injuries, which are as follows:- "(i) Cut injury 3" in length on right side of forehead; (ii) Cut injury 3" x 4" over right ear lobule; (iii) Cut injury 3" in length over the occipital region of the backside of the head; (iv) Cut injury 1" in length over left forearm; (v) Cut injury 1" in length over left wrist and (vi) Cut injury 1" in length over left leg." The Doctor issued Ext. 3/1, the injury report, with his opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. 3/1, the injury report, with his opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. After examination of PW. 2, the Doctor examined P.W. 16 and found on his persons the following injuries:- (i) Sharp cut linear injury over right side of jaw 1" in length; (ii) Lacerated injury over right parietal region 2" in length; (iii) Sharp cut injury over left ear 1/2' in length; (iv) Sharp cut injury over right forearm upper part 1/2' in length; (v) Sharp cut injury over the lower part of the right forearm 2" in length; (vi) Cut injury over left wrist 2" in length; and (vii) Cut injury over root of neck 2" in length." The Doctor issued Ext. 3/2, the injury report, with his opinion that injury nos. (i) and (vi) are grievous in nature and while other injuries are simple in nature. 6. On receipt of the requisition with the dead body, P.W. 6 Dr. Vinay Kumar conducted autopsy at 3.00 p.m. He found the following injuries:" (i) Incised wound 5" x 2" x bone cut on the right side of the scalp, backside; (ii) Incised wound over front portion of the head left side 2" x 1" x bone deep; (iii) Incised injury on left side of face at angle of mouth 2" x 1" x muscle deep; (iv) Incised wound over left clavicle middle portion 1" x 1/2' x bone deep; (v) Incised wound over left lower part of face 1" x 1/2' x muscle deep; (vi) Incised wound over left knee 3" x 2" x bone cut; and (vii) Laceration over left hand." The Doctor issued Ext. 2, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that dear is on account of massive hamorrhage and shock and that the injuries could have been caused by sharp cutting weapon like axe and spade. 7. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against all the accused, who denied their complicity, when they were questioned under section 313 Cr. PC. They did not examine any witness on their side. 8. 7. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against all the accused, who denied their complicity, when they were questioned under section 313 Cr. PC. They did not examine any witness on their side. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the occurrence had taken place during a quarrel and at that time hot words were exchanged and there was also scuffle between the parties and therefore, the trial court erred in convicting the appellants under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C., as according to the counsel, even if the facts are taken to be true, the offence committed by the appellants will tall within the ambit of Section 304 Part I I.P.C. On the above submission, we have heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State. 9. There can be no dispute that Bhikkhu Uraon died on account of the injuries suffered by him. Dr. Vinay Kumar was examined as P.W. 6, who issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate, to prove the said fact. 10. The occurrence took place, according to the prosecution, at 6.00 a.m. on 12.7.1987. P.Ws. 1, 2, 8.14 and 16 are the witnesses on whom the prosecution relied to prove that the deceased suffered injuries at the hands of the appellants/accused and that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 16 also suffered injuries during the course of same transaction. We have perused their evidence. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 16 are relatives of the deceased. R Ws. 8 and 14 are admittedly not related to the deceased but were present at the time of occurrence. The evidence of above witnesses shows that at 6.000 a.m. on 12.7.1987. when the deceased and his father, P.W. 16 Sukar Uraon, alongwith PW. 1 Bandhan Uraon were about to plough the disputed land the accused/appellants went there, picked up quarrels with the witnesses, during which both the parties exchanged hot words. The evidence further shows that there was also scuffle between them and during the said scuffle, the deceased was attacked and that the witnesses also suffered injuries. It could also be seen from Exts. 8 and 8/1 that A 1 and A5 also suffered lacerated injuries on their persons. On going through the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 16, we find no infirmity in their evidence and in fact, as we have found earlier that PWs. It could also be seen from Exts. 8 and 8/1 that A 1 and A5 also suffered lacerated injuries on their persons. On going through the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 16, we find no infirmity in their evidence and in fact, as we have found earlier that PWs. 1, 2 and 16 suffered injuries during the course of same transaction. Therefore, they become natural witnesses and their evidence is not only supported by medical evidence, but also supported by two other witnesses, such as PWs. 8 and 14. We accept their evidence and hold that the deceased died on account of injuries suffered at the hands of the accused. 11. The question that is to be decided by us is the nature of offence committed by the appellants. The facts which we have already narrated show that the case of the prosecution itself is that the occurrence took place during a quarrel during which the deceased and other witnesses suffered injuries. The materials on record do not indicate any premeditation on the part of the accused in causing the death of the deceased Bhikkhu Uraon. It cannot also be said that the accused acted in unusual or cruel manner. We, therefore, of the view that the conviction of the appellants under section 302 read with Section 149 I.PC. is to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside and instead they are found guilty under section 304 Part I I.P.C., for which each of them is sentenced to imprisonment for five years. We are imposing the above lenient sentence of five years, taking into consideration that the occurrence had taken place in the, year 1987 and on the statement of the counsel made from the Bar that A 1 Latan Uraon is confined to bed as he has suffered paralytic stroke. The conviction and sentence of A 1 Latan Uraon and A5 Punia Devi under section 324 I.P.C. are confirmed with a direction that the sentence of one year under section 324 I.P.C. will run concurrently with the sentence of five years imposed on them. It is reported that that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to commit the appellants to prison for serving the remaining part of the sentence. With the aforesaid modification, this appeal is dismissed.