JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals arise out the decision of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Sessions Case No. 82/1994 dated 21.8.1999. On 8.5.1994 at about 2.30 P.M. complainant Pemaram presented himself before Police Station, Ratangarh and submitted a written report being Ex.P.-53. In the report it was stated that there are Contiguous houses of his brother Late Anaram's son Mohanram and Baluram they live there and there is only one courtyard of these two houses. The roof of both the house is common. There is an open space in front and in the back. 2. About a month before there was a division of lands. He had constructed a wall in terms of the compromise and by that Mohanram and Baluram were enraged. On fateful day he put a pole at the side of the backyard and this enraged them. At about 1.30 P.M. while his son Ramchandra was plucking Sangries by scaling the roof Mohanram desisted him from plucking 'Sangrics' on the ground that so far there had been no division of it and unless there is a division Sangries' should not be plucked. On which Mohanram armed with axe, accused Baluram armed with Gandasi, Ramkori armed with lathi came on the roof Mohanram gave a Kulhari' blow on Ramchandra. Ramchandra fell down and all the three accused persons started giving beating to him. On this wife of the complainant and daughter wanted to rescue him. The three accused persons stopped them and gave blows from axe, gandasi and stick. He rushed to the spot before he could intervene, his wife and daughter had been inflicted injuries. He was also assaulted. 3. While the quarrel was going on Kishnaram Jat Nanagram, Nanusingh, Hukram etc. came there and tried to rescue her. At that time his wife Banarasi succumbed to her injuries. He shifted Ramchandra and Kamla to the hospital. 4. On this information, a case being F.I.R. No. 52/1994 was registered charge-sheet was filed. The case was made over to the trial Court there charges were framed against the different accused persons. Accused appellant Mohanram was charged for offence under Sections 302, 307, 452, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and the accused appellants Balaram and Smt. Ramkori were charged under Sections 302, 307, 452 and 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. 5. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. Accused appellant Mohanram was charged for offence under Sections 302, 307, 452, 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and the accused appellants Balaram and Smt. Ramkori were charged under Sections 302, 307, 452 and 323 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. 5. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. 13 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence witness was examined. 6. Trial Court after considering the case of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the deceased had sustained only two injuries one of them is fatal on the head and one simple injury is on hand therefore, there could not have been three assailants assaulting her. The case of the accused Mohan Ram was found to be doubtful and accordingly he was acquitted of the charges. The accused Balaram and Ramkori were convicted and sentenced as under: Name of the accused Sections Sentence & conviction Fine In default Balaram 302 I.P.C. Life imprisonment 250/- One month S.I. 323/34 I.P.C. 6 months R.I. - do - - do - Smt. Ramkori 302/34 Life imprisonment -do- -do- 323/34 6 months R.I. -do- -do- 7. Teamed counsel for the accused appellants assailing the findings of the trial Court submitted that at that point of time, there was no conflict in between the deceased and the accused. The accused persons were prohibiting the son of the complainant from plucking the 'Sangaries'. It was a trifle matter in which when the parties started intervening the incident occurred and Banarsi fell down from the stair case and sustained injuries by fall otherwise she was not the one on whom any assault was intended. In any case learned counsel submitted that he is not seriously disputing the incident and involvement of the accused but if it is strictly considered that the deceased Banarsi was not sought to be inflicted any injury by virtue of which she could have died it is on the spur of the moment that the incident occurred. The dispute was regarding plucking of the 'Sangries' and in that background the case of the accused may be considered under Section 304-11/34 I.P.C. and the sentence already undergone may be considered to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The accused appellants have already remained inside for sufficient period. The dispute was regarding plucking of the 'Sangries' and in that background the case of the accused may be considered under Section 304-11/34 I.P.C. and the sentence already undergone may be considered to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The accused appellants have already remained inside for sufficient period. Accused Balram has remained inside for more than 4 years and Ramkori has remained behind the bars for more than 5 months and this may considered to be sufficient sentence they have undergone. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on a small issue the accused have taken undue advantage and have killed the deceased. This is highly depreciable criminal act more particularly when a lady has been assaulted. The accused Mohanram who has been acquitted, has wrongly been acquitted. lie had absconded and this circumstance should be considered against him. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given out thoughtful consideration to the material available on record. 10. From the narration of the facts it bears out clearly that the accused desisted the complainant's son from plucking the 'Sangaries'. There was no intention of the accused to cause injury. There is said to be three assailants and only one fatal injury on the head is caused . In that background, it cannot be said that there had been any intention of the accused appellants to cause death of the deceased. It was on the spur of moment that the incident occurred and may be due to fall on the stairs which had occurred on the spur of the moment the deceased suffered injury and succumbed to the same. In any case the sentence already undergone suggests that if the complicity of the accused is under Section 302/34 I.P.C. then that sentence will be sufficient hi the facts and circumstances of the case where there is no serious animosity in between the parties. 11. The deceased was not the first target she intervened and possibility of her sustaining injury by accident cannot be ruled out. Accordingly the conviction of the accused appellant Balaram is converted from Section 302 to 304-11/34 I.P.C. and also of the accused Ramkori from Section 302/34 I.P.C. to 304-11/34 I.P.C. As regards the acquittal of the accused Mohanram is concerned, he has been acquitted by the trial Court on sound reasoning. Accordingly the conviction of the accused appellant Balaram is converted from Section 302 to 304-11/34 I.P.C. and also of the accused Ramkori from Section 302/34 I.P.C. to 304-11/34 I.P.C. As regards the acquittal of the accused Mohanram is concerned, he has been acquitted by the trial Court on sound reasoning. There is only one injury, Mohanram has not caused any injury and therefore his judgment is not liable to be disturbed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the appellants is partly allowed as indicated above and it is directed that the sentence and conviction of the accused appellants is converted under Section 304-11/34 from Section 302 I.P.C. As regards the conviction under Section 323/34 I.P.C. is concerned the same is maintained. The substantive sentence as already undergone is considered to be the sufficient sentence to meet out the ends of justice. The appellants are directed to deposit the cash of Rs. 5000/- each as compensation to the next kins of the deceased. Two months' time is granted to deposit the amount. In default of payment of fine of compensation the appellants should be sentenced for six months' R.I. The Stale appeal against the acquittal of the appellant Mohanram stands dismissed.Appeal partly allowed. *******