Honble SHARMA, J.–Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated May 30, 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota, whereby the appellants, three in number, were convicted and sentenced as under:- Bhagwan: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Om Prakash: U/s. 324 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Ramesh Chand: U/s. 326 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Six co-accused persons, who were put to trail along with the appellants, however were not found guilty and they stood acquitted. The State of Rajasthan did not choose to assail the finding of acquittal and it attained finality. (2). A written report was handed over on July 19, 2001 by informant Prem Shankar (PW. 5) at Police Station Budhadeet with the averments that on the said day around 10.00 AM his Halis viz. Ram Kumar and Sita Ram had gone to the field to sprinkle medicines over crop of Soyabean. Around 1.30 PM while the informant, Dhanraj, Ishwar and Hemant were returning from the field on a tractor, they were surrounded by Bhagwan, Om Prakash, Ramesh, Kesri Lal, Pappu, Chand Singh, Bajrang Lal, Ratna, Ram Charan, Satya Narayan, Chothmal and Ram Kalyan, who were armed with Swords, Dharia, Kutia and Lathis. Bhagwan then inflicted sword-blow on head of Dhanraj, Om Prakash and Ramesh inflicted Dharia blows on the head and legs of Ishwar and others started inflicting blows indiscriminately. Injured Dhanraj and Ishwar were removed to Sultanpur Hospital. Dhanraj, whose condition was serious, was referred to Kota Hospital where he was declared dead. On that report case under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 342 and 323 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary were recorded, appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota. Charges under sections 147 or 148, 302 or 302/149, 326, 325, 323 or 326/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 341 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota. Charges under sections 147 or 148, 302 or 302/149, 326, 325, 323 or 326/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 341 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 23 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 CrPC, the appellant claimed innocence and stated that the complainant party gave beating to them and committed murder of Ram Kalyan and cross case was registered against complainant party. Three witnesses were examined in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. (3). We have heard the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. (4). Death of Dhanraj was concededly homicidal in nature. As per Post Mortem Report (Ex. P. 29) following antemortem injuries were found on dead body:- 1. Incised wound 3" x 1/2 x bone deep on Rt. cheek muscles artery/veins cut. 2. Incised wound 1" x 1" x bone deep on left cheek just anterior to ear muscle artery/veins cut. 3. Lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 1/4 x bone deep on left tempo parietal region. 4. Contusion 3" x 1" on left cheek. 5. Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep on Rt. upper orbital margin. 6. Incised wound 4" x 1" x bone deep on dorsal aspect of Lt. forearm in its lower 1/3 all muscles artery veins are cut. 7. Incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on leg in its lower 1/3 muscles artery & veins are cut. 8. Incised wound 6" x 1" x bone deep on Rt. forearm in its upper 1/3 vein, artery & muscles are cut. In the opinion of Dr. P.C. Khandelwal (PW. 8) the cause of death was Syncope because of excessive bleeding. (5). Ishwar (PW. 15) vide injury report (Ex. P. 22) received following injuries:- 1. Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x bone deep on medial aspect of Rt. leg. 2. Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep on Rt. leg in its middle. 3. Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x skin deep on left foot. 4. Incised wound 2-1/2 x 1/2" x bone deep on Rt. side of forehead. 5. Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x bone deep on medial aspect of Rt. leg. 2. Incised wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep on Rt. leg in its middle. 3. Incised wound 4" x 1/2" x skin deep on left foot. 4. Incised wound 2-1/2 x 1/2" x bone deep on Rt. side of forehead. 5. Incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" x skin deep on chin 6. Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on Rt. knee. 7. Incised wound 2-1/2" x 1/4" skin deep on left side of upper lip. 8. Lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 1/4" x bone deep on left side of left orbital margins. 9. Incised wound 4" x 1/4" x scalp deep in mid parietal region. On X-ray fracture of tibia bone lower end was found. (6). Hemant Kumar (PW. 7) vide injury report (Ex. P. 3) received one abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on left index finger on proximal phalanx dorsally covered by reddish brown scab. (7). Prem Shankar (PW. 5) vide injury report (Ex. P. 4) received following injuries:- 1. Swelling on right hand & forarm lower 1/2 with bruise 5 cm x 4 cm on lower 1/2 forearm anteriorly bluish black. 2. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm covered by reddish brown scab on swelling left hand dorsally. 3. Abrasion 4cm x 1 cm covered by reddish brown scab on right side of chest. 4. C/o pain left thigh. (8). Ram Kumar (PW. 10) vide injury report (Ex. P. 5) received one swelling right forearm upper 2/3 and right upper arm lower 1/2. (9). A close scrutiny of material on record reveals that in the same incident a member of the accused party viz. Ram Kalyan died and a cross case bearing FIR No. 98/2001 (Ex.D. 5A) was registered against complainant party on the report of Shambhu Dayal @ Pappu. Ram Kalyan vide postmortem report Ex. D. 14 received following antemortem injuries:- 1. Abrasion 10 x 3 cm on Rt. side frontal scalp 2. Abrasion 5 x 3 cm on lt. mastoid process. 3. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm x cartilage deep on lt. pinna. 4. Abrasion 6 x 2 cm on Rt. clavicle. 5. Abrasion 1 x 1cm on Rt. shoulder 6. Abrasion 12 x 3 cm on Rt. fossa. 7. Abrasion 7 x 6 cm on Rt. cheek 8. Abrasion 2 x 2cm on Rt. mastoid process. 3. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm x cartilage deep on lt. pinna. 4. Abrasion 6 x 2 cm on Rt. clavicle. 5. Abrasion 1 x 1cm on Rt. shoulder 6. Abrasion 12 x 3 cm on Rt. fossa. 7. Abrasion 7 x 6 cm on Rt. cheek 8. Abrasion 2 x 2cm on Rt. knee cap & leg. (3 in no.) 9. Diffuse swelling on Rt. Side of chest. 10. Multiple abrasions 1/2 x 1/2 cm on back of Rt.hand. (10). The prosecution case is founded on the testimony of Prem Shankar (PW.5), Babu Lal (PW. 6), Hemant (PW. 7) and Ishwar (PW. 15). We have carefully scanned their testimony. It appears from the cross examination of Prem Shankar (PW. 5) that a casein regard to land in question was pending on the date of incident and interim injunction was issued in favour of the accused party. Taking over all view of the facts it is evident that the accused party claimed that the land in question had been in its possession for many years. On the date of incident members of complainant party and accused party both had arms and two persons died in the course of sudden and free fight. (11). Fact situation emerges from the material on record may be summarized thus:- (i) Members of complainant party and the accused party were inhabitants of the same village. (ii) Ram Kalyan, member of accused party sustained as many as ten injuries in the same incident as a result of which he died. (iii) Cross cases were registered between the parties. (iv) Injuries sustained by deceased Ram Kalyan were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. (v) Incident occurred all of sudden and both the parties fought freely. (vi) Prem Shankar (PW. 5), injured witness, attributed only one injury on the head of deceased Dhanraj to appellant Bhagwan. (vii) According to Dr. Prem Shankar Khandelwal (PW. 8) the death of deceased occurred due to syncope because of excessive bleeding due to all injuries. (12). In Dharman vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1957 SC 324 ) there was a dispute regarding Shamlati land existed between the parties. The accused claimed that the land was in their possession whereas the party of the deceased put forward the claim that the land had been in their possession for many years. On the date of the incident a fight ensued. The accused claimed that the land was in their possession whereas the party of the deceased put forward the claim that the land had been in their possession for many years. On the date of the incident a fight ensued. The deceased died in the course of a sudden and free fight by the injury inflicted by the appellant. The deceaseds party was also armed with dangerous weapons. It was held by the Supreme Court, that when two such contending parties, each armed with weapons, when clashed and in the course of free fight some injuries were inflicted on one party or the other, it could not be said that either of them acted in cruel or unusual manner and case against the appellant clearly fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. (13). Ratio indicated in Dharman vs. State of Punjab (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. From the side of appellants one Ram Kalyan died and the prosecution witnesses did not explain as to in what manner Ram Kalyan sustained injuries. Therefore, it may be held that origin and genesis of the incident have been withheld by the prosecution. Evidently the incident did occur all of a sudden and both parties fought freely. Appellant Bhagwan has been attributed only one injury on the person of Dhanraj and he did not appear to behave in an unnatural or cruel manner. Thus the case against Bhagwan comes within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. (14). That takes us to the allegations made against other appellants. In Kambi Nanji vs. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1970 SC 219 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that where there was a melee at the time of incident and the two groups indulged in a free fight resulting in injuries to persons of both groups and death of two, if the court comes to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the persons were in the course of a free fight then there is no question of common object and only those persons who are proved to have caused injuries or death can be held guilty for the offence individually committed by them. (15). (15). In Munir Khan vs. State of UP ( AIR 1971 SC 335 ) it was indicated that in a mutual fight there is no common object and none of the accused can be convicted by having recourse to section 149 IPC. Learned trial Court therefore rightly did not invoke section 149 IPC. In our opinion appellants Om Prakash and Ramesh Chand have been rightly convicted under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. There is sufficient evidence against them and the said charges have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (16). For these reasons, we dispose of the instant appeal in the following terms:- (i) We partly allow the appeal of Bhagwan and instead of section 302 we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC. Looking to the fact that the appellant has already undergone confinement for a period of more than six years, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing him to the period already undergone by him in confinement. Appellant Bhagwan, who is jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. (ii) We maintain the conviction of appellants Om Prakash and Ramesh Chand under Sections 324 and 326 IPC but reduce the sentence awarded to them. Looking to the fact that these appellants have already undergone confinement for a period of more than two years and two months, the ends of justice would be met in sentencing them to the period already undergone by them in confinement. Appellants Om Prakash and Ramesh Chand are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds stand discharged. (iii) The impugned judgment of learned trial Court stands modified as indicated above.