JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J.:--We have before us two appeals, one filed by Teja Singh and others (11 DB of 2000) and the other filed by Jarnail Singh and others (1240 SB of 1999). Two separate judgments were pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated December 10, 1999, in which some of the accused were acquitted and some were convicted. 2. In Teja Singh’s case 12 appellants were convicted. Nek Singh @ Harnek Singh and Fauja Singh were convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Jagdish Singh while the remaining Nachhattar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Rajinder Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Bikkar Singh, Teja Singh, Jugraj Singh, Onkar Singh and Kulwant Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All the appellants were also convicted for lesser offences under Section 325, 325/149, 323, 323/149 and 148 IPC. All were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and for other lessers offences, which were to run concurrently. 3. In Jarnail Singh’s case all nine appellants were convicted under Section 326/149, 323, 323/149, 324/149 and 148 IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and lesser sentences, which were all directed to run concurrently. 4. The occurrence had taken place on November 23, 1990 at 8 a.m. in Darapur, P.S. Sadar Moga, District Faridkot. Jarnail Singh’s party was constructing a room on a certain plot of land to which Teja Singh’s party objected. Both parties were armed and in the fight which erupted between them, blows were exchanged leading to fatal injuries to Jagdish Singh, grievous and simple injuries to nine other members of Jarnail Singh’s party. On the other hand, four members of Teja Singh’s party received grievous/simple injuries. Teja Singh’s group had used weapons, like spears, gandasis, kassis and dangs. Fauja Singh and Harnek Singh were the two men who were armed with spears, to inflict injuries on Jagdish Singh deceased. Members of Jarnail Singh’s party were armed with gandasis and sotis, and they also used bricks to cause injuries. 5. The case was registered at the Police Station on the statement of Mukhtiar Singh, (appellant 10 in Teja Singh’s case). Mukhtiar Singh’s statement was recorded at 4.15 p.m on the same day under Section 326/323/148/149 IPC. Members of Jarnail Singh’s party were armed with gandasis and sotis, and they also used bricks to cause injuries. 5. The case was registered at the Police Station on the statement of Mukhtiar Singh, (appellant 10 in Teja Singh’s case). Mukhtiar Singh’s statement was recorded at 4.15 p.m on the same day under Section 326/323/148/149 IPC. In the meanwhile, injured Jagdish Singh had been taken to Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, Faridkot, where he died at 4 p.m. Thereupon, a cross FIR was registered at the instance of Karam Singh (PW--9 in Teja Singh’s case) at 9.05 a.m. on November 24, 1990. 6. It would be appropriate to briefly describe the land dispute which led to the two groups engaging in a fierce fight. The plot was part of shamlat which one group claimed as panchayat land for common use, while the other group claimed the land to be in the possession of the members of the Harijan community. Thus entitling them to construct the room in dispute. At the time of the occurrence, they had managed to raise the room upto the height of 5 ft on three side and 4 ft on one side. Therefore, what seems to be undisputed is that the room had come up at night. It was noticed in the morning by Teja Singh’s group. They naturally collected their supporters and went to the spot to stop the construction. Jarnail Singh’s group asserted their right to continue with the construction. There was no time for any one to approach a court of law to obtain an injunction or restraint order. Something had to be done there and then. A clash of arms was inevitable. Both groups wanted to overawe the other by a show of strength. When two groups of men face each other and emotions are high, reason and good sense take flight, a minor aggressive move can act as a trigger. 7. In the fight which followed Jagdish Singh received fatal injuries leading to death after eight hours, Malkiat Singh received a grievous lacerated wound on the forehead. Swaran Singh had a grievous swelling on the right fist, Mukhtiar Singh a grievous incised wound on the head. All other injuries received by the two groups were simple but there were a number of complaints of pain on knees, chest, thighs and swellings on shoulders, clavicle, fingers and arms. 8. Swaran Singh had a grievous swelling on the right fist, Mukhtiar Singh a grievous incised wound on the head. All other injuries received by the two groups were simple but there were a number of complaints of pain on knees, chest, thighs and swellings on shoulders, clavicle, fingers and arms. 8. The pattern of injuries reveals that though the parties had been injured in a pitched battle, yet out of the 31 injuries received by Jarnail Singh’s group there were only two grievous injuries and one fatal injury. Teja Singh’s group received 11 injuries but only one grievous injury. If the two groups had met after preparing themselves to butcher each other with deadly weapons, the injuries would have been much more in number and there would certainly have been more grievous injuries. There may even have been more fatalities. It was a sudden fight at the spot, without preparation or pre-meditation. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants on both sides agreed that no party can be termed as aggressor. In a sudden fight, it is immaterial which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault (Explanation to exception 4, Section 300 IPC). 10. We are convinced that what had occurred in the morning of November 23, 1990 was a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel. Neither party had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 11. We further hold that the common object of the unlawful assembly in Teja Singh’s case was not to commit Jagdish Singh’s murder but to overawe the other group with a show of arms to stop them from making the room. None of the members could possibly have known that Jagdish Singh would be killed in the prosecution of their common object. 12. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of the ten appellants in Teja Singh’s case (11 DB of 2000) under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and acquit them of the charge. Only Harnek Singh and Fauja Singh are found guilty for the death of Jagdish Singh but they had acted without premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. They are held guilty of manslaughter under Section 304 Part-II IPC not murder under Section 302 IPC. Only Harnek Singh and Fauja Singh are found guilty for the death of Jagdish Singh but they had acted without premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. They are held guilty of manslaughter under Section 304 Part-II IPC not murder under Section 302 IPC. The conviction of the remaining ten appellants under various offences like 325, 325/149, 323, 323/149 and 148 IPC are affirmed and their sentences are reduced to the periods already undergone by them. Harnek Singh and Fauja Singh are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 304 Part-II IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/--each, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. In Jarnail Singh’s case (1240 SB of 1999) the conviction of all the appellants is upheld but their sentences are reduced to the periods already undergone by them. Both appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. ------------------