Judgment T.P.S.MANN, J. 1. The appellants alongwith Raj Rani were tried by Additional Sessions judge, Ropar, for offences under Sections 304/34 and 323/34 IPC. Vide judgment dated 2.2.1998 Raj Rani-accused was acquitted of the charges against her. The other three accused, who are now the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Phammi Ram: convicted under Sec.323 IPC and sentenced to undergo ri for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further RI for two months. 2 Pargasho: convicted under Sec.304 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, she was sentenced to undergo further RI for one year. Ram Pal: convicted under Sec.324 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.700/-. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo further RI for three months. The case was registered on the basis of a statement made by Thakru ram-injured, who stated that on 30.5.1994 at about 4.00 p. m. he and his wife brahmi Devi went to their fields situated at a distance of 300 yards from their house so as to dump dirty material there. His brother Jogu, who was a simpleton and lived with him, threw a stone at his other brother Phammi Rams wife pargasho. At this his said brother Phammi Ram, his wife Pargasho, his son Ram pal and his sons wife Raj Rani started beating Jogu. Thakru Ram and his wife brahmi Devi tried to rescue Jogu. Ram Pal gave a kulhari blow to his wife brahmi Devi, which hit on the backside of her right thigh. Pargasho caught hold of his wife and after falling her down, gave brick bats on her chest and also caused invisible injuries. Raj Rani also hurled brick bats upon them. Phammi ram, who was holding a bahi of the cot in his hand gave a blow with the same on the complainants head and another blow on his left ankle. The complainant and his wife raised an alarm, which attracted his nephew Tosh and one Jagat Ram to the spot, who also saw the occurrence. Upon this, Phammi Ram and Ram Pal decamped from the spot while carrying their respective weapons. The complainant and his wife raised an alarm, which attracted his nephew Tosh and one Jagat Ram to the spot, who also saw the occurrence. Upon this, Phammi Ram and Ram Pal decamped from the spot while carrying their respective weapons. The complainant and his wife Smt. Brahmi Devi were removed to Canal Hospital, Nangal, where they were admitted. On the next day in the morning said Brahmi Devi, however, succumbed to her injuries. 3. According to the complainant, the cause of the occurrence was that his brother, sister-in-law and nephew often used to quarrel with his younger brother Jogu, who was a simpleton. Said Jogu was being helped by the complainant as they lived together. On that account, the complainant and his wife were caused injuries. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered at Police Station Nangal on 1.6.1994. The investigating Officer then recorded the statements of the witnesses, inspected the spot and prepared the site plan. After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted by the police on the basis of which all the accused were charged, as mentioned above. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. Dr. S. K. Gupta PW1, deposed about conducting of post mortem examination on the dead body of Brahmi Devi on 1.6.1994 and found the following injuries:- 1. Stitched wound 3" x 1" x 1.5" present on the lateral side of right thigh in about its middle part. On dissection, underlying soft tissue is lacerated. 2. Diffuse swelling on an area of 3" x 2.5" present in the region of occiput. On dissection, there is haemotoma underneath. On dissection of skull and examination of contents duramater was intact. There is sub-dural haemorrhage alongwith lacerations of brain present in the posterior fossa. There is diffused (sic) over both the cerebral hemi-spheres and more towards the stem of the brain. There is crack in the posterior fossa bone at the base of skull. 4. The cause of death, in his opinion, was shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries and particularly head injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma PW2 had conducted medico-legal examination of Thakru Ram on 30.5.1994 at 6.45 p. m. and found the following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1" and 0.5" deep on the right temporal bone region. Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma PW2 had conducted medico-legal examination of Thakru Ram on 30.5.1994 at 6.45 p. m. and found the following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound 2" x 1" and 0.5" deep on the right temporal bone region. There is profuse bleeding from the wound. 2. The patient complained of pain and tenderness over the left ankle joint. No sign and symptom of external injury was present. 5. Both the injuries were declared simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. The duration of the injuries was two to four hours. On the same day, he had also medico-legally examined Brahmi Devi at 6.50 p. m. and found the following injuries:- 1. Irregular swelling 2.5" x 2" in size present over the occipital bone region. The patient complained of headache, giddiness and irritable. Advised x-ray skull A. P. view and lateral view. 2. Incised wound 3" x 1" and 1.5" deep present on the lateral side of right thigh in the middle. There is profuse bleeding from the wound. The patient complained of pain and tenderness over the right thigh. 3. The patient complained of marked pain and tenderness over the right forearm and right hand. But movements of right hand are normal. 4. The patient complained of marked pain and tenderness over chest but no sign and symptom of external injury was present. 6. Injuries No.2, 3 and 4 were declared simple in nature while injury No.1 was kept under observation. However, as Brahmi Devi died lateron, so no x-ray could be done and, therefore, nature of injury No.1 could not be determined. 7. The prosecution also examined Thakru Ram as PW3 and Jagat Ram as PW4 to prove ocular account. The investigation part of the occurrence was deposed to by inspector Pritam Singh PW5, Head Constable Harbans Singh PW6, Constable Sohan singh PW7 and Sub Inspector Sohan Lal PW8. The site plan was proved by Des Pal patwari PW9. 8. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , all the accused pleaded false implication. According to them, complainant-Thakru Ram and his wife Brahmi Devi had quarrelled with Jogu and gave injuries to him as they wanted his land. In support of their plea, the accused examined Darshan Lal DW1. The site plan was proved by Des Pal patwari PW9. 8. When examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , all the accused pleaded false implication. According to them, complainant-Thakru Ram and his wife Brahmi Devi had quarrelled with Jogu and gave injuries to him as they wanted his land. In support of their plea, the accused examined Darshan Lal DW1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence,learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no common intention amongst the accused to inflict injuries on Thakru Ram and Brahmi Devi. The accused had not come with any preparation to cause injuries to any one. The occurrence started only because Jogu started throwing stones on Pargasho. Accordingly, each accused was held responsible for his own injury and not vicariously for the injuries caused by his co-accused. Raj Rani-accused was, however, acquitted of all the charges as no specific injury was attributed to her. Pargasho was held guilty under Sec.304 IPC while her husband Phammi ram for offence under Sec.323 IPC and their son Ram Pal for offence under section 324 IPC. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no injury found on the chest portion of Smt. Brahmi Devi-deceased. Out of the two injuries found on her dead body at the time of post mortem examination, injury No.2, which was on the occipital region was declared as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but according to the prosecution, it is not clear as to who had caused this injury. It is also submitted that Pargasho, who has been held guilty for offence under Sec.304 IPC could not be attributed the knowledge that by her act of falling Brahmi Devi down, she knew that it was likely to result in her death. Therefore, Pargasho could not be convicted under Sec.304 IPC and, at the most, she could be held liable for offence under Sec.325 IPC. Finally, it is submitted that the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last 151/2 years. There was no serious enmity between the parties. The occurrence appeared to have developed all of a sudden when Jogu, who was a simpleton and brother of the complainant started pelting brick bats at the accused party. Finally, it is submitted that the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last 151/2 years. There was no serious enmity between the parties. The occurrence appeared to have developed all of a sudden when Jogu, who was a simpleton and brother of the complainant started pelting brick bats at the accused party. Moreover, the appellants have already undergone sufficient period and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars, once again, to serve the remaining sentences. Learned State counsel has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in establishing the charge against the appellants and, therefore, they do not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentences, as well. 10. According to the FIR, it was Pargasho, who had caught hold of Brahmi Devi in a jaffa and felled her down. Thereafter, Pargasho also gave brick bat injuries in her chest besides causing invisible injuries. Though neither in the medical examination nor in the post mortem, any injury in the chest region could be noticed apart from complain of pain as claimed by Brahmi Devi at the time of her medical examination and consequently the same found mentioned in the medico- legal report as injury No.4 yet the fact remains that it was Pargasho, who has caught hold of Brahmi Devi in a jaffa and felled her down. On account of Brahmi Devi falling down, she had received injuries on the back portion of her head. It has also come in the first information report that apart from causing injuries with brick bats in the chest of Brahmi Devi, Pargasho-appellant had also caused invisible injuries. Therefore, it is held that the injury, which ultimately proved fatal was caused by Pargasho. 11. The injury, which ultimately proved fatal was on vital part of the deceased, being on the backside of the head. As a result of the said injury, there was a diffused swelling in an area of 3 inch x 2.5 inch in the region of occipital. On dissection of skull, a haemotoma was found underneath. There was sub-dural haemorrhage alongwith lacerations of brain present in the posterior fossa where a crack was also noticed. According to Dr. S. K. Gupta PW1, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to head injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On dissection of skull, a haemotoma was found underneath. There was sub-dural haemorrhage alongwith lacerations of brain present in the posterior fossa where a crack was also noticed. According to Dr. S. K. Gupta PW1, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to head injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, keeping in view the fact that there was no serious enmity between the parties and the occurrence had developed suddenly on account of Jogu, who was a simpleton and brother of the complainant, throwing brick bats on the accused, Pargasho-appellant has been rightly convicted for offence under Sec.304 IPC. Pargasho-appellant was arrested during the investigation of the case on 5.6.1994. She was ordered to be released on bail by the High Court on 6.11.1995. After her conviction and sentence by the trial Court, she was again taken into custody on 2.2.1998. It was only on 11.3.1998 when she was granted the concession of bail during the pendency of the appeal. Thus, she has already served a period of more than one and half years. Similarly, Ram Pal also remained in jail as under trial for a period of about six months while Phammi Ram was granted bail within a couple of days after his arrest during the trial of the case. The appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last 151/2 years. Keeping in view the fact that the parties were closely related and there was no serious enmity between the parties as well as the fact that the occurrence started when Jogu, who was a simpleton and brother of the complainant, started hurling brick bats at the accused, a case is made out for reducing the sentences of imprisonment of all the appellants to that already undergone by them, as sending them behind the bars at this stage, would not serve any useful purpose. 12. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants is maintained but their substantive sentences of imprisonment stand reduced to that already undergone by them. However, their sentences of fine alongwith the default clauses are maintained. 13. But for reduction of sentence, as indicated above, the appeal is dismissed.