JUDGMENT (Per U. V. Bakre,J.) 1. Both the above appeals are arising out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 29/1998. Criminal appeal No.9/05 is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 4 against the conviction whereas Criminal appeal No.85/05 is filed by the State against the acquittal of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, I.P.C.). 2. Altogether four accused persons were tried by the learned trial Court for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. Accused No. 1 Abdul Khalik has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 352 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further period of one month. Accused No.2 Abdul Rajiq has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Accused No.3 Abdul Faim has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further period of one month. Lastly, Accused No.4 Abdul Jahir has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted to all the accused persons. 3. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 have already undergone the sentence of imprisonment and have also paid the fine before the trial Court and they have not challenged the Judgment and Order. 4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 16/6/1997 in the evening hours, after 5.00 p.m., deceased Naushad Ali was going to Akhada situated in the Masjid and at that time the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, caught him and assaulted him. Accused Abdul Rajiq inflicted knife blow on his head. 4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 16/6/1997 in the evening hours, after 5.00 p.m., deceased Naushad Ali was going to Akhada situated in the Masjid and at that time the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, caught him and assaulted him. Accused Abdul Rajiq inflicted knife blow on his head. The injured Naushad Ali went to Karanja police station and his oral report was recorded by the police station officer of Karanja Police Station. Naushad Ali succumbed to the said injuries on 17/6/1997 at about 8.25 a.m., while undergoing treatment in the hospital. It was alleged that there was previous enmity between the family of the deceased and the family of the accused persons. 5. The prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses in support of its case. They may be categorised as under: (A) EYE WITNESSES. (i) P.W.7 Bismillakha, and (ii) P.W.8 Hafij Khiteboola. (B) (PANCH WITNESSES. (i) P.W.1 Mohd. Yusuf is one of the panch witnesses for the panchanama of spot of occurrence (Exh.48) and seizure memo (Exh.49), pertaining to the attachment of the articles from the spot which includes the wooden rafter. He also acted as one of the panch witnesses for the seizure memo (Exh.50) of nail clippings of accused Nos. 3 and 4. He also acted as one of the panch witnesses for the seizure memo (Exh.51) of the clothes of accused No.4. P.W.1 also acted as one of the panch witnesses for seizure memo (Exh.52) of the clothes of accused No. 3. (ii) P.W.2 Motilal Paryani acted as one of the panch witnesses for the disclosure statement(Exh.54) made by accused No.3 and the recovery panchanama (Exh.54/1) of knife at the instance of accused No.3. (iii) P.W.3 Shashikant Yeotekar acted as one of the panch witnesses for the disclosure statement(Exh.57) made by accused No.2 and for the recovery panchanama (Exh.57A) of knife at the instance of the said accused No.2. (iv) P.W.4 Rajesh Wankhede acted as one of the panch witnesses of seizure panchanama of seizure of blood sample of accused Nos. 3 and 4. However, he did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. (v) P.W.5 Abdul Rafiq, who allegedly acted as panch witness for seizure of nails clippings of accused No.2, has also not supported the prosecution. (vi) P.W.9 Nitin Nade acted as panch witness for seizure of the clothes of the deceased. (C) MEDICAL WITNESSES. 3 and 4. However, he did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. (v) P.W.5 Abdul Rafiq, who allegedly acted as panch witness for seizure of nails clippings of accused No.2, has also not supported the prosecution. (vi) P.W.9 Nitin Nade acted as panch witness for seizure of the clothes of the deceased. (C) MEDICAL WITNESSES. (i) P.W.6 Dr. Shrichand Santani is the Medical Officer attached to Civil Hospital at Akola and he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Naushad Ali Riyasad Ali on 17/6/1997. The postmortem examination report is at Exh.62. (ii) P.W.11 Dr. Chaganlal Khatri had examined deceased Naushad Ali on 16/6/1997 when he was brought in injured condition at the Municipal Hospital at Karanja. The injury certificate is at Exh.69A. P.W.11 had also examined the weapons attached by police and had submitted query report which is at Exh.70/1. (D) POLICE WITNESSES. (i) P.W.10 Jagmohansingh Rajput is Police Sub Inspector then attached to Karanja police station and he conducted part of the investigation. (ii) P.W.12 Suresh Ingle was the Police Head Constable at police station Karanja at the relevant time and he recorded the complaint lodged by the deceased Naushad Ali. The oral report is at Exh. 80. (iii) P.W.13 Karbhari Ware is the Police Sub Inspector attached to Karanja police station at the relevant time and he completed the investigation and submitted the chargesheet. 5. Case of the accused persons is that on the day of incident when Abdul Rajiq (accused No. 2) was going to gymnasium from Asthana Masjid, Sherkhan, Noorkhan and deceased Naushad Ali assaulted him by means of knife and sticks and during the scuffle, Naushad Ali fell twice or thrice on iron articles and sustained injury. They have examined two witnesses in their defence. D.W.3 Govind Dadekar is the Medical Officer attached to Central Prison, Akola. D.W.4 Abhaya Patil is the Medical Officer attached to District Hospital, Akola. 6. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge held that accused No.1 is guilty of the offence under Section 352 of I.P.C.; accused No.2 is guilty of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.; accused No. 3 is guilty of offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and accused No.4 is guilty of offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. The accused persons, therefore, came to be convicted and sentenced as already stated earlier. 7. Heard arguments. 7. Heard arguments. Learned Advocate Shri R. M. Daga argued on behalf of accused Nos. 2 and 4 in Appeal No. 9/05. Learned Advocate Shri A. P. Tathod argued on behalf of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, who are respondents in Appeal No. 85/05. Learned A.P.P. Shri M. J. Khan argued on behalf of the State in both the appeals. 8. Perused the entire paper book on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties. 9. The evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Chaganlal Khatri read with the injury certificate (Exh.69/1) reveals that injured Naushad Ali had sustained following injuries : (i) Incised wound on left parietal region extending up to left frontal region, 3 cm. x 1 cm. with positive bleeding and placed obliquely in direction; (ii) Lacerated wound on right parietal region, irregular in shape, 3 cm. x 1 cm., with positive bleeding; (iii) Lacerated wound on medial aspect of left elbow, 1 cm. x ½ cm.. with positive bleeding; and (iv) Swelling and tenderness on chest. 10. The evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Shrichand Santani read with the memorandum of postmortem examination(Exh.62) reveals that deceased Naushad Ali had sustained following external wounds : (i) Surgically stitched wound, left arm, elbow medially, 1” long with three stitches; (ii) Surgically stitched wound, ‘Y’ shaped, long, 5 stitches, 4” above left ear; (iii) Surgically stitched wound 4” long, right frontoparietal region, 3” above right eyebrow, slight oblique; (iv) Fracture of ribs 3rd, 4th left side, costochondral junction. Internal injuries are as follows : (i) Fracture of skull, right frontoparietal region; (ii) Haematoma on the scalp; (iii)Fracture to ribs. Probable cause of death, according to P.W.6, is severe neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock as a result of trauma to the brain because of fracture to skull. 11. In his cross-examination, P.W.6, the medical officer, has stated that if a person falls on hard and blunt object, the skull injuries are possible. Neither in the postmortem examination report nor in his deposition, P.W.6 has stated that any of the injuries independently is or all the injuries cumulatively are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 12. Deceased Naushad Ali, on his own, had come to Karanja police station after the incident and had lodged the report (Exh.80), which has become a dying declaration, as Naushad Ali expired. In this report, Naushad Ali has stated thus : “..... 12. Deceased Naushad Ali, on his own, had come to Karanja police station after the incident and had lodged the report (Exh.80), which has become a dying declaration, as Naushad Ali expired. In this report, Naushad Ali has stated thus : “..... This day 16/6/97 at about 05.00 O'clock in the evening, I returned home with Firoj Khan Rashid Khan after spreading fishing net in the dam at Injori. Thereafter, when I was going alone towards gymnasium at Astana from Mangalwara, A. Khalik Sk. Mannu caught hold of me and (1) A. Rajiq (2) A. Jahir A. Yunus and (3) A. Faeem A. Khalik together started assaulting me and Rajiq delivered knife blows on my head as a result of which I have sustained grievous injuries. Over the issue of an old enmity between us, they assaulted me...” 13. P.W.7 Bismillakha has deposed as follows :“ 2......Myself and Maolavi, Hafijkhitab were present near the board of Nabeb Subhankha Majid. Ab. Khalik came there. I asked him for what purpose he came there. He replied he came at Mistari i.e. Karim carpenter. Thereafter his sons namely Ab. Phaim and Ab. Rajiq and brother’s son Ab. Jahir came there. They came and stood near the masjid. Naoshadali came out of Majir door. He was beaten by Phaim, Rajiq and Jahir. Khalik was talking with me. He rushed and caught hold to Naoshad. Rajiq took out knife from his pocket and inflicted on the head of Naoshad. There was bleeding from the head of Naoshad and he fell down. Thereafter Jahir brought wooden rafter from the shop of carpenter and started beating by it to Naoshad. Phaim started beating by fists and kicks to Naoshad. I did attempt to rescue Naoshad but I could not succeed. Jahir left that rafter. Then they left the spot. 3. Naoshad stood up and went to the police station. He might have lodged report to police. He was referred to Akola in hospital. On next day I came to know that Naoshad expired in the hospital. According to me the accused might have beaten to Naoshad because there was dispute between them on account of Akhada...” (Quoted from page Nos. 93 & 94 of appeal paper book) 14. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that Sherkhan and Noorkhan were not present at the spot. He has stated that he did not notice that Ab. According to me the accused might have beaten to Naoshad because there was dispute between them on account of Akhada...” (Quoted from page Nos. 93 & 94 of appeal paper book) 14. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that Sherkhan and Noorkhan were not present at the spot. He has stated that he did not notice that Ab. Rajiq had knife injuries to his palms and legs. He has stated that he does not know whether Sherkhan, Noorkhan and Naoshad Ali were prosecuted for assault on Rajiq. He has further stated that he does not know whether the above named persons were assaulting Rajiq. He has denied the suggestion that when these persons were assaulting Rajiq, Naushad Ali fell on iron material in front of shop of Soni. 15. P.W.8 Hafij Khitaboola, in his examinationinchief, has deposed as follows :“ 2. The incident occurred on 16/6/1997. It was time of 7 to 7.30 p.m. on Monday. Myself and Bismillakha Manwarkha were standing and talking in front of majidboard. Khalidbhai came there. Bismillaha asked him as to how he is there. Khalikbhai replied that he come at carpenter. Then Ab. Rajiq, Ab. Phaim and Ab. Jahir came there. They stood in front of the majid. Then in short time Naoshadali came out of majid. Then quarrel took place between them. Ab. Rajiq took out knife and inflicted on the head of Naoshadali. Then Naoshadali sustained bleeding injury and he fell down. Ab. Jahir brought wooden rafter from the shop of carpenter and started beating to Naoshadali. Ab. Phaim started beating with fist and kicks to Naoshad. Bismila started to rescue them but could not restrain to anybody. Ab. Jahir left rafter on the spot and they went away from the spot. Ab. Khaliq caught hold to Naoshad. 3. Naoshad stood up and started going towards police station. He lodged report. I came to know that there was dispute going on between them from 2 years on account of Akhada. Naoshad was referred to the hospital from the police station. On next day I came to know that Naoshadali expired in the hospital...” (Quoted from page Nos. 98 & 99 of appeal paper book). 16. Thus, according to P.W.8, there was a quarrel between the accused persons and Naushad. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that he did not notice whether Rajiq had sustained injuries to his hands and legs. On next day I came to know that Naoshadali expired in the hospital...” (Quoted from page Nos. 98 & 99 of appeal paper book). 16. Thus, according to P.W.8, there was a quarrel between the accused persons and Naushad. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that he did not notice whether Rajiq had sustained injuries to his hands and legs. However, he has added that he heard that Rajiq was admitted to Hospital, though he does not know as to for how many days Rajiq was in Hospital. P.W.8 has further stated that he does not know whether Rajiq lodged report against Sherkhan, Noorkhan and Naoshad. Subsequently, in the cross-examination, P.W.8 has deposed as follows : “... It is true that in front of Majid, Sherkhan, Nauoshad and Noorkhan did assault Rajiq with Gupti and knife. It is not true that in that scuffle, Naoshad was fallen on the iron material in front of shop of Vasant Soni and sustained injuries...” (Quoted from page No. 100 of appeal paper book). 17. The evidence of P.W.8, therefore, duly proves that there was free fight involving the accused persons on one side and the deceased, Noorkhan and Sherkhan on the other side in which both parties had assaulted each other. The presence of all the accused persons is not denied. The evidence of P.W.8 further proves that deceased Naoshad Ali, in his oral report (dying declaration) and P.W.7 in his deposition, have not stated the whole truth. They have suppressed the presence of Sherkhan and Noorkhan along with Naoshad Ali and about assault by them on Rajiq with Gupti and knife. 18. P.W.12 Suresh Ingle, the Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that accused Rajiq was admitted in Hospital since 16/6/1997 at Akola, through the police because he had injuries and his clothes were collected in the General Hospital at Akola. However, P.W.12 has stated that he does not remember whether Rajiq had deep bleeding injuries to palms, hands and legs. P.W.12 has stated that he did not obtain signature of accused Rajiq on the memorandum of his statement as also on the property discovery panchanama. The above itself shows that Rajiq was not in a position to put his signature due to injuries sustained by him to his palms and hands. 19. P.W.12 has stated that he did not obtain signature of accused Rajiq on the memorandum of his statement as also on the property discovery panchanama. The above itself shows that Rajiq was not in a position to put his signature due to injuries sustained by him to his palms and hands. 19. In his cross-examination, P.W.12 has stated that from the statement of Kiran Soni, who has welding shop in front of the Masjid, he came to know that there was quarrel going on between Rajiq and Naoshad and thereafter incident of beating by kicks and fists took place in front of house of Kadir. P.W.12 did not inquire with Rajiq about injuries sustained by him. He has admitted that there was complaint lodged by Rajiq against Naoshadali, Sherkhan and Noorkhan. 20. D.W.3 Dr. Govind Dadekar has produced the extracts of the medical record pertaining to accused No.2 Rajiq as Exhs. 109 and 110. As per these documents, Rajiq was admitted to General Hospital, Akola from 16/6/1997 to 5/7/1997. Rajiq was in hospital again from 7/7/1997 to 21/7/1997. 21. D.W.4 Abhaya Patil has deposed that on 16/6/1997, Ab. Rajiq and Ab. Khalik were admitted to District Hospital, Akola. 22. Thus, not only accused No.2 but also accused No.1 had sustained injuries. 23. The panchanama of spot of occurrence (Exh.55/1) mentions about oral report lodged by Mohammad Yahur M. Yunus on 16/6/1997 at about 19.30 hours against the accused persons : (1) Sherkhan Nashirkhan; (2) Nurkhan Nashirkhan; and (3) Naushad Ali Riyasan Ali for assaulting him on left hand by means of knife and also assaulting A. Rajiq, Ab. Khalik and injuring them also, for which offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. has been registered. 24. In the case of Lakshmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1976 S.C. 2263 ), relied upon by Shri R. M. Daga, learned Counsel for accused Nos. Khalik and injuring them also, for which offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. has been registered. 24. In the case of Lakshmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1976 S.C. 2263 ), relied upon by Shri R. M. Daga, learned Counsel for accused Nos. 2 and 4, it has been observed thus :“ In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences : (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1281 and A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1674, Rel. on. (para) 11) The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. (para 11) There may be cases where the nonexplanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and credit worthy, that it overweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. AIR 1975 S.C. 1478 Rel. on. (Para 11)” 25. The evidence of P.W.1 duly proves the spot panchanama (Exh.48) and seizure of the wooden rafter from the spot under seizure memo (Exh.49). The evidence of P.W.3 sufficiently proves that the knife having blood marks was recovered at the instance of accused No.2 Ab. Rajiq. 26. The learned trial Judge has held that right of private defence was not available to Ab. The evidence of P.W.3 sufficiently proves that the knife having blood marks was recovered at the instance of accused No.2 Ab. Rajiq. 26. The learned trial Judge has held that right of private defence was not available to Ab. Rajiq as well as to co-accused, in view of simpleness in alleged injuries sustained by them at the hands of Naushad Ali. In fact, there is nothing on record to prove that the injuries sustained by Ab. Rajiq were simple in nature. They cannot be minor and superficial since the weapons used against Ab. Rajiq were Gupti and knife. The evidence on record sufficiently suggests that accused No.2 Ab. Rajiq had remained in Hospital from 16/6/1997 to 21/7/1997 which is for more than a month. There are grounds to believe that Ab. Rajiq had sustained serious injuries with dangerous weapons. 27. No doubt, there is reliable evidence on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ab. Rajiq assaulted the deceased on his head with a knife and that the cause of death was severe neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock as a result of trauma to the brain because of fracture to skull. As already stated above, it is not stated by P.W.6 that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is also sufficient evidence to prove that accused No.4 assaulted Naushad Ali with wooden rafter on his chest and accused No.3 assaulted Naushadali with fist blows and kicks. Accused No.1 had just rushed on the person of the deceased and had caught him. There was no common intention shared by the accused persons. At the same time, there is reasonable ground to believe that deceased Naushad Ali and others had assaulted accused Nos. 2 and 4 with Gupti and knife and had caused injuries to them. Unfortunately, Naushadali, who on his own, got up from the spot and went to Karanja police station and lodged the report, succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 17/6/1997. It should be kept in mind that initially the offence was registered against the accused persons under Section 326 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and not under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 28. The enmity between the two groups was due to Akhada. This enmity is like double edged weapon giving motive to both the sides. 29. The enmity between the two groups was due to Akhada. This enmity is like double edged weapon giving motive to both the sides. 29. The evidence on record reveals a free fight. In our view, the learned trial Judge has wrongly attributed ‘intention to kill’ to accused No.2. There was no intention on the part of accused No.2 to kill Naushad Ali. No doubt, accused No.2, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence, appears to have exceeded the power given to him by law. He does not appear to have intended to do more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. It is not the case that accused No.2 inflicted more than one blow of knife on the head of the deceased. The case of accused No.2 falls under Exception 2 to Section 300 of I.P.C. Accused no.2 had wielded the knife and hence he can be attributed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Hence, accused no.2 would be guilty of committing an offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. 30. As far as accused No.4 is concerned, in our view, he has been rightly held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. Similarly, the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively for offence punishable under Sections 352 and 323 of I.P.C., cannot be faulted. 31. Heard learned Counsel on the point of sentence. 32. It is seen from the records that the accused No. 2 Ab. Rajiq was arrested on 2/7/1997 and he was released on bail by the High Court on 16/2/1997 and thus was in custody for about 7 months before conviction. It is further noticed that thereafter from the date of Judgment i.e. from 15/12/2004, the accused No. 2 continues to be in Jail. The accused no 2, therefore, has already undergone imprisonment for about 6 years and nine months. The accused No.4 Ab. Jahir was arrested on 16/6/1997 and was released on bail by the trial Court on 22/9/2997 and thus was in custody for about 3 months and 6 days before conviction. The accused No.4 was then in jail from the date of Judgment i.e. from 15/12/2004 till he was released on bail by this Court on 11/2/2005. The accused No.4 Ab. Jahir was arrested on 16/6/1997 and was released on bail by the trial Court on 22/9/2997 and thus was in custody for about 3 months and 6 days before conviction. The accused No.4 was then in jail from the date of Judgment i.e. from 15/12/2004 till he was released on bail by this Court on 11/2/2005. Hence, the accused No. 4 has already undergone imprisonment for a period of about 5 months. Learned Advocates for the accused Nos. 2 and 4 have contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them coupled with payment of sizable amount of compensation by both to the family of the deceased should serve the ends of justice. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 were called upon to file affidavits, if they chose, expressing the amount of compensation they would deposit for payment to the dependents of the deceased, in the event the Court considers the case worth latitude. Accused Nos.2 and 4 have filed affidavits offering to deposit Rs.50,000/and Rs.2,00,000/respectively (total amount of Rs.2,50,000/). In order to test their bonafides, they were directed to deposit the amount within four weeks’ time. Accordingly, the accused persons have deposited the amount of Rs.2,50,000/. In addition to the above, the accused No. 2 has deposited the fine amount of Rs. 25,000/and the accused No. 4 has deposited the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/before the trial Court. This total fine amount of Rs. 26.000/, in the interest of justice, can be also added to the compensation to be paid by the accused Nos. 2 and 4 to the family of the deceased. The imprisonment already undergone along with payment of compensation of Rs. 2,76,000/, in our view, should serve the interest of justice. 33. In view of the above, we make the following : ORDER (a) Criminal Appeal No. 85/2005, filed by the State is dismissed. (b) Criminal Appeal No. 9/2005, filed by the accused Nos. 2 and 4, is partly allowed. (i) The conviction and sentence of accused No.2 Abdul Rajiq for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is set aside. (ii) The accused No. 2 is held guilty and convicted of the offence punishable under section 304, Part-II of I.P.C. (iii) Accused Nos. (b) Criminal Appeal No. 9/2005, filed by the accused Nos. 2 and 4, is partly allowed. (i) The conviction and sentence of accused No.2 Abdul Rajiq for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is set aside. (ii) The accused No. 2 is held guilty and convicted of the offence punishable under section 304, Part-II of I.P.C. (iii) Accused Nos. 2 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/( Rupees Seventy five thousand only) to the family of the deceased. (iv) The conviction of accused No.4 Abdul Jahir for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. is maintained. However, the sentence imposed upon him is altered. (v) Accused No. 4 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,01,000/to the family of the deceased. (vi) The fine amount deposited by the accused Nos. 2 and 4 before the trial Court shall also be taken as compensation and added to the compensation deposited by accused Nos. 2 and 4 before this Court and the said total amount of Rupees 2,76,000/shall be paid to the family of deceased Naushadali. (v) The muddemal property shall be dealt with as per the order of the trial Court. (vi Both appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.