JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 7.5.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara convicting the accused-appellants under Section 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- only each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in Sessions Case No. 98/2004 arising out of G.R. Case No. 905/2003, registered under Section 447/ 302/ 34 IPC in connection with Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 137/2003. The prosecution case is based on a written F.I.R. lodged by one Md. Sayed Ali with the Jaleswar Police Outpost informing that on 2.10.2003 at about 5 P.M., while the informant's elder brother Md. Saburuddin raised objection to erection of boundary fence the convict appellants, who are neighbours, encroaching upon his land was severely beaten up by all the convict appellants resulting into his death on the spot, whereupon Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 137/2003 was registered under Section 447/ 302/ 34 IPC. The I/O started investigation, visited the place of occurrence, held inquest, recorded statements of witnesses, sent the dead body for postmortem examination, collected the report and on completion of the investigation laid the charge sheet under Section 447/ 302 IPC against the appellants showing the accused appellant Nos. 2 and 3 as absconders. The aforesaid absconding accused persons, during pre-trial stage, appeared before the Court of Magistrate at Goalpara and they were granted bail. The case was committed and on committal, the aforesaid sessions case was registered and on consideration of the materials on record framed charge against the appellants under Section 447/ 302 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to face the trial. 2. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer to bring home the said charge. The appellants were examined under Section 313 CrPC and offered chance to adduce evidence in their defence but they declined to examine any witness. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence and materials on record and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier. 3. We have heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also Mr. Dhanesh Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 4. Mr. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the evidence and materials on record and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier. 3. We have heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also Mr. Dhanesh Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, first of all submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the eye witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. There are 6 eyewitnesses. Out of them P.W. 2 and 3 are wife and daughter of the deceased. They are, therefore, related and interested witnesses and the learned trial court committed error in attaching much weight to their evidence. Secondly he submits that the learned trial court failed to take into consideration the evidence of 2 other independent eye witnesses, PW 7 and 8, who did not support the prosecution story and gave completely different version without implicating the appellants in the alleged crime, for which they were declared hostile. The eye witness, PW 7, on being cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, even stated that the deceased was sick for a long time and his sister-in-law, who was a Nurse used to bring saline for the deceased Saburuddin from Dhubri on several occasions. 5. Thirdly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence of the above eye witnesses clearly established that it was the deceased who tried to remove the boundary fence provoking the appellants to indulge in a sudden fight in which the deceased sustained injuries to his person. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellants are not liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC; they may, at the most, be convicted and punished under Section 304 Pt-II IPC. It is further submitted that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life is disproportionate to the offence allegedly committed by the appellants and as such, the sentence is liable to be set aside and quashed or at least be converted to one under Section 304 Pt-II IPC. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sarma relies upon the following cases : (i) 2004 (3) GLT 312 : Abdul Roshid & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, (ii) (1996) 3 GLR 5 : Ramesh Bora & Anr. Vs. State of Assam; (iii) 2005 Suppl. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sarma relies upon the following cases : (i) 2004 (3) GLT 312 : Abdul Roshid & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, (ii) (1996) 3 GLR 5 : Ramesh Bora & Anr. Vs. State of Assam; (iii) 2005 Suppl. GLT 146: Suruj Ali Vs. State of Assam. 6. Contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Dhanesh Das, learned Addl. PP submits that the prosecution has proved the charge against appellants beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as it has been able to adduce cogent and reliable evidence of eye witnesses corroborating each other on material particulars. The evidence of related eye witnesses, P.W. 2 and 3 cannot be disbelieved and discarded simply on the ground that P.W. 7 and 8 were declared hostile and one of them deposed that the deceased was suffering from some illness. According to Mr. Das, the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants is not liable to be interfered with; rather liable to be upheld and confirmed. 7. Since the prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 and the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants on the basis of the evidence of the aforesaid eye witnesses, it is felt utmost necessary to review their evidence first. 8. P.W. 2 Musstt. Santi Bhanu is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that on the day of occurrence the accused appellants erected a boundary fencing of jute sticks encroaching upon their land and having seen it her husband restrained the accused persons and asked them to remove the fencing. As the accused persons did not respond, her husband tried to remove the fencing and at that time, the accused appellant Sobur Sikdar gave a blow on the chest of her husband in her presence. Her husband fell down but still then, accused Sarbesh kicked him while accused Sahidul caught hold on the neck of her husband. The other two accused persons Md. Sobur and Sarbesh started giving blows on the chests of her husband. Accused Sarbesh and Sahidul also gave blows on her daughter Saina @ Moriom when she started crying for help to save him. The other two accused persons Md. Sobur and Sarbesh started giving blows on the chests of her husband. Accused Sarbesh and Sahidul also gave blows on her daughter Saina @ Moriom when she started crying for help to save him. On seeing her daughter being assaulted the deceased tried to resist the accused and save her, the accused Sarbesh and Sahidul further started giving kicks and blows on her husband. Her husband then fell down and she raised hue and cry and many people came to the place of occurrence. In the meantime, her husband was taken home who had already become senseless. Hafiza, the sister of the accused Sahidul also came to the place of occurrence. Musstt. Akiron, the aunt of accused Sahidul, who came to the place of occurrence, asked her brother accused Sahidul to bring doctor as they have assaulted the deceased and then Sahidul brought one doctor who declared her husband dead. 9. P.W. 3 Moriom Akhtara Begum @ Saina is the daughter of the deceased, who was unmarried at the time of occurrence, was living with her parents. On the day of occurrence, after return from bazaar, her father went to see the boundary fencing erected by the accused persons encroaching upon their lands. Her deceased father protested and asked the accused persons to remove the fencing but they did not pay any heed; rather, they threatened to further encroachment upon his land. When her father was still protesting, accused Sobur Sikdar gave a blow on the chest of her father. When accused Sarbesh also gave a blow on her father, he fell down. Accused Sahidul Sikdar again kicked her father. She tried to resist the accused persons but she was caught hold by accused Sahidul and assaulted by accused Sarbesh. At that time her father tried to resist them but he was given blows by accused Sahidul and Sobur Sikdar. She was also assaulted by the accused persons at the time when her father fell down and became unconscious. Her father was then taken home from the place of occurrence and the doctor, who came on call, declared him dead. 10. Two neighbours were examined as independent eye witnesses. P.W. 4 Musstt. She was also assaulted by the accused persons at the time when her father fell down and became unconscious. Her father was then taken home from the place of occurrence and the doctor, who came on call, declared him dead. 10. Two neighbours were examined as independent eye witnesses. P.W. 4 Musstt. Safia Khatun @ Sabia Khatun, who was one of them, deposed that on hearing hue and cry, she came to the place of occurrence and found the deceased fell down after dashing against a "Shimalu" tree. The accused persons were present at the place of occurrence. The accused Sahidul, thereafter, took Sabur Uddin to his house but he died. 11. P.W. 5 Musstt. Sahera Khatun deposed in a similar manner corroborating the evidence of P.W. 4. We find the evidence of P.W. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are corroborating each other in material particulars. But two other eye witnesses, PW 7 and 8, neighbours of the deceased, did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. 12. Musstt. Jahura Khatun, P.W. 7 deposed that she was standing on the road and saw the fencing of jute on the boundary between the houses of the accused and the deceased. She saw the deceased Saburuddin quarrelling over the said jute fencing. She saw the deceased Saburuddin giving a kick on the fencing. He moved backward after kicking the wall and hit a "Shimalu" tree and fell down. He was taken home and the doctor declared him dead. In cross examination, she deposed that the deceased Saburuddin "was a sick person for a long time" and for him, his sister-in-law who was a Nurse used to bring saline for him from Dhubri. 13. P.W. 8, Azizul Hoque, also did not support the prosecution case and deposed that he saw the deceased and the accused Saburuddin quarrelling in front of their house. They were quarrelling over the jute fencing. During quarrel, the deceased hit a "Shimalu" tree, whereupon he fell down and was brought home. The doctor declared him dead. The said witness was declared hostile and in cross examination, he stated that both the accused Saburuddin and the deceased returned to their respective houses after the quarrel. He, however, unlike PW-7, stated that the deceased was suffering from some illness. The doctor declared him dead. The said witness was declared hostile and in cross examination, he stated that both the accused Saburuddin and the deceased returned to their respective houses after the quarrel. He, however, unlike PW-7, stated that the deceased was suffering from some illness. The evidence of P.W. 7 and 8 are corroborating each other but their evidence is quite contrary to the evidence of other eye witnesses, P.W. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Shri Unus Ali Mondal, P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 6, Abdul Rajjak (informant), P.W. 9 Keramat Ali, seizure witness, P.W. 10 Md. Sayed Ali, brother of the deceased and P.W. 11, Eunus Ali, scribe of the F.I.R. were not present at the place of occurrence and they are reported witnesses only and as such, it is not necessary to review their evidence. We would like to decide the case on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses, the evidence of the Medical Officer (PW 12) and the postmortem report (Ext. 5). 14. From the above discussion, it is found that there are two sets of eye witnesses in this case. In one set there are 6 witnesses including 2 independent eye witnesses. Four of them are related witnesses and two are independent witnesses being the neighbours. The related eye witnesses have given evidence to the effect that the appellants assaulted the deceased causing grievous injury on his person and immediate death before any treatment could be given to him. In the other set, there are 2 independent eye witnesses. They are also neighbours of the deceased. Their evidence is that the appellants did not assault the deceased. They deposed that while the deceased was quarrelling with the appellants, he kicked the jute fence/wall and hit at a "Shimalu" tree and fell down himself. He was taken home and the attending doctor declared him dead. The aforesaid evidence of both the related eye witnesses and independent eye witnesses should be examined/considered in the light of the evidence of the Medical Officer to test the veracity of their evidence. In Ext. 5, postmortem report, the injuries recorded therein are as follows :- EXTERNAL APPEARANCE A set out male body. Wound position:- Swelling of left side of neck and swelling of abdomen left side with distension. CRANIUS AND SPINAL CANAL:-Healthy. THORAX:-Healthy. In Ext. 5, postmortem report, the injuries recorded therein are as follows :- EXTERNAL APPEARANCE A set out male body. Wound position:- Swelling of left side of neck and swelling of abdomen left side with distension. CRANIUS AND SPINAL CANAL:-Healthy. THORAX:-Healthy. ABDOMEN Walls:- Swelling of the left side of the abdominal wall. Peritoneum:- Full of blood. Small intestine and its contents:- Tear of mesentery and its vessel 2" x " size. Others:- Healthy. MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF INJURY OR DISEASE 1) Swelling of the neck (left side) Size 4" x 3" 2) Swelling of the abdomen (left side) lateral side of the umbilicus. 4" x 3" in size. 3) Huge collection of blood in the peritoneal cavity with tear of mesentery and mesenteric vessels. OPINION In my opinion, death is due to blunt abdominal injury causing intraperitoneal haemorrhage. In cross-examination, the M/O, P.W. 12 testified that there was a rupture of mesentery which may be caused by a sudden simple force or due to sudden fall on a hard substance. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the appellants, who examined and cross examined the M.O. (P.W. 12), during trial, did not put any question to him as to whether all or any of the injuries are grievous or simple in nature. No comments/opinion or confirmation was taken from the M/O, as to which of the injuries are simple and grievous. It was not enquired from the M/O whether any of the above injuries sustained by the deceased was/were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or it is/was so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probabilities, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. For want of specific comment/opinion on this aspect we are facing with difficulty in arriving at a definite finding as to whether any of the bodily injuries sustained by the deceased is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We are, therefore, to look for statutory aid from Section 320 IPC whereunder certain injuries have been designated as grievous which is quoted below:- 320. Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as 'grievous' :- First.-Emasculation. Secondly.-Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly.-Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly.-Privation of any member or joint. Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as 'grievous' :- First.-Emasculation. Secondly.-Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly.-Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly.-Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.-Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly.-Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly.-Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly.-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. 16. To bring the act of the accused within the meaning/definition of culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC, it must be established that death is caused by doing an act with intention of causing death or with intention of such bodily injury, as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely to do such act to cause death. It is to be noted that culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC or under Section 300 IPC does not provide that the injury must be grievous. What is referred to is the 'bodily injury'. It is also not mentioned in those Sections of the Indian Penal Code that the bodily injuries must be caused to vital part of the victim. If the evidence of related eye witnesses is taken into account that the victim was given several blows on his person, particularly, on his chest or abdomen by as many as 3 persons, and so, he is sure to receive serious injuries: although the M.O. has not specified the nature of the injuries. From the PM report it can easily be said/held that the injury No. 1, swelling of left side neck 4" x 3" in size is simple in nature and injury No. 2, swelling of the abdomen (left side) lateral side of the umbilicus, 4" x 3" in size, is also simple in nature. As per the evidence, there is, of course, no dispute on the facts that the victim received the bodily injuries mentioned in the postmortem report and he succumbed to the said injuries. As regards the injury No. 1, the doctor has affirmed in cross examination that it was simple in nature and the injury No. 2 is a "superficial injury". As per the evidence, there is, of course, no dispute on the facts that the victim received the bodily injuries mentioned in the postmortem report and he succumbed to the said injuries. As regards the injury No. 1, the doctor has affirmed in cross examination that it was simple in nature and the injury No. 2 is a "superficial injury". The nature of injuries, in the words of the Medical Officer, as stated in his cross examination is as under :- I have got two superficial injuries. A haematoma under the neck is a simple injury. For rupture of the mesentery injury, it need not require a massive force. Even, a sudden simple force may cause rupture. Such rupture of mesentery can occur due to sudden fall on a hard substance. From the above statement/evidence of the M.O. it is found that the injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 are not grievous in nature. Huge collection of blood was found on the peritoneal cavity with tear of mesentery but as per the evidence of the Medical Officer, it could be caused by simple force or due to sudden fall on a hard substance. 17. On the death of the victim, two views are possible. One view is that the victim received injuries due to assault/blows dealt by the appellants and he succumbed to the injuries he received. This view is born in the evidence of two related witnesses supported by two independent eye witnesses. The other view is that the victim received injuries as he hit at or dashed himself against a standing tree without being assaulted by any body. This view is born in the evidence of PW 7 and 8, two independent eye witnesses; not backed by any other witness. The former view/possibility has been discussed already. The later view/possibility requires some more discussion. This view finds support train the evidence of the Medical Officer only to the extent that the rupture (tear) of mesentery can occur due to sudden fall on a hard substance. If this view is accepted, the benefit would go to the appellants under the principle of law that where two views are possible, one favouring the accused's innocence should be adopted. For this, the Court has to examine if the evidence of two independent eye witnesses (P.W. 7 and 8) is so cogent as to gain confidence of the Court. If this view is accepted, the benefit would go to the appellants under the principle of law that where two views are possible, one favouring the accused's innocence should be adopted. For this, the Court has to examine if the evidence of two independent eye witnesses (P.W. 7 and 8) is so cogent as to gain confidence of the Court. In our view, it is not so, because, as stated earlier, evidence of PWs 7 and 8 is not corroborated or supported by any other witness. Court cannot accept this view disregarding the cogent evidence of PWs 2 and 3 supported by the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. 18. As discussed earlier, as per the evidence of P.W. 7 and 8, the deceased hit at/dashed against a standing tree once only and he fell down. He could not get up again to move and fall or dash against the tree any more. There is no explanation and evidence as to how "Swelling of left side neck" and "Swelling of abdomen left side with distension" occurred/caused to the person of the deceased. Out of single fall against a tree, there may be multiple swellings on different parts of the person. Apart from those swellings, there is a rupture of mesentery which was clarified by the Medical Officer that no massive force is required and it may occur due to sudden fall on a hard substance. But we are far from being convinced that such rupture is possible due to fall of the deceased on the standing tree. The eye witnesses, P.W. 7 and 8 who introduced this story in their evidence, did not state that the deceased hit the standing tree by the abdomen or chest. They have also not stated that the accused hit at the standing tree by his neck either. Amesentery is a fold of the peritoneum which keeps the intestines in place. Looking at the nature of injuries, we are of the view that rupture of menestery was caused by some action of an agent and not by simple fall of the deceased on a hard substance. Amesentery is a fold of the peritoneum which keeps the intestines in place. Looking at the nature of injuries, we are of the view that rupture of menestery was caused by some action of an agent and not by simple fall of the deceased on a hard substance. We cannot replace, nor is it our intention, to substitute the expert opinion by our own; but we want to place on record that the evidence of P.W. 7 and 8 is not corroborated by any other witness, particularly, the independent eye witnesses, P.W. 4 and 5, who were also present at the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident. For want of such corroborated evidence of other witness/witnesses, it is difficult to accept the evidence of P.W. 7 and 8 and hold that the deceased sustained injury due to fall against a standing tree and the appellants did not assault or deal any blow on the person of the deceased. Regarding the illness/ill health of the deceased as deposed by P.W. 7, position is same in as much as it is lacking in corroborated evidence. The defence has led no evidence by examining the sister-in-law of P.W. 7 who reportedly used to arrange saline for deceased on several occasions. There is no corroborated evidence in this regard and as such, the Court cannot accept the evidence of P.W. 7 on the fact of ill health of the deceased. 19. The crucial issue for decision is as to whether the appellants are liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC as held by the learned trial court or under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. For answering this issue it needs recapitulation of the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no dispute that the deceased as well as the appellants were not carrying any weapon; not to speak of any dangerous weapon. The appellants were erecting the boundary fencing and at that time the victim appeared and asked the appellants to remove the fence they erected by encroaching upon his land. The victim even tried to remove the boundary fence. It provoked the appellants greatly. A sudden quarrel took place. It was quite natural that at the heat of the moment, the appellants, 3 in number, challenged the misconduct of the victim and dealt some blows on him. The victim even tried to remove the boundary fence. It provoked the appellants greatly. A sudden quarrel took place. It was quite natural that at the heat of the moment, the appellants, 3 in number, challenged the misconduct of the victim and dealt some blows on him. Evidence on record clearly established that it was the victim himself who provoked the appellants. The prosecution made no attempt to prove that the provocation came from the appellants' side. It also made no attempt to prove that the appellants had pre-plan to attack or assault the deceased as soon as he would appear at the place of occurrence or the appellants had intention to assault and kill him. We are, therefore, of the view that the fight took place most unexpectedly in a sudden quarrel at the provocation of the deceased and there was no premeditation and intention to cause death or fatal injuries to the deceased. Appellants, no doubt, had the full knowledge that the injury inflicted by them was likely to cause death, but it does not constitute an offence of murder within the meaning of section 300 IPC. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, it would amount to culpable homicide within the meaning of Section 299 IPC. In other words the case falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Now we have to find out whether the appellants would be liable to punishment under Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 IPC. 20. We have already held that the prosecution has not been successful in proving existence of clear intention of the appellants to cause death by causing serious injuries to the person of the victim and, therefore, we are clear in mind that the appellants would not be liable to be punished under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. We have also already found and held that the appellants had clear knowledge that the blows and kicks dealt by them on the vital part of the body, between chest and abdomen, would cause death to the victim. We have taken into consideration that Section 304 Pt-I postulates a more serious class of offence requiring the prosecution to prove 'intention' as against the Section 304 PT-II which contemplates a slightly lesser class of offences requiring the prosecution to prove 'knowledge'. We have taken into consideration that Section 304 Pt-I postulates a more serious class of offence requiring the prosecution to prove 'intention' as against the Section 304 PT-II which contemplates a slightly lesser class of offences requiring the prosecution to prove 'knowledge'. In the instant case the appellants, having found to have the knowledge that the injuries caused would cause death to the victim, they would be liable to punishment under section 304 Pt-II of the IPC either for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. What we have seen in the present case is that the appellants, 3 in number, although they had no intention to cause death, severely assaulted the deceased who was alone without any arms while he confronted with the appellants. They could have easily over powered him as he was not carrying any arm and they could have restrained themselves after assaulting him on some non-vital part of the body. By dealing several kicks and blows on the person of the victim, between chest and abdomen, the appellants had shown excessive action which was not warranted at all. Such excessive action in inflicting injuries on the deceased, in our considered view justifies conviction under Section 304 Pt-II IPC with the maximum punishment which extends to 10 years imprisonment with fine. We, therefore, convict the appellants under section 304 PT-II of the IPC. 21. We have read the cases cited by the appellants' counsel on the question of conviction under appropriate sections of the Indian Penal Code in respect of offence of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They are all on settled position of law on conviction and sentence under sections 302 and 304 IPC to be applied to a given case on consideration of facts and circumstances involved and, therefore, it is not necessary to indulge in further discussion on those cases. In this regard, we are, however tempted to refer to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in State of U.P. Vs. Indrajeet; (2000) 7 SCC 249 whereby the judgment of Allahabad High Court converting the trial court's conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Pt-II IPC was upheld holding that non-use of deadly Weapon and absence of intention to kill justifies the conversion. Indrajeet; (2000) 7 SCC 249 whereby the judgment of Allahabad High Court converting the trial court's conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Pt-II IPC was upheld holding that non-use of deadly Weapon and absence of intention to kill justifies the conversion. The accused in the said case was a carpenter who used his "Rakhani", a professional implement, in inflicting two injuries without intention to kill or knowledge that death would be inevitably caused on account of the injury. Without repeating the established fact that in the present case the appellants used no arms, we would like to take note from the evidence on record that appellant No. 3, Sahidul called for a doctor for treatment of the deceased, without fleeing from the place of occurrence. All these, in our considered view, are mitigating circumstances fit for converting the impugned conviction under section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Pt-II IPC with lesser punishment. We have verified from records that the convict-appellants No. 2 and 3 are between the age group of 26 and 30 years. They are in their prime of life and the appellants No. 1 at his old age having attained 60 years, and there being no criminal record against them, we would hold that a lesser punishment than the statutorily prescribed maximum period, could be imposed. The appropriate punishment, in our considered view, would be rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years with fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellants stand convicted under Section 304 Pt-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years with fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three moths. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial court in the judgment and order which is under challenge, stands modified to the extent indicated above. The period of sentence already served by the appellants shall be set off and they shall serve out the rests of the period of sentence awarded by us. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentence. Return the LCRs.