Judgment : 1. These appeals are filed by the convicted accused seeking their acquittal. The accused-appellants herein are tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC apart from other offences and are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay certain amount of fine with default clause. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Shankaragouda and the accused were friends; all of them are from the same village, viz., Harlapur; the accused as well as deceased Shankaragouda together left their village Harlapur to go to Lakkundi; after reaching Lakkundi, they consumed liquor in a liquor shop and thereafter they came to Parashuram Hotel for having lunch; before having the lunch in the said hotel, all the accused started quarrelling with the deceased Shankaragouda pressurizing him to get them some more liquor; it is relevant to note that the deceased Sankaragouda himself had spent the amount for purchase of liquor at a different place and deceased had brought the accused to hotel for having lunch; the accused were feeling that the liquor consumed by them is not sufficient and therefore they demanded the deceased to get some more liquor for them and in that regard there was an altercation and ultimately accused No.1 slapped on the cheeks of the deceased; all the accused grappled the deceased and pushed him to the ground, consequent upon the deceased fell on the ground and lost his life on the spot. 3. The cousin of the deceased viz., Bhimanagouda (PW.13) came to know about the incident and saw the dead body of the deceased lying outside Parashuram Hotel. He went to the house of the deceased and informed the brother of the deceased (PW.4) who in turn came and saw the dead body and lodged the first information before Gadag Rural Police Station at about 6.45 p.m. on 17.12.2000. The police after investigation laid the charge sheet against all the five accused. As aforementioned, the accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 302, 540, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 18 witnesses and got marked 11 Exhibits and 6 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined. The trial Court on evaluation of the material on record convicted all the accused for the aforesaid offences. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 18 witnesses and got marked 11 Exhibits and 6 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined. The trial Court on evaluation of the material on record convicted all the accused for the aforesaid offences. 5. Criminal Appeal No.2920/2012 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 3; Criminal Appeal No.2918/2011 is filed by accused No.2; Criminal Appeal No. 2521/2012 is filed by accused No.5 and Criminal Appeal No.100216/2014 is filed by accused No.4. All the appeals are taken up together for final hearing. 6. Sri K.L.Patil and Hanumareddy, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants herein have taken us through the material on record, including the judgment of the Court below. According to them, none of the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution except PWs.12 and 15; the owners of Parashuram Hotel have not supported the case of the prosecution; they have deposed only about the presence of the accused with the deceased and they have not deposed about the overt acts of the accused; the evidence of PWs.12 and 15 cannot be believed, inasmuch as they are got up witnesses; evidence of the doctor-PW.6, coupled with the postmortem report at Ex.P4 clearly reveals that the death is not due to assault by the accused, but it was due to excess consumption of alcohol; as per the postmortem report, the death is due to falling on the ground by the deceased after consuming the liquor in excess; thus according to them, the trial Court is not justified in convicting the accused. Per contra, Sri V.M.Bankar, learned Additional SPP argued in support of the judgment of the Court below by contending that the evidence of PWs.12 and 15 is itself sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused. The evidence of the doctor-PW.6 who conducted postmortem, coupled with the postmortem report fully supports the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as the medical evidence shows that the deceased had sustained fracture of parietal bone. 7. PWs.1 and 2 are the owners of Parashuram Hotel wherein accused and the deceased quarreled with each other while they having lunch; both of these witnesses have partly supported the case of the prosecution; PW.3 is the wife and PW.4 is the brother of the deceased. 7. PWs.1 and 2 are the owners of Parashuram Hotel wherein accused and the deceased quarreled with each other while they having lunch; both of these witnesses have partly supported the case of the prosecution; PW.3 is the wife and PW.4 is the brother of the deceased. Both of them are not eye witnesses to the incident in question. Among them, PW.4 lodged first information report before Gadag Rural Police Station, based on which Crime No.199/2007 came to be registered; PW.5 is the Police Constable, who carried the dead body for postmortem examination and after postmortem examination he handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased; PW.6 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body. Ex.P4 is the postmortem report; PW.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded the complaint of PW.4 as per Ex.P3. He sent FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P5. Crime No.199/2007 came to be registered by him in Gadag Rural Police Station and he conducted part of investigation; PW.8 is the Police Constable who carried viscera to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination; PW.9 is the witness for inquest mahazar and spot mahazar as per Ex.P6 and P7 respectively; PWs.10 and 11 are the witnesses for seizure panchanama relating to seizure of clothes of the deceased as per Ex.P8; PW.12 is the eye witness who supported the case of the prosecution; PW.13 is the cousin of the deceased who came to the spot subsequent to the incident in question and later informed about the lying of the dead body in front of Parashuram Hotel, to PW.4; PW.14 is another eye witness, who turned hostile; PW.15 being the eye witness supported the case of the prosecution; PW.16 is the Inspector of Police who investigated the case and laid the charge sheet; PW.17 is the eye witness who also turned hostile; PW.18 is the Police Constable who carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 8. Case of the prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 12 and 15 and the evidence of the doctor-PW.6. Before proceeding further it is beneficial to note the evidence of the doctor-PW6 and the postmortem report. The evidence of the doctor-PW6 discloses that the deceased had consumed alcohol and he had suffered brain hemorrhage. There was a bleeding from his nose and mouth. Before proceeding further it is beneficial to note the evidence of the doctor-PW6 and the postmortem report. The evidence of the doctor-PW6 discloses that the deceased had consumed alcohol and he had suffered brain hemorrhage. There was a bleeding from his nose and mouth. He had suffered fracture of parietal bones both left side as well as right side. The doctor has given the report as per Ex.P4. In the postmortem report at Ex.P4, he has opined that even if a person is thrown to the ground forcibly, the injuries as found in the postmortem report may be caused. In the cross-examination, PW.6 has deposed that the injuries as found in Ex.P4 can be caused due to excess consumption of alcohol. He has however admitted that there can be bleeding even if there is excess consumption of alcohol. 9. Postmortem report at Ex.P4 is issued after getting the opinion of the Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. After getting the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination has opined that the cause of death is due to shock as a result of brain hemorrhage. He has also opined that the deceased had consumed alcohol. As aforementioned, it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused including the deceased had consumed liquor and thereafter they went for having lunch. Even at the time of having lunch, it seems there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased in respect of demanding higher quantity of alcohol. Thus, it is clear that all the accused as well as deceased had consumed liquor heavily during the relevant time. 10. PWs.1 and 2 are the owners of Parashuram Hotel, where the accused and the deceased had gone to have lunch. Both these witnesses have deposed that the accused and the deceased had come to the said hotel at about 3.30 p.m. for having lunch. After taking the lunch, all the accused started pressurizing the deceased Shankaragouda to get them some more alcohol. Thereafter all the accused and the deceased came out of the hotel; accused No.1 pulled the deceased by pressurizing him to get him some more quantity of alcohol. PWs.1 and 2 identified accused No.1 in the Court. However, these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to other overt acts of the accused. Thereafter all the accused and the deceased came out of the hotel; accused No.1 pulled the deceased by pressurizing him to get him some more quantity of alcohol. PWs.1 and 2 identified accused No.1 in the Court. However, these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to other overt acts of the accused. They have not deposed that all the accused grappled the accused and pushed him down. Be that as it may, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly reveals that all the accused and the deceased came to Parashuram Hotel for having lunch and after taking lunch quarrel commenced between them in the matter of getting some more quantity of liquor. 11. The important witnesses in this case are PWs.12 and 15 who are the eye witnesses and have supported the case of the prosecution. PW.12 is the owner of neighbouring shop who has witnessed the incident. He has deposed that all the accused started quarrelling with the deceased in the adjoining shop and all of them grappled the deceased and pushed him to the ground. Immediately thereafter, the victim expired. Though he was cross-examined to certain extent, nothing worth is elicited in his cross-examination so as to discard his evidence. His evidence is supported by the evidence of PW.15, another eye witness. His evidence is also on par with the evidence of PW.12. PW.15 has also deposed that as on the date, he was the member of Gram Panchayat, Lakkundi and he was taking lunch at Parashuram Hotel at the relevant point of time. He has also deposed that all the accused had consumed liquor while they were having lunch in Prashuram Hotel and all the accused dragged the deceased outside from the hotel; thereafter all the accused threw the deceased on the ground by lifting him. Consequently, the deceased died because of injuries sustained to his head. Even the motive is spoken to by PW.12 in respect of the accused pressurizing him to get more quantity of liquor. Since the deceased was pleading his helplessness because of lack of funds, accused grappled him and pushed him on the ground. 12. The incident has taken place at the distance of about 3 to 6 feet in front of Parashuram Hotel. The deceased was dragged outside the hotel and thereafter he was pushed to the ground. 13. Since the deceased was pleading his helplessness because of lack of funds, accused grappled him and pushed him on the ground. 12. The incident has taken place at the distance of about 3 to 6 feet in front of Parashuram Hotel. The deceased was dragged outside the hotel and thereafter he was pushed to the ground. 13. We do not find any ground to discard the evidence of PWs.12 and 15. Their evidence is natural and their presence is also natural. There is no animosity between themselves and the accused. Nothing is brought out in their cross-examination so as to discard their evidence. Evidence of PWs.12 and 15 is supported to certain extent by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. The medical evidence fully supports the case of the prosecution that the deceased has sustained fracture of parietal bone. It is also relevant to note that the postmortem report discloses that there was a bleeding through nose and mouth of the deceased. Therefore, the death has occurred due to overt acts of the accused. 14. As aforementioned, material on record reveals that all the accused as well as the deceased were friends and they came together to consume liquor and thereafter they started quarrelling with the deceased for getting more quantity of liquor. Thus, the entire incident has occurred without there being any intention on the part of the accused for committing the murder of the deceased. The incident has taken in a spur of moment and in a heat of passion. Absolutely no intention can be gathered on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. The accused must have pulled the deceased and grappled him in order to get the money from the deceased for consuming more quantity of liquor and in that regard the deceased who had also consumed liquor must have fallen down, may be because of the force used by the accused. In this view of the matter, Exception 4 (Four) to Section 300 of IPC may be pressed into service. As aforementioned, all accused had consumed excess quantity of liquor and therefore in an inebriated mood they must have pushed the deceased to the ground. Unfortunately, the deceased sustained fracture on his head and lost his life on the spot. Therefore, the offence squarely falls under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 15. As aforementioned, all accused had consumed excess quantity of liquor and therefore in an inebriated mood they must have pushed the deceased to the ground. Unfortunately, the deceased sustained fracture on his head and lost his life on the spot. Therefore, the offence squarely falls under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 15. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the accused on the question of sentence. According to them all the accused are innocent; they were already in custody for 3½ years and the time already spent in the jail itself is sufficient punishment. The said submission is opposed by the learned Additional SPP. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, interest of justice will be met if the accused are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Accordingly, the following order is made:- i) The judgment and order of conviction dated 30.9.2011 convicting the accused-appellants herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 stands set aside. ii) The accused-appellants herein are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. They are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees ten thousand only). In default of payment of the aforesaid fine amount by the accused, each of the accused shall undergo imprisonment of further period of two years. iii) In case of recovery of the fine, the entire fine amount shall be paid to the wife of the deceased, namely Smt. Mangalavva Goudar (PW.3), as compensation. iv) The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be given set off. Appeals are partly allowed.