JUDGMENT 1. Appellants viz., (i) Omi @ Ashok s/o. Puranchand, (ii) Deshraj s/o. Surajbhan, (iii) Surajbhan s/o. Mangeram, (iv) Balluram @ Balram s/o. Puranchand, (v) Roshan Lal s/o. Puranchand, (vi) Bhoopsingh s/o. Surajbhan and (vii) Mahesh Chand s/o. Surajbhan, all seven male members of the family, were tried along with Puranchand s/o. Moolaram who had died during the course of trial. Besides above said eight accusedpersons, three ladies of the family, namely Smt. Kaushalya daughter of Moola Ram, Smt. Koyali Devi wife of Puranchand and Smt. Rajbala wife of Ramavtar @ Raju were also sent for the trial. 2. The trial Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 09.08.2005 recorded acquittal of three ladies, namely Smt. Kaushalya Devi, Smt. Koyali Devi and Smt. Rajbala and dropped proceedings against deceased Puranchand s/o. Moola Ram and held present appellants to be guilty of offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Having convicted the appellants, vide its impugned judgment dated 09.08.2005, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track], Behror, Alwar, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:- For commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C., appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment each. For commission of offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C., appellants were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each. For commission of offence under Section 148 I.P.C., appellants were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each. For commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C., appellants were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each. 4. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Mangalram [PW-1] presented a written-complaint [Exhibit-P/1] to Amar Singh Rathore [PW-25] who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Bansur. On the basis of said written-report, formal First Information Report, bearing No.188/2003 [Exhibit-P/2] was registered at Police Station, Bansur, Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently due to death of Sardara Ram, father of complainant (Mangalram), an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was added. 6. On the basis of said written-report, formal First Information Report, bearing No.188/2003 [Exhibit-P/2] was registered at Police Station, Bansur, Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently due to death of Sardara Ram, father of complainant (Mangalram), an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was added. 6. Written-complaint [Exhibit P/1] submitted by complainant Mangalram [PW-1] before the Station House Officer, Amar Singh Rathore [PW-25], when translated into English reads as under:- "To, The Station House Officer, Police Station, Bansur. Sir, It is submitted that today i.e. on 18.06.2003, I had gone to Village Mathuka for purchasing tobacco. On the very same day, i.e. 06:30 in the morning, Puranchand s/o. Moolaram, Roshan, Balram, Omma s/o. Puran, Vikram s/o. Ramu, Surja s/o. Mangu, Bhoop, Deshraj, Mahesh s/o. Surja, Koyali w/o. Puran, Rajbala w/o. Ramu, by caste Aheer, residents of Babriya came with common intention armed with lathies & farsi and illegally started to connect the electric motor with the electricity, Mangtu, Sardara, Veersingh, Jaswant and etc. restrained them from stealing electricity. Then all accused started giving injuries with lathies and farsi. Mangtu s/o. Sardara Ram suffered injury on the right hand, farsi injury on the head and lathi injury on the eye. Injury with farsi was caused on the head of Sardara. Veer Singh s/o. Mangtu suffered farsi injury and lathi blow on the waist. Jaswant s/o. Mangtu also suffered injury with farsi on the head. Rajesh d/o. Mangtu suffered injury with farsi on the head. Vimla w/o. Veer Singh suffered injury on the hand with lathi and on the head with farsi. We have received serious injuries, as we were subjected to murderous assault. When these people were giving beating, on the noise raised, people of nearby vicinity gathered to save my family members, otherwise they would have liquidated us. The above said report be registered. Injuries suffered by us be got medico legally examined and legal action be taken against accused." 7. A perusal of First Information Report reveals that complainant Mangal Ram [PW-1] was not an eye-witness of the occurrence. 8. PW-22 Veer Singh, PW-5 Mangturam, PW-20 Vimla Devi, PW-8 Jaswant and PW-3 Rajbai had suffered injuries in the occurrence and these five injured-witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. 9. A perusal of First Information Report reveals that complainant Mangal Ram [PW-1] was not an eye-witness of the occurrence. 8. PW-22 Veer Singh, PW-5 Mangturam, PW-20 Vimla Devi, PW-8 Jaswant and PW-3 Rajbai had suffered injuries in the occurrence and these five injured-witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. 9. A perusal of First Information Report further reveals that accused have been assigned lathi and farsi as weapons, but no specific weapon has been attributed to any accused and no specific injury has been attributed to any accused. 10. The above said First Information Report was investigated. A report of investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Accused and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. were committed by the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Sessions and case was entrusted for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track], Behror, District Alwar. 11. Mr. Praveen Balwada, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has submitted that besides five injured witnesses, Puranchand [PW-2] Surajbhan [PW-4] were also examined as eye-witnesses. 12. Before we notice statements of eye-witnesses, which include injured witnesses, it will be necessary for us to take note of medical evidence. 13. Sardara Ram, aged about seventy-years had died due to injuries caused to him. An autopsy of deceased Sardara Ram was conducted by Dr. M.K. Gupta [PW-10] and Dr. Phool Chand Choudhary [PW-14] on 18.06.2003 at 04:00 P.M. 14. As per Postmortem Report [Exhibit P/26], deceased Sardara Ram had one lacerated injury on the right parietal region 6x1 cm. upto bone deep. Blood had clotted. After cleaning wound, diffused swelling was found in the area of 10x10 cm. After opening of scalp on both sides of parietal and occipital region haematoma was found. Bone of scalp was also fractured. Left parietal temporal region was having wound. After removing skull bone of both the sides of parietal region, extra-dual haematoma measuring 10x10 cm was found. According to Doctor, who conducted autopsy, cause of death was 'coma' due to injury caused to the brain. Injury was ante-mortem in nature. 15. Dr. R.K. Khatri [PW-9] on 18.06.2003 at 10:50 A.M. examined Smt. Rajbai [PW-3] and found three injuries on her person. Injury No.1 was lacerated wound on the parietal region. Injury No.2 was lacerated wound on occipital bone. Injury No.3 was a complaint of pain of ear. All injuries were declared simple in nature. Injury was ante-mortem in nature. 15. Dr. R.K. Khatri [PW-9] on 18.06.2003 at 10:50 A.M. examined Smt. Rajbai [PW-3] and found three injuries on her person. Injury No.1 was lacerated wound on the parietal region. Injury No.2 was lacerated wound on occipital bone. Injury No.3 was a complaint of pain of ear. All injuries were declared simple in nature. On the same day, i.e. on 18.06.2003 Dr. R.K. Khatri [PW-9] examined Jaswant [PW-8] s/o. Mangtu and found three injuries on his person. Injury No.1 was lacerated wound on the right side of parietal region. Injury No.2 was lacerated wound on occipital bone. Injury No.3 was an abrasion on the right side of chest. All injuries suffered by Jaswant were declared simple in nature. On the same day, at 11:00 A.M. Dr. R.K. Khatri [PW-9] had examined Smt. Vimla Devi [PW-20] wife of Veer Singh and found one lacerated wound and one abrasion. Both the injuries were declared as simple in nature. 16. Dr. Phool Singh Choudhary [PW-14], who as a member of Board had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of deceased Sardara Ram also stated that cause of death of deceased Sardara Ram was 'coma' due to injury caused to the brain. 17. Dr. Phool Singh Choudhary [PW-14] had also examined Mangtu Ram [PW-5]. There were six injuries on his person. Injury Nos.1 and 2 were on the head. Injury No.3 was abrasion on the back side of head. Injury No.4 was contusion suffered on chest. Injury No.5 was blackening of right eye and Injury No.6 was lacerated wound on the right arm. Injury Nos.4 and 6 on the person of Mangtu Ram [PW-5] were declared grievous in nature. Veer Singh [PW-22] had suffered as many as eleven injuries. All injuries were declared simple in nature. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he had also examined Kaushalya daughter of Moola Ram, Vikram Singh s/o. Ramottar, Surajbhan s/o. Mange Ram and Omi @ Ashok s/o. Puran Chand. He had proved Medico Legal Reports of accused-injured as Exhibit D/7, D/8, D/9 and D/10 and opinion of x-ray reports as Exhibit D/11 to D/14 respectively. 18. Dr. Ravi Mathur [PW-23] being radiologist had conducted x-ray of injuries and declared two injuries on the person of Magtu Ram to be grievous in nature. 19. Having noticed medical evidence, qua prosecution witnesses, we will also take brief note of injuries suffered by the accused-party. 20. 18. Dr. Ravi Mathur [PW-23] being radiologist had conducted x-ray of injuries and declared two injuries on the person of Magtu Ram to be grievous in nature. 19. Having noticed medical evidence, qua prosecution witnesses, we will also take brief note of injuries suffered by the accused-party. 20. Smt. Kaushalya Devi daughter of Moola Ram acquitted accused had suffered two injuries. Injury No.1 was lacerated wound on the head on frontal parietal region, whereas Injury No.2 was swelling on the forehead. Radiologist had found linear fracture of parietal bone on the person of Kaushalya Devi. Vikram Singh accused had suffered three injuries. Injury No.1 was lacerated wound on the left parietal region. Injury No.2 was lacerated wound on right parietal region and Injury No.3 was diffuse swelling on the right forearm. No bony injury was found by the Radiologist and all the injuries were declared simple in nature. 21. Surajbhan had suffered four injuries. Injury Nos.1 and 2 were lacerated wounds being swelling on the left side of parietal region. Injury No.3 was abrasion on the right forearm. Injury No.4 was abrasion on the left arm. Radiologist had found no bony injury on the person of Surajbhan and all injuries were declared as simple in nature. 22. Omi @ Ashok had also suffered four injuries. Injury Nos.1 and 2 were lacerated wounds on the right side and left side of forehead respectively. Injury No.3 was abrasion on the right forearm and Injury No.4 was presence of diffused swelling on the left forearm. All injuries on the person of Omi @ Ashok were found to be simple in nature as no bony injury was found on his person. 23. It is to be noted that all injured were examined on 18.06.2003 between 11:00 A.M. to 02:30 P.M. 24. Now it is turn for us to note brief gist of the ocular evidence. 25. Mangalram [PW-1] stated that he was not present at the spot. He learnt that ten months ago at about 6:00/7:00 P.M. a fight had ensued in the field of Sardara Ram. This witness had given name of accused who had participated in the occurrence and further stated that he learnt about the incident from the Villagers. No gain has been made by the defence in the cross-examination of this witness. 26. Puran Chand [PW-2] stated that ten months ago at about 06:00 A.M. he was in his field. This witness had given name of accused who had participated in the occurrence and further stated that he learnt about the incident from the Villagers. No gain has been made by the defence in the cross-examination of this witness. 26. Puran Chand [PW-2] stated that ten months ago at about 06:00 A.M. he was in his field. At that time, Sardara, Mangtu and Veer Singh had restrained Puran Chand from laying electric wire. Upon which Puran, Roshan, Balla, Omma s/o. Puran and Vikram came armed with lathies. They gave beating to Sardara, Mangtu and Jaswant. Besides this, Surja, Deshraj, Bhoop, Mahesh, Kaushalya, Balla and Kohli had also participated in the beating. Sardara was given injury by Balla, Suraja and Puran. Mangtu was beaten by everybody which include Puran, Balla, Omma, Vikram, Bhoop, Surja and Mahesh. Surajbhan gave injury on the right side of Sardara. Balla also caused injury in his head. Vikram also gave injury to Mangtu on the head. Ommi has also given injury to Mangtu. He had also seen injuries caused to Mangtu as he was separating them, who caused injury to Jaswant is not known to him. Balla gave injury to Vimla, name of husband of Balla could not be remembered by the witness. All injuries were given by Kohli. He further stated that he cannot remember as to who caused injury to whom. This witness, in cross-examination stated that when he reached Sardara was lying dead in the fields. He was soaked in blood. Mangtu Ram was also lying fallen in the field of Sardara Ram. He had suffered injury on the head, armpit and hand. Mangtu Ram was lying unconscious on the boundary of the filed of Sardara. Again said it is correct that Sardara was also lying unconscious. This witness stated that Puran Chand had died. He further admitted that on the day of occurrence there was a "shradh" of the mother of Puran. This witness has also attested the site-plan. 27. Injured Rajbai appeared as PW-3. She stated that ten months ago at about 06;00 A.M. beating was given in the field of Sardara. Accused were twelve in number which included Suraj. She gave name of all accused-persons. All were armed with lathies. They caused injury to grand-father Sardara, father Mangtu and brother Veer Singh. She, Jaswant and sister-in-law [bhabhi] Vimla reached later in the fields after hearing noise. Accused were twelve in number which included Suraj. She gave name of all accused-persons. All were armed with lathies. They caused injury to grand-father Sardara, father Mangtu and brother Veer Singh. She, Jaswant and sister-in-law [bhabhi] Vimla reached later in the fields after hearing noise. They were also beating by them. She stated that occurrence had ensued between complainant party and accused and they restrained accused from connecting motor with the electricity. She stated that injury was caused in the head of Sardara, her grand-father. In cross-examination, she denied the fact that accused were also caused injuries. However, she admitted that complainant-party is being tried in a cross case. She admitted that she is also accused in cross-case. 28. Surajbhan s/o Sukhdev [PW-4] another non-injured appeared as eye-witness. He narrated the incident and stated that Suraj had given injury on the right side of head of Sardara with a wood. Balram had also given injury on the head of Sardara and Puran also gave injury on the head. Sardara fell on the ground. In cross-examination, this witness stated that cross case has been forcibly made. In cross-examination, this witness further stated that Suraj gave a first injury to Sardara. 29. Mangtu Ram [PW-5] injured also stated that Suraj had given injury on the head of Sardara. Thereafter, Puran and Balram also gave injury. In cross-examination, this witness stated that Sardara had also received injury on the other portion of the body. 30. Jaswant [PW-8] in his examination-in-chief stated that injury on the head of Sardara was caused by Suraj, Balram and Puran. He admitted that they are being tried in a cross-case for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. However, this witness stated that " geus eqyfte ds dksbZ pksV ugha ns[kh " 31. Vimla Devi [PW-20] stated that Suraj gave injury on the head of Sardara. Sunita Devi [PW-21] also stated that first injury was caused by Suraj on the head of Sardara. Veer Singh [PW-22] stated that Suraj gave first injury to Sardara. Thereafter, Puran gave injury on his head, then Sardara fell down Vikram had given injury with lathi on the person of Mangtu Ram. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that they are facing trial in a cross-case. 32. Veer Singh [PW-22] stated that Suraj gave first injury to Sardara. Thereafter, Puran gave injury on his head, then Sardara fell down Vikram had given injury with lathi on the person of Mangtu Ram. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that they are facing trial in a cross-case. 32. We need not take into notice the evidence of the witnesses, who had participated, qua recovery of weapon from accused, their arrest and also participated in the investigation. 33. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and all incriminating evidence was put to them, they denied the same and pleaded innocence. 34. Appellant No.1, namely Omi @ Ashok stated that they are innocent, they have caused no injury, opposite party came inside their field, they gave injuries to them and to save themselves, complainant party has lodged false report, no recovery was effected from them [accused]. 35. Almost identical plea has been taken by other accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 36. The trial Court relied upon the case of Sriram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in Criminal Law Reporter, 2004 [S.C.] 56 held that it was not necessary for the prosecution to explain injuries on the person of accused. 37. Having perused the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sriram [supra], we find that it was held therein that where accused suffer minor and superficial injuries in the occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries on the person of accused will not affect the prosecution case. 38. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants has drawn our attention to the site-plan [Exhibit P/3] to contend that in the field 'B' which belong to accused Puran [who died during trial], accused were giving connection to their electric motor. Counsel further contended that it is the complainant party who came into field of accused Puran [who died during trial], to restrain them not to connect the motor with the electricity supply. 39. Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant relying upon site-plan [Exhibit P/3] submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the adjoining field which is marked as "A" and this adjoining field belong to Sardara son of Jhutharam and not Sardara deceased whose father's name is Pokharram. 39. Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant relying upon site-plan [Exhibit P/3] submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the adjoining field which is marked as "A" and this adjoining field belong to Sardara son of Jhutharam and not Sardara deceased whose father's name is Pokharram. Counsel further submitted that rather field of Mangtu and his father Sardara is marked as "J". According to counsel for appellant field of deceased was down blow, at a distance, thus, according to learned counsel it was the complainant party, which was aggressor. 40. Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has again drawn our attention to the cross-examination of Investigating Officer [PW-25] Amar Singh Rathore. In site-plan [Exhibit D/22] he had shown place of occurrence marked as "X" which is field of accused. 41. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, as well as, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the entire record of the appeal. 42. All eye witnesses, including injured eye-witnesses have stated in categoric terms that Surajbhan, Puran and Balla had caused injuries with lathi on the head of Sardara Ram, deceased. In the postmortem report, one injury has been found on the person of Sardara Ram. Puran who had allegedly caused injury on the head of Sardara died during the course of trial. 43. Puran Chand s/o. Ghisaram [PW-2], who is an independent witness and whose field, as per site-plan [Exhibit P/3] is next to the filed of accused - Surajbhan s/o. Sukhdev, in the Court has stated as under:- " djhc lk<+s 10 ekg igys lqcg djhc 6 cts dk le; Fkk ml le; eSa vius [ksr dh cksfjax ij FkkA ml le; ljnkjk] ohjflag] us rkj Mkyus ls iwj.k dks euk fd;k vkSj dgk fd fctyh ds rkj Mkyus ls mldh eksVj ugha pyrhA mlh ckr dks ysdj iwj.k] jks'ku] cYyk] vkSek iq= iwj.k] fodze vk;s bu lHkh ds ikl ykfB;ka FkhA bUgksaus ljnkjk] eaxrw o tlcUr ds lkFk ekjihV dhA blds vykok lwjtk] ns'kjkt] Hkwi] egs'k] dkS'kY;k ckyk] dksgyh ds lkFk Hkh ekjihV dhA " 44. It is apparent that it is the complainant party which had restrained accused to connect the wire with their electric motor on the ground that in case electric motor of accused become operational, the electric motor of complainant-party will receive low voltage and their motor will become in operational due to fluctuation of voltage. 45. Necessary inference is that it is complainant party which had gone to restrain accused not to connect the wire with electric motor, and at that juncture a fight had ensued. 46. Dr. Phool Singh Choudhary [PW-14] had proved on record, Exhibit D/7 to Exhibit D/10 Medico Legal Reports of accused and x-ray reports, Exhibit D/11 to Exhibit D/14. Around the same time when injuries of injured witnesses were examined four of the accused, namely, Kaushalya, Vikram, Surajbhan and Ommi @ Ashok were also examined at Civil Hospital, Alwar. All the four accused including acquitted accused had suffered injuries on the parietal region i.e. vital portion of the body and head. Injury No.1 on the person of Kaushalya acquitted accused was declared grievous in nature. It was a linear fracture of the scalp. No explanation has been given by the accused regarding injuries caused to the accused. 47. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 394 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the injuries on the person of accused are not explained, it is to be assumed that prosecution has suppressed genesis and origin of the occurrence and, thus, they have not presented the true version. 48. It is relevant to mention here relevant Paras of the aforesaid judgment:- "This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. The High Court in the pre-sent case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. The High Court in the pre-sent case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1971 decided on April 25, 1975 : which was also a murder case, this Court, while following an earlier case, observed as follows: In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima Criminal Appeal No 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975 : ) one of us (Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court, observed as follows: In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the in juries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were fully justified in causing the death of the deceased and were protected by the right of private defence or that if the prosecution does not explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, which is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case. It seems to us that 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 a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: (1) That the prosecution has sup-pressed 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. 49. In the present case, all the witnesses have stated that they have not caused injuries to the accused and cross-case filed by accused party is false. Therefore, witnesses have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused, therefore, they are not truthful so far most material point is concerned and furthermore, as per case of Lakshmi Singh [supra] their evidence to this effect is to be held unreliable. However, in the present case, in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused have stated that the complainant party had entered into their field, caused them injuries and have falsely implicated present appellants. 50. In the case of Munshi Ram and Others v. Delhi Administration, reported in A.I.R. 1968 (V-55) S.C. 702 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is well settled that even if an accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to the court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. 51. After taking material available on record, we cannot ignore the vital issue. As per the case of the prosecution, it is complainant party, who had restrained the accused from connecting the motor with the electric supply. If the complainant party had any grievance, they could approach any public authority and lodge complaint against the accused. Instead of doing so, complainant party had gone to stop/restrain the accused. The complainant party, however, has not explained the injuries on the person of accused. Thus, they have suppressed genesis and origin of the occurrence. If the complainant party had any grievance, they could approach any public authority and lodge complaint against the accused. Instead of doing so, complainant party had gone to stop/restrain the accused. The complainant party, however, has not explained the injuries on the person of accused. Thus, they have suppressed genesis and origin of the occurrence. A minute look into site-plan [Exhibit P/3], also reveal that the trial Court lost distinguish between the field of Sardara s/o. Jutharam and Sardara deceased s/o. Pokher. 52. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we can safely assume that when the complainant party had gone to restrain accused party, a sudden occurrence had ensued in which both the sides caused injuries to each other.Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. reads as under:- "Exception 4. -- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.-- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault." 53. In Jumman & others v. The State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1957 Supreme Court 469 , in para 24 of the judgement, it was observed that : "...........where a mutaula conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, would it be correct to assume private defence for both sides ? We are of the view that such a situation does not permit of the plea of private defence on either side and would be case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Section 300 Indian Penal Code Exception 4." 54. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Ram Karan and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1982 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 386 . The observations made in para 7 of the judgment may be noticed:- "Taking an over all view of the situation, we find no evidence of any intention to kill the two deceased on the part of the accused because the occurrence itself had taken place suddenly when, to begin with, the entire episode started for the particular purpose of partitioning the land by the Commissioners who had visited the village. In these circumstances we are satisfied that Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code is attracted and the offence of murder would be reduced to culpable homicide." 55. Thus, in the present case, without any premeditation on the spur of the moment parties had come to blows and had caused injuries to each other. 56. It is a settled law that in case of sudden fight, Section 149 I.P.C. cannot be applied and each accused shall be liable for the individual liability i.e. for his own act. 57. In the present case, fatal injury has been caused by Surajbhan on the person of Sardara Ram. Thus, we acquit all accused of offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and convict only Surajbhan accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-Part-I I.P.C. The remaining accused shall be liable to be convicted for their individual role. 58. Injuries suffered by Mangtu Ram [PW-5] fall within the ambit of Section 307 I.P.C. Mangtu Ram appearing as PW-5 had stated that Balluram @ Balram caused injury on the right side of head. Ommi @ Ashok had also given injury with lathi. He further stated that Deshraj had also caused injury by giving lathi blow on his head. Therefore, according to us, Balluram, Ommi @ Ashok and Deshraj only shall be individually liable for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and other accused are acquitted of offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. 59. As a result of above discussions, we acquit Surajbhan also of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and hold appellant Surajbhan guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven-years and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. However, we acquit remaining six appellants, namely Omi @ Ashok, Deshraj, Balluram @ Balram, Roshan Lal, Bhoop Singh and Mahesh Chand for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/149 I.P.C. 60. Appellants - Balluram @ Balram, Omi @ Ashok and Deshraj are held individually liable for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and remaining appellants, namely Surajbhan, Roshan Lal, Bhoop Singh and Mahesh Chand are acquitted of offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 61. Appellants - Balluram @ Balram, Omi @ Ashok and Deshraj are held individually liable for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and remaining appellants, namely Surajbhan, Roshan Lal, Bhoop Singh and Mahesh Chand are acquitted of offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 61. However, we reduce the period of seven-years sentence awarded under Section 307 I.P.C. upon appellants Balluram, Omi @ Ashok and Deshraj to four-years Rigorous Imprisonment. However, we enhance fine to Rs. 10,000/- and order that in default thereof, appellants, Balluram @ Balram, Omi @ Ashok and Deshraj shall undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 62. Conviction of all the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. is maintained substantively by setting aside application of Section 149 I.P.C., qua each of the appellant. Their conviction and sentence under Section 148 I.P.C. is set aside. 63. With the above modification in the offences and sentence, the present appeal is disposed of.Appeal disposed of. *******