JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th April, 2013 of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri passed in Sessions Case No.30 of 2006 [State of Assam v. Soleman Ali (Hussain) & Ors.]. By the said judgment, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and also under Sections 323/34 IPC. Upon such conviction, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), each, under Sections 302/34 IPC and in default, simple imprisonment for another 1(one) month, each. As regards the conviction under Sections 323/34 IPC, they have been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), each, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15(fifteen) days. 2. Bilasipara Police Station Case No.220/2003 was registered under Sections 148/149/447/341/325 IPC on the basis of the Exhibit-1 FIR dated 4th December, 2003 lodged by one Shahidur Rahman (PW-1) on 4th December, 2003. The story narrated in the FIR was that the accused No.1 named in the FIR had sold 1 Bighas of land described in the schedule to the informant's paternal uncle, Md. Abdul Hamid, by executing a registered sale deed upon taking due verification of the land. The injured persons including the informant are in possession of the land for more than 25(twenty-five) years. On 4th December, 2003, at about 7:30 AM, the accused No.1 in connivance with rest of the accused persons named in the FIR, armed with sharp weapons like knife, dagger, axe, spear, pointed lathis etc. trespassed upon the said land in furtherance of their common intention of killing the brother of the informant Ali Akbar, who had been tilling the land at that time. They surrounded Ali Akbar and Abdul Hamid from all sides and launched virulent attacks on them causing grievous injuries in various parts of their persons. As they were tried to be taken to the Hospital for treatment, the accused persons attacked the brothers and nephew of the informant and caused them grievous injuries. The accused persons named in the FIR are as follows:- "1. Kobad Hussain, Mohuri, S/o Late Sonaullah. 2. Soleman Ali, S/o Kobat Hussain. 3. Sanowar Hussain, S/o do. 4. Monowar Hussain, S/o do. 5. Sohrab Ali, S/o Lt. Moychand Munshi. 6. Barek Ali, S/o Lt. Tayeb Ali. 7. Saddar Ali, S/o do. All are R/o Hatipota Pt. I." 3. The accused persons named in the FIR are as follows:- "1. Kobad Hussain, Mohuri, S/o Late Sonaullah. 2. Soleman Ali, S/o Kobat Hussain. 3. Sanowar Hussain, S/o do. 4. Monowar Hussain, S/o do. 5. Sohrab Ali, S/o Lt. Moychand Munshi. 6. Barek Ali, S/o Lt. Tayeb Ali. 7. Saddar Ali, S/o do. All are R/o Hatipota Pt. I." 3. Out of the aforesaid 7(seven) accused persons, the accused No.1 died during trial. It is the accused Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5, who have been convicted by the impugned judgment and they have preferred the instant appeal. 4. On conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 447/341/323/302 IPC. It appears that charges under Sections 447/34; 323/34; 324/34; 302/34 IPC were framed against them and were read over, explained and interpreted to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, trial started. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined 13(thirteen) witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded. The learned trial Court appreciating the evidence on record and raising the point for determination as to whether evidences surfaced during trial would justify the conviction of the accused persons under the offence charged off, having answered the same against the accused/appellants, as aforesaid, they have preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused/appellants. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. We have also considered the entire evidence on record including the records received from the learned trial Court. 7. It will be pertinent to mention here that the accused/appellants have also preferred another appeal being Criminal Appeal No.175/2013 against the judgment of acquittal dated 17th April, 2013 of the same learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri passed in Sessions Case No.102/2006. The said case emanated out of the same incident on the basis of another FIR lodged by the accused/appellant No.2 on the same day, i.e. 4th December, 2003. This appeal has also been heard after hearing of the present appeal. 8. Referring to the evidence and placing reliance on the following decisions, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel representing the accused/ appellants submitted that possession of the land was a relevant issue, which the learned trial Court failed to appreciate. This appeal has also been heard after hearing of the present appeal. 8. Referring to the evidence and placing reliance on the following decisions, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel representing the accused/ appellants submitted that possession of the land was a relevant issue, which the learned trial Court failed to appreciate. He also submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence relating to the right of private defence of the accused/ appellants. According to him, there being no explanation to the injuries sustained by the accused/appellants and others in respect of the same incident, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. 1. Ram Ekbal Rai & Ors. v. Jaldhari Pandey, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 841 . 2. State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup & Anr., reported in (1974) 4 SCC 764 . 3. Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 30 . 4. The State of Assam v. Abdul Jalil & Ors., reported in 1977 CRI.L.J. (NOC) 227 (GAU). 5. Lakshmi Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 . 6. Ram Lakhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1977) 3 SCC 268 . 9. Countering the above arguments, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, submitted that the learned trial Court having appreciated the evidences on record in its true perspective, no interference is called for in respect of the findings arrived at on the basis of such appreciation. She submitted that the accused/appellants could not have committed the offence in the garb of exercising the right of private defence. As regards the dispute relating to the possession, she submitted that even if there was any dispute, the same did not cloth the accused/ appellants to commit the crime in furtherance of a common intention. She has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Puran Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in (1975) 4 SCC 518 . 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in reference to the evidences on record and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. Our appreciation of the evidences, findings and conclusions are as follows. 11. v. State of Punjab reported in (1975) 4 SCC 518 . 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in reference to the evidences on record and the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. Our appreciation of the evidences, findings and conclusions are as follows. 11. PW-1 is the informant, who in his deposition narrating the incident took place on 4th December, 2003 at about 7:30 AM, stated that his brother Kobad Hussain had purchased the land in question about 20/25 years back and since then had been possessing the same. On the day of the incident, Abdul Hamid and his son Ali Akbar went to plough the said land, but the accused persons armed with lathi, dagger etc. gherawed and assaulted them. He was standing in a nearby shop. Hearing the cries, other witnesses came to the place of occurrence. They could see Ali Akbar lying on the ground and Kobad Hussain asking to assault them also. Then the accused persons also assaulted Sorhab, Sultan Mazid and Motin. Thereafter, the injured persons were shifted to the police station from where they along with Ali Akbar were shifted to Hospital. According to this witness, Ali Akbar sustained injuries on his head and so also Sultan Ali. Abdul Motin and Mazid Ali sustained injuries on their back. Motin sustained injuries on his left hand. Remaining injured also sustained injuries on their back. Ali Akbar was referred to Guwahati for treatment where he expired. 12. PW-2, Mazid Ali Sheikh, who is the elder brother of the deceased Ali Akbar, narrating the incident stated that the occurrence took place about 3(three) years back and it was in the morning time. In tune with what the PW-12 had stated, he also stated that Abdul Hamid and Ali Akbar had gone to plough the land of their father. At about 7:30 AM, the accused persons came to the field and assaulted them. First of all Manowar assaulted Ali Akbar by means of wooden batam on his head and he fell down. Hearing the shouts, Sahidur Rahman, Sultan and Motiur came to the aid of Ali Akbar. Just as they tried to take Ali Akbar from the place of occurrence, Soleman, Sanowar and Manowar assaulted Sultan, Motior and also PW-2, as per the direction of Sorhab. Hearing the shouts, Sahidur Rahman, Sultan and Motiur came to the aid of Ali Akbar. Just as they tried to take Ali Akbar from the place of occurrence, Soleman, Sanowar and Manowar assaulted Sultan, Motior and also PW-2, as per the direction of Sorhab. All of them sustained injuries and were treated at Bilasipara hospital, wherefrom they were taken to Dhubri Civil Hospital. Ali Akbar was sent to Guwahati, where he died. 13. PW-3, Abdul Motin also stated about the occurrence that took place on the day of the incident at about 7:30 AM. He was in the nearby shop. Abdul Hamid and Ali Akbar had gone to plough their land, which they had purchased about 25 years back. He also described the land particulars. According to him, when Ali Akbar and his father were ploughing, the accused persons came with dagger, stick, wooden batam etc. and gherawed them and assaulted. Ali Akbar was hit on his head by way of a wooden batam and he fell down on the ground. He then along with Sultan, Mezer Ali and Sahidur rushed to the place of occurrence. Manowar hit Ali Akbar on the head by means of a wooden batam. He fell down and became unconscious. This witness had also stated about the assault perpetrated on the injured and as to how they were treated at Bilasipara Hospital. He further stated that Ali Akbar was taken to Guwahati, where he died. 14. PWs-4, 5 & 6 in their depositions narrated the same story. PW-7 in his deposition stated that he along with his son, Ali Akbar, was ploughing his land on the fateful day, but the accused persons came and obstructed them. They assaulted them with lathi, as a consequence of which Ali Akbar fell down. He also sustained injuries along with Majer and Sultan. Ali Akbar war shifted to Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. PW-8 in his deposition stated that on the day of the incident, Kobad Ali was ploughing his land then the accused persons came there and obstructed him from ploughing and thereafter, quarrel started followed by Marpit, as a result of which Ali Akbar sustained injuries. Although he was shifted to Guwahati for treatment but he died. 15. PW-9 is the Doctor, who had examined Ali Akbar. Although he was shifted to Guwahati for treatment but he died. 15. PW-9 is the Doctor, who had examined Ali Akbar. He in his deposition stated as to how he had given medicines and all other emergency care for survival of Ali Akbar, but he died. Accordingly, he issued the Exhibit-2 certificate. According to him, the cause of death of the patient was severe head injury. PW-10 is the S.I. of Police, who in his deposition stated about receiving the FIR by the Officer-in-Charge of Bilasipara Police Station. Thereafter, he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He went to Bilasipara Hospital, where he recorded the statements of the injured persons. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map (Exhibit-3). He also took the statement of the witnesses at the place of occurrence and thereafter, searched for the accused persons for arrest but could not find them. He also examined the injured Abdul Hamid, Sultan Ali, Majom Ali and Nowsad Ali. 16. PW-11 is the Officer-in-Charge of Bilasipara Police Station. On being handed over the C.D. by the previous Investigating Officer, he took up the investigation of the case. He in his deposition stated about the investigation that was carried out, during which he had collected the post mortem report (Exhibit-4). On completion of the investigation, he submitted the Exhibit-5 charge-sheet. PW-12 was posted as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Science, Guwahati Medical College & Hospital on 6th February, 2003. He performed the post mortem on the dead body of Ali Akbar and found the following injuries:- "Surgical wound present left side of the scalp over the parietal region 4 c.m X 1 C.m. Bone deep. 4 Nos of stitches on the aforesaid injuries. Scalp contusion present on the left side of the scalp. Subdural haemorrhage is present both side of the homespun. Death was due to the coma resulting from the head injury as described and injuries were ante mortem in nature and caused by blunt force impact. Ext-4 is the xerox copy of the postmortem report which was authenticated by him vide Ext-4(1). Ext-4(1) is his signature under objection as it is a xerox copy." 17. PW-13 is another Doctor, who in his deposition stated thus:- "On 04-12-2003 I was working as Medical & Health Officer-I, Bilasipara S.H.C. 1. On that day I examined Ali Akbar Ahmed. Ext-4 is the xerox copy of the postmortem report which was authenticated by him vide Ext-4(1). Ext-4(1) is his signature under objection as it is a xerox copy." 17. PW-13 is another Doctor, who in his deposition stated thus:- "On 04-12-2003 I was working as Medical & Health Officer-I, Bilasipara S.H.C. 1. On that day I examined Ali Akbar Ahmed. Male, aged 32 years, S/o. Md. Abdul Hamid of village Hatipota, Pt-I under Bilasipara P.S. and found the followings: 1. The patient was found in stuporus condition. 2. One skull injury of sized 2" X " scalp depth with swelling with humatoma over right lateral aspect of the right eye. 3. The both pubib are found dilatrary. The patient was referred to Dhubri for further evaluation and treatment. I did not find about the nature of injuries nor did I find about the weapons which caused the aforesaid injuries. 2. On that day I also examined one Mr. Mazar Ali, aged 40 years S/o. Md. Abdul Hamid of village Hatipota, Pt-I under Bilasipara P.S. and found the following. 1. Multiple linear swelling with ecchmosis over back. 2. One swelling over dorsal aspect of let forum. 3. One cut injury over left forearm on the dorsal aspect size was " X " SBE. The type of injury is simple and caused by blunt object and also injuries are fresh in nature. 3. On that day I also examined one Sultan Ali Ahmed, Male 30 years, S/o. Md. Abdul Hakim of village Hatipota under Bilasipara P.S. and found the following: 1. One cut injury left side over forehead. Size 1" X ". 2. One abrasion over left lateral aspect of forum. Nature of injuries is simple caused by blunt weapon and fresh in nature. 4. Also I examined on that day one Md. Abdul Hamid, Male-86 years S/o. Lt. Kaysatulla Munshi of village Hatipota under Bilasipara P.S. and found the following: 1. One swelling over left deltoid area. Nature of injuries is simple and weapon used was blunt object. 5. Also I examined one Md. Abdul Matin, 28 years S/o. Md. Wbdul Barek of village Hatipota under Bilasipara P.S. and found the following injuries: 1. One swelling over right deltoid area. Nature of injuries is simple and weapon used was blunt object. Ext-6 is the report prepared by myself in regard to the aforesaid injuries wherein Ext-6(1) is my signature." 18. Abdul Matin, 28 years S/o. Md. Wbdul Barek of village Hatipota under Bilasipara P.S. and found the following injuries: 1. One swelling over right deltoid area. Nature of injuries is simple and weapon used was blunt object. Ext-6 is the report prepared by myself in regard to the aforesaid injuries wherein Ext-6(1) is my signature." 18. It is on the basis of the above evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellants with the sentence, as aforesaid. The defence side did not adduce any evidence. However, in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, they denied their involvement in the offence and claimed to be innocent. 19. Referring to the evidence on record, more particularly, the depositions of the PWs-6, 7 & 8, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that these witnesses categorically admitted in their depositions that there was an alteration between the 2(two) groups because of the claim and counter claim in respect of possession of the land. PW-6 in his deposition stated that in course of the fight, members of both the groups had sustained injuries. He also stated that number of cases have been pending between the parties. PW-7 in his cross-examination stated that he was called when there was commotion in the land. PW-8 in his deposition stated that when Ali Akbar had been ploughing the land, accused persons asked them not to do and the same lead to a quarrel followed by a fight. 20. Admittedly, there was number of civil litigations in respect of the suit land between Kobad and Hamid. It is in this context, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident occurred in view of the dispute over the land and the resistance put by both the groups. According to him, the accused had only exercised their right of private defence without exceeding the limit. The learned trial Court scanning the evidence on record rightly recorded the following circumstances, which surfaced at the trial:- "1. It is an admitted fact that land dispute had continued between Abdul Hamid and Kobad Hussain in respect of the suit land and both party had claimed the ownership as well as possession over the suit land. A number of civil litigation had taken place in respect of suit land and as to the ownership and possession. 2. It is an admitted fact that land dispute had continued between Abdul Hamid and Kobad Hussain in respect of the suit land and both party had claimed the ownership as well as possession over the suit land. A number of civil litigation had taken place in respect of suit land and as to the ownership and possession. 2. On the date of incident Ali Akbar (since deceased) went to the suit land and started to plough. It is evident that seeing Ali Akbar, accused persons named above armed with dangerous weapons came to the suit land and resisted Ali Akbar. Ali Akbar sustained injuries and seeing it and hearing hue and cry, Hamid and the injured persons namely Mojer Ali, Sultan Ali and Abdul Motin came to the place of occurrence. Accused persons also attacked them and caused the simple injuries. 3. Deceased Ali Akbar sustained skull injury over volt of the scalp and it is clear from the evidences on record that the same was caused by a blunt object. 4. Since the civil litigation had continued between the parties in respect of the land of the place of occurrence, accused persons with an intent to protect the properties from the hands of informant, went to the place of occurrence. But at that time they were armed with some dangerous weapon. There are no materials to show that at that time either deceased Ali Akbar and other injured persons were armed with any dangerous weapon. 5. From the evidence and attending circumstance surfaced during trial an inference can be drawn that accused persons armed with dangerous weapon and with an intent to resist the deceased from ploughing the suit land had gone and started to assault the deceased and other injured persons wherein deceased sustained fatal injuries on his head. It is not evident that all the accused persons had caused fatal injuries on the head of Ali Akbar. But it is evident that the accused persons joined actively in the assault on the head of deceased. Therefore, from the aforesaid circumstances, common intention of the accused persons in causing fatal injuries on the head of deceased can be gathered. 6. Since the plea of right of private defence is pleaded in this case in favour of the accused persons during arguments as such participation of every accused in the incident is implied. 7. Therefore, from the aforesaid circumstances, common intention of the accused persons in causing fatal injuries on the head of deceased can be gathered. 6. Since the plea of right of private defence is pleaded in this case in favour of the accused persons during arguments as such participation of every accused in the incident is implied. 7. It is evident during trial that persons namely Mazer Ali, Abdul Hamid, Sultan Ali & Abdul Matin had also sustained simple injuries and the same was caused by object." 21. As discussed in the impugned judgment of conviction and also from the tenor of the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the question for determination is as to whether the accused persons had exceeded their right of private defence, which was available to them to protect their person and property, which resulted in the incident. At this stage, the decision on which Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the appellants has placed reliance, may also referred to. 22. In Ram Ekbal Rai (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with the incident arising out of possession over a plot of land and the bonafide belief of the appellants that they were entitled to the possession of the same and consequently there was no question of their having trespassed into the said land or forming an unlawful assembly for committing the theft of the standing crops therein. In Ram Swarup (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that even if the accused did not plead that he had acted in self defence and yet the Court might find from the evidence that it was a case of right of private defence or that the offence got mitigated because of the right of private defence. 23. In Mohinder Pal Jolly (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with causing death by exceeding the right of private defence of body or property. It was held that the onus is on the accused to establish this right not on the basis of the standard of proving it beyond doubt but on the theory of preponderance of probability. He might or might not take this plea explicitly but he can succeed in his plea if he is able to bring out materials in the records of the case on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He might or might not take this plea explicitly but he can succeed in his plea if he is able to bring out materials in the records of the case on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It was held that the right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. 24. The decision in Abdul Jalil (supra), referred to in reference to the above referred appeal preferred by the accused/appellants against the judgment of acquittal in respect of the accused persons involved in the other appeal, namely, Criminal Appeal No.175/2013. It was held that in such a situation, the Court is to appreciate the totality of the circumstances. In Lakshmi Singh (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the injuries sustained by the accused ought to have been explained by the prosecution. 25. In Ram Lakhan Singh (supra), noticing the admitted enmity between the accused and the deceased's family, it was held by the Apex Court that it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to examine the witnesses, who were at the place of occurrence. 26. The principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgment are well established and need no repetition. It also needs no repetition that the ratio of any decision will have to be understood and appreciated in the background of fact situation of each case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically fallows from it. 27. Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code provides that every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; and also the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. Section 99 deals with acts against which there is no right of private defence. Section 99 deals with acts against which there is no right of private defence. There is no right of private defence against an act, which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is also no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is also no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. 28. Section 99 further provides the extent to which the right of private defence may be exercised. The said right in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. In the instant case, as the evidence would reveal on the date of the incident, deceased Ali Akbar had gone to the suit land and started to plough. Accused/appellants also went to the place of occurrence armed with weapons. While it is true that there was dispute relating to the possession of the land and each party wanted to assert their right over the same, but to say that the right of private defence in respect of the property was exercised is one thing and to exceed the same while exercising the said right. There was no necessity for the accused/appellants to go to the place of occurrence armed with weapons if their only intention was to exercise their right of private defence in respect of the property in question. As held by the Apex Court in Puran Singh (supra), to exercise the right of private defence to property, the trespasser must be in settled possession. 29. Irrespective of the above position, it will also have to be borne in mind in reference to the evidence of PWs-6, 7 & 8, discussed above, that there was commotion when the ploughing took place. As deposed by PW-6, there was altercation between the two groups. 29. Irrespective of the above position, it will also have to be borne in mind in reference to the evidence of PWs-6, 7 & 8, discussed above, that there was commotion when the ploughing took place. As deposed by PW-6, there was altercation between the two groups. In cross-examination, this witness categorically stated that in course of the fight, members of both the groups had sustained injuries. PW-8 in his deposition stated that the accused/appellants had asked the injured not to plough the land, which led to a quarrel followed by a fight. 30. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said to be a case squarely falling under the definition of "murder" under Section 300 IPC, rather it would be a case falling under Exception-4 under which 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. In the instant case, the accused/ appellants went to the place of occurrence and indulged in the act of assaulting the injured persons including the deceased with the fatal blow on him with the knowledge that the same was likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. There is no evidence to show that there was any premeditation to indulge in the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Everything happened over the dispute relating to possession of the land. It will also have to be considered that while others sustained injuries, unfortunately the deceased sustained the fatal injury on his head. As per the evidence of PWs-12 & 13, there was only one injury on the head of the deceased. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the offence committed by the accused/appellants comes under the purview of Section 304 Part-II IPC and accordingly they shall stand convicted under the said Section. 31. Once the accused/appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC in modification of their conviction under Section 302 IPC by the learned trial Court, necessarily their sentence will have to be reconsidered, which was earlier rigorous imprisonment for life in respect of the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC. 31. Once the accused/appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC in modification of their conviction under Section 302 IPC by the learned trial Court, necessarily their sentence will have to be reconsidered, which was earlier rigorous imprisonment for life in respect of the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC. Considering the fact that the incident is of 2003 and by now 12(twelve) years have gone by with the imprisonment of the appellants from the date of the impugned judgment dated 17th April, 2013, coupled with the prolonged investigation and trial (trial for about six years) and also having regard to the facts and circumstances in which the incident took place, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the accused/appellants are imposed with the penalty of rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II/34 IPC. The conviction and sentence under Sections 323/34 IPC shall stand maintained. 32. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 33. The Registry shall send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order to the learned Court below.