Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants Vachna Ram, Kola Ram and Asha Ram all sons of Chogaji by caste Purohits, resident of village Bhavatara, P.S. Saila, District-Jalore under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.10.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FT), Jalore in Sessions Case No. 4/2006 by which all the three appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. The punishment imposed upon the appellants are as follows: Accused Section Punishment Vachna Ram, Kola Ram and Asha Ram 302/34 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Vachna Ram, Kola Ram and Asha Ram 447 I.P.C. One month rigorous imprisonment to each 2. As per brief facts of the case, a written complaint Ex. P.6 was filed by the PW.2 Smt. Aadra at Police Station Saila on 23.10.2005 at 2.00 P.M. in which PW-2 Smt. Aadra Wife of Kasturaji alleged that on 23.10.2005, She and her two sons namely Hadmata Ram and Babu were doing their work upon agricultural field where they reside. At about 12.00 P.M. his three neighbours Vachana Ram, Asha Ram and Kola Ram sons of Chogaji started cutting the tree of Raida. At that time, the complainant's son Babu and brother Neti asked them not to cut the tree because the said tree is grown upon their land and will ask the concerned Patwari and after taking measurement you may cut the tree if the tree is situated in their agricultural field. 3. As per allegation of the complainant, the accused-appellants did not stop even when they were asked to stop cutting the tree and upon objection they entered in their agricultural field with axe, Favda and assaulted the brother of complainant and son. As per allegation Vachna Ram was having knife (Chura) and Asha Ram and Kola Ram were having axe and they inflicted injuries by knife and axe to both the persons Neti and her son Vaga and due to injuries, brother of complainant Neti died on the spot and thereafter accused-appellants can away from the site. As per allegation Vachna Ram was having knife (Chura) and Asha Ram and Kola Ram were having axe and they inflicted injuries by knife and axe to both the persons Neti and her son Vaga and due to injuries, brother of complainant Neti died on the spot and thereafter accused-appellants can away from the site. It is also stated in the complaint by the complainant that after hearing noice of cry her neighbour Roop Singh came on the spot to whom she narrated the incident and thereafter, the injuries son of complainant Babu was taken to hospital at Saila for treatment. The complainant further stated in the complaint that there is quarrel going on with regard to demarcation of land between the agricultural field of both the parties and due to objection raised by the complaint and her son and brother not to cut the tree of Raida, they illegally entered in the agricultural field of complainant and assaulted and inflicted injuries by knife and axe and due to those injuries, Nethi brother of complainant died on the spot whereas son Babu was taken to the hospital. 4. Upon aforesaid written complaint Ex. P.6 the S.H.O. Police Station, Saila, registered a case under Sections 447, 324, 307, 302 and 34 I.P.C. and commenced the investigation. In the investigation, the dying declaration of deceased Baga Ram S/o Kisturmal was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District-Jodhpur on 25.10.2005 and thereafter injured Baga Ram died in the hospital on 27.11.2005 after one month and four days. 5. The postmortem report of deceased Neti was conducted on 23.10.2005 vide Ex. P.15 and postmortem of deceased Baga Ram was conducted on 27.11.2005 vide Ex. P.19. The police after thorough investigation filed challan against the accused appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalore under Sections 447, 302 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and for offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act. 6. In the trial, statement of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded including the eye-witness and author of F.I.R. PW.2 Smt. Aadra abd Dr. Raj Singh Bhandari PW.7 and Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat PW.9 and 42 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and in defect DW-1 Devraj was produced before the Court and three documents were exhibited in defence. Raj Singh Bhandari PW.7 and Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat PW.9 and 42 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, statement of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and in defect DW-1 Devraj was produced before the Court and three documents were exhibited in defence. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties acquitted the accused-appellants Vachna Ram, Kota Ram and Asha Ram for offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act but held them guilty for offence under Sections 447 and 302/34 IPC.... with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment fine to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 447 I.P.C., sentenced to undergo one month rigourous imprisonment. 7. At the threshold learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are not challenging the incident in which the injuries were caused to the deceased Neti, Baga Ram but appellants are raising their ground that the finding given by the Trial Court with regard to offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eye of law because there was no intention or pre-meditation and occurrence took place all of sudden when objection was raised not to cut tree of Raida. The incident took place on a very petty matter of cutting trees and all of sudden in a spur of moment, therefore, the finding given by the Trial Court with regard to commission of offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be quashed. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that appellants are not challenging the incident and evidence but only prayer is that they could have been convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302 I.P.C. To substantiate the above submission, it is submitted that as per opinion of doctor with regard to cause of death of deceased Neti, the deceased Neti died of shock due to excessive hemorrhage resulting from penetrating injury of left thigh and case of death of deceased Baga Ram is Septicemia and toximia as a result of multiple injuries meaning thereby, as per opinion of cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report Ex. P.15 of deceased Neti and Ex. P.19 of deceased Baga Ram, it cannot be said that offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is made out. P.15 of deceased Neti and Ex. P.19 of deceased Baga Ram, it cannot be said that offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is made out. Although deceased Neti died on the spot but deceased Baga Ram died on 27.11.2005 after one month and four days from the incident. While inviting attention towards statement of doctor Dr. Raj Singh Bhandari PW.7, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the said doctor has categorically said that as per the postmortem report Ex.P.15) of Neti there were no injury on the vital part of body and deceased Baga Ram died after one month and as per the injury report and postmortem report Ex.P.16 for Baga Ram, the injuries were not sufficient to cause death immediately. The crux of the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants is that as per medical evidence and the circumstances in which the occurrence took place, not offence under Sec. 302 IPC is made out, more so, the case cannot travel beyond the offence Sec. 304 Part I I.P.C., therefore, it is prayed that the appellants are not challenging the occurrence and finding of fact but this Court may assess the evidence in the light of argument of appellants that no offence under Sec. 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is made out and case cannot travel beyond offence under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants prayed that conviction of both the accused-appellants for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. may be set aside because as per statement of complainant PW.2 Aadra, the occurrence took place in the spur of moment, when object on was raised by the complainant party not to cut the tree. In support of above arguments, learned Counsel for the appellants invited our attention towards the following judgments:- (i) Daya Nand vs. State of Haryana, 2008 Cri. L.J. 2975 (ii) Kailash vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007(1) WLC (SC) 94 (iii) State of Rajasthan vs. Manoj Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 885/2007, decided by Apex Court on 11.4.2014 (iv) Ram Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2114/2009, decided by Apex Court on 24.7.2012 (v) Manjeet Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1695/2005, decided by Apex Court 25.4.2014 (vi) Hafiz vs. State, AIR 2006 SC 632 . 9. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that there is reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to prove the fact that appellants are guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., therefore, on the basis of statement of eye-witness PW.2 Aadra and Statement of doctor PW.7 Dr. Raj Singh Bhandari who has corroborated the injuries in the postmortem report and recovery of weapon which are proved by the prosecution in the trial, it is a fit case in which the Trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that the appellants have committed an offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC., therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment impugned on the ground that appellants are not objecting to the incident in which due to injuries caused by the appellants two persons died, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed. 10. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have scanned the facts and evidence on record. 11. Indisputably, the occurrence took place on 23.10.2005 at about 12.00 P.M. in between the agricultural field of complainant and accused appellants. As per written F.I.R. Ex. 10. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have scanned the facts and evidence on record. 11. Indisputably, the occurrence took place on 23.10.2005 at about 12.00 P.M. in between the agricultural field of complainant and accused appellants. As per written F.I.R. Ex. P.6 which is proved by the author of F.I.R. PW.2 Aadra,it is categorically stated by her that- ^^eSa ?kj ij [kM+h Fkh rHkh gekjs iM+kSlh opuk] vk'kk o dksgyk iq= Nksxkth tkfr iqjksfgr fuoklh ckorjk gekjs nksuksa ds chp dh ekV ij rhuksa HkkbZ jksfgMs ds isM+ dks dkV jgs Fks ftl ij esjs iq= ckcq o HkkbZ usrh us euk fd;k fd ekV lkeykrh gS jksfgMk ds isM+ Hkh lkeykrh gS rqe yksx isM dks er dkVks dy iVokjh dks cqykdj uki djok dj ftlds fgLls ls gksxk dkV nsukA fQj Hkh os yksx ugha ekus rFkk ftl ij esjs HkkbZ o iq= us ekV ds ikl tkdj fQj euk fd;k rks rhuksa HkkbZ gkFkksa esa dqYgkMh] QkoMk fy;s gq, vdLekr gekjs [ksr esa vk;s rFkk vkt gh esjs HkkbZ o iq= ij VwV iMs opuk ds gkFk esa Nqjk Fkk o vk'kk o dksgyk ds gkFk esa dqYgkMh;ka Fkh rFkk opuk us Nwjs ls esjs iq= ckcq ij /kM+k/kM+ okj djuk 'kq: dj nh o vk'kk o dksgyk us Hkh ekjihV 'kq: dh rHkh esjk HkkbZ usrh chp esa iM+k rks mlds lkFk Hkh bu rhuksa us ekjihV dh ftlls esjk HkkbZ usrh ekSds ij gh [kRe gks x;k rc rd eSa Hkh ekSds ij igqap dj rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa dks gkFk tksMh dj tksjtksj ls fpYykus yxh rc rhuksa HkkbZ esjs iq= o HkkbZ dks ejk le> dj gh x;s FksA rc gh esjs jksus dh vkokt lqu dj :iflag th tkfr jktiwr fuoklh ckorjk nkSM dj esjs [ksr ij vk;s ftUgsa eSaus iwjh ckr crkbZ rks :iflag th xkao esa ls ,d thi ysdj esjs [ksr ij vk;s ftlesa esjs iq= ckcq dks Mkydj vLirky lk;yk ysdj vkbZ gqbZ gwaA** Further, in the examination-in-chief, PW-2 Aadra made following statement which read as under:- ^^vkt ls djhc ikap ekg igys djhc 12 cts Hkkrosyk ds le; dh ckr gSA eSa esjh jgoklh; <k.kh ds ckgj [kMh FkhA esjk iq= ckcq o HkkbZ usFkh cktjh ds fljs dkV jgs FksA brus esa opuk] vk'kk o dksyk vk,A opuk ds gkFk esa Nqjk] vk'kk o dksyk ds gkFkksa esa dqYgkfM+;ka FkhA rhuksa us vkdj gekjs ekB ij [kMs jksfgM+s ds o`{k dks dkVus yxsA rc esjs iq= ckcw o esjs HkkbZ usFkh us budks o`{k dkVus ls euk fd;kA ,oa dgk fd jksfgM+s dks er dkVksA iVokjh dks cqykdj uki djokdj fQj vki jksfgM+k dkV ysukA opuk us gekjs [kkrsnkjh ds [ksr esa vkdj ckcw ds Nqjk ekjkA vk'kk o dksyk us dqYgkM+h dh pksVsa ekjh tks ckcw dks ekjhA usFkh us euk fd;k fd ckcq ds er ekjksA rc opuk us usFkh ds Nqjs ekjs tks mlds nksuksa tka?kksa ds vkjikj fudysA vk'kk o dksyk us dqYgkM+h ls usFkh o ckcw ds pksVsa ekjhA eSa ?kVuk LFky ls 30-40 ikm.Mk nwjh ij [kM+h FkhA eSaus rhuksa eqyfteku }kjk ckcw o usFkh ds lkFk ekjihV djrs ns[kk vkSj fQj eSa Hkh nkSM+dj xbZA eSaus gkFktksMh fd fd er ekjksa er ekjksA esjs euk djus ds ckn Hkh eqyfteku ugha :ds o ekjihV djrs jgsA rhuksa eqyfteku ckcw o usFkh dks ejk gqvk le>dj ogka ls pys x;sA fQj eSa jksus yxh rc esjk jksuk lqudj :iflag jktiwr fuoklh ckorjk vk;kA eSaus mijksDr ?kVuk :iflag dks crkbZA fQj :iflag x;k vkSj thi ysdj vk;kA** 12. Likewise PW-3 Roop Singh turned hostile before the Court and did not support the statement PW.2 Aadra that name of accused-appellants were informed by PW.2 Aadra soon after the occurrence. The following statement was made by PW.3 Roop Singh in the Court which reads as under:- ^^eSaus vnjk iRuh dLrqjk th dk ekjs&ekjs dk gkdk lqudj x;k FkkA ckcw o usFkh ds lkFk ekjihV djus okyksa dks eSaus ugha ns[kkA usFkh dh ?kVuk LFky ij gh yk'k iM+h FkhA ckcw ftUnk Fkk] ftlds cnu ij pksVsa yxh gqbZ FkhA ftldks eSa vLirky ysdj x;k FkkA eSa ckcw dks vLirky ys x;k rc ckcw dh eka Hkh gekjs lkFk pyh FkhA ckcw dh eka ?kVuk LFky ij cSBh gqbZ FkhA eq>s ckcw dh eka us ckcw o usFkh ds lkFk ekjihV djus okyksa ds uke ugha crk;sA ckcw dh eka ekj dj x;s ekj dj x;s ,slk dj jgh FkhA le; eq>s cjkcj ;kn ugha gS] 12-1 cts dk le; gks ldrk gS] nl cts dk le; Hkh gks ldrk gSA** 13. Admittedly, although deceased Neti died on the spot but as per postmortem report, cause of death was injury inflicted upon thigh which is not fatal. The cause of death as mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.P.15 read as under:- "Cause of death of Shri Nethi S/o Shri Sagramji Purohit, aged 65 years and R/o Lakhani at present Sanchore is shock due to excessive hemorrhage resulting from penetrating injury on Lt. thigh." 14. It is also worthwhile to observe that deceased Baga Ram died after one month and four days and in the postmortem report dated 27.11.2005, the Medical Jurist of M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur gave following opinion with regard to death of deceased Baga Ram:- "The cause of death is septicemia and toximia as a result of multiple injuries." 15. Upon perusal of cause of death, it is revealed that cause of death is septicemia and toximia as a result of multiple injuries but fact remains that Baga Ram died after one month and four days. 16. We have perused the dying declaration of Baga Ram recovered by the judicial Magistrate First Class, Jodhpur in which it has been categorically stated by him that the occurrence took place when complainant party and deceased Baga Ram raised objection not to cut the tree of Roida. 17. 16. We have perused the dying declaration of Baga Ram recovered by the judicial Magistrate First Class, Jodhpur in which it has been categorically stated by him that the occurrence took place when complainant party and deceased Baga Ram raised objection not to cut the tree of Roida. 17. In view of above evidence, we are of the firm opinion that there was no pre-meditation or planning and occurrence took place when objection was raised by the complainant party not to cut the trees. These was no pre-meditation or plan of accused appellants to commit murder and they came on the spot to cut the tree and all of sudden accused party inflicted injuries, therefore, obviously, the main ingredient for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. are not in existence. The Doctor Dr. Raj Singh Bhandari PW.7 categorically stated in his statement that injuries caused to the deceased were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and circumstances in which the occurrence took place loudly speaks that occurrence took place when objection was raised by the complainant party not to cut the trees. It is also worthwhile to observe that none of the injuries were found upon the vital part of the body of deceased Nethi. Similarly deceased Baga Ram died after one month and four days and as per opinion of the doctor in the postmortem report of Baga Ram, the cause of death was septicemia and toximia as a result of multiple injuries meaning thereby upon assessment of entire evidence, we have not hesitation to hold that Trial Court has committed an error while holding the appellants guilty for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. for alleged offence because the case cannot travel beyond the offence under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. 18. In the case of Pappu the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave following verdict:- A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and blows on each side, The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception, 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception, 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without pre-meditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 al the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. 19. Relying upon aforesaid judgment and other identical cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash, reported in 2007(1) WLC (SC) Criminal 94 made following adjudication:- "43. Applying the aforementioned principles of law, we are of the opinion that the Appellant cannot be held to be guilty of commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent." 20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayanand vs. State of Haryana, (supra) considered the same question and held that in the scheme of I.P.C. the culpable homicide is genesis and murder and its specie. All murder is culpable homicide but not vice-versa. Following adjudication has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the legal issue involved in this case upon identical facts which reads as under:- "10. The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to be applied. In the scheme of the I.P.C. culpable homicide is genus and `murder' is specie. All `murder' is `cupable homicide' but not vice-versa. The crucial question is as to which was the appropriate provision to be applied. In the scheme of the I.P.C. culpable homicide is genus and `murder' is specie. All `murder' is `cupable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, `culpable homicide' sans `special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.' For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the I.P.C. practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, `culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is denied in Section 300 as `murder'. The second may be termed as `culpable homicide of the second degree.' This is punishable under the first part of the Section 304. Then, there is `culpable homicide of the third degree.' This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of the Section 304." 11. The academic distinction between `murder' and `culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. Section 299 Section 300 A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done. The following comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences. Section 299 Section 300 A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done. Intention (a) with the intention of causing death; or (1) with the intention of causing death; or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or (2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; or (3) with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or Knowledge *** *** *** (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. (4) with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above. 12. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under Clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that the `intention to cause death' is not an essential requirement of Clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect to Clause (2) is borne out by Illustration (b) appended to Section 300. 13. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender. This aspect to Clause (2) is borne out by Illustration (b) appended to Section 300. 13. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under Clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a first blow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given. In Clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words `likely to cause death' occurring in the corresponding Clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" have been used. obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word `likely' in Clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury...... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature. 21. We have examined the facts of the present case in the light of aforesaid judgments and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The words "bodily injury...... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature. 21. We have examined the facts of the present case in the light of aforesaid judgments and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In our opinion, the conviction of appellants for offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is not sustainable because all of sudden the incident took place when the complainant party raised objection not to cut the tree of Roida, therefore, the conviction of accused-appellants deserves to be converted from offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC read with Section 34 IPC Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of appellants for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is hereby set aside and accused appellants (1) Vachna Ram S/o Chhoga Ji (2) Kola Ram S/o Chhoga Ji (3) Asha Ram S/o Chhoga Ji are hereby convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-1 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and their punishment is altered from life imprisonment to ten years rigourous imprisonment while maintaining the amount of fine and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The conviction for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. is hereby maintained.