JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Two brothers, namely Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal and Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal, both sons of Mathura, by caste Meghwal, residents of Village Ramganj Balaji, Police Station Sadar District Bundi were tried by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No.10.1985. 2. The said Court, vide its impugned judgment dated 11.12.1986, convicted accused-Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal, substantively for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for having caused murder of Hazari son of Kajod, brother of Tejmal (PW-5). Another accused - Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal was also convicted by the said Court for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Having convicted the appellants for the above said offences, the trial Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellants as under :- "For offence under Section 302 I.P.C., appellant No.1, namely Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C., appellant No.2, namely Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment." Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed present appeal. 4. In the present case, complainant - Tejmal (PW-5), brother of deceased, had allegedly suffered simple injuries in the occurrence at the hands by accused - Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal. However, we find that no charge for offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. has been formulated against accused - Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal and, hence, there is no conviction on this score by the trial Court. 5. In the present occurrence, accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal had suffered seven injuries. As per Injury Report (Exhibit-D/6), injury No.6 on the person of Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal, accused was found grievous in nature. Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal, as per Dr. B.L. Chobisa (DW-1), had suffered as many as six simple injuries. 6. In the last line of the First Information Report (Exhibit-P/1), it has been stated that after causing injuries when accused-appellant - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal was running away, he fell and suffered injuries. 7. Mr. Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal, as per Dr. B.L. Chobisa (DW-1), had suffered as many as six simple injuries. 6. In the last line of the First Information Report (Exhibit-P/1), it has been stated that after causing injuries when accused-appellant - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal was running away, he fell and suffered injuries. 7. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel appearing for the defence/accused-appellants, has urged that the last line in the First Information Report was added as an after thought and the nature of all injuries suffered by accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal belie explanation furnished by the prosecution regarding the injuries of the accused. It has been contended by learned counsel that false version has been given, qua the injuries suffered by accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal. 8. To examine the above said contention, along with various other arguments advanced, it will be necessary for us to take brief note of the prosecution case. 9. The First Information Report (Exhibit-P/1), when translated into English reads as under :- "Tejmal son of Kajod, by caste Mali, aged twenty-five years, Profession Agricultural, resident of Ramganj Balaji came present in the Police Station and made an oral statement that "we and Bhairiya Balai are having an old grudge. About one year ago, he had given beating to the son of my grand-father. Next year, auction was held to sow millet crop. Bhairiya and Kanwar Lal Balai had also participated in the auction. We gave bid more than them and my brother had cultivated the field. Since then they were finding opportunity to kill us. Today at about 07:30 P.M., I and Bhairiya Mali from our house were going to Balaji for taking bidi. On the way, my brother Hazari met us. He is having a shop. I told him to give bidi also. We all three were going towards the shop. When we came on the road Bhairiya and Kanwariya came armed with lath. They came towards us with an intention to kill. On arrival Kanwariya said Bhairiya that today they are going. We have got an opportunity so score be settled. Bhairiya gave a lath blow on the head of my brother - Hazari near right temporal region (Kanpati). Kanwariya caused injuries above left eye. My brother fell down at the spot. The blood started oozing out. I and Bhairiya intervened. On arrival Kanwariya said Bhairiya that today they are going. We have got an opportunity so score be settled. Bhairiya gave a lath blow on the head of my brother - Hazari near right temporal region (Kanpati). Kanwariya caused injuries above left eye. My brother fell down at the spot. The blood started oozing out. I and Bhairiya intervened. Kanwariya also caused injuries to me on the left hand wrist. He also gave a lath blow to me on the right wrist. On our raising noise, number of persons arrived at the spot. The accused decamped from the spot. As Hazri has suffered numerous injuries. Hence, we were brought to the hospital in a tractor. My brother died at about 10:00 P.M. I have come to lodge report. Bhairiya after causing injuries when he was running away, he fell and also suffered injuries. (Emphasis supplied). I am presenting report. The action be taken." 10. A perusal of the above said First Information Report reveals that the occurrence, in the present case, had taken place on 29.01.1985 at 07:30 P.M., the statement was made by Tejmal (PW-5) at 10:00 P.M., on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/1) was registered and the Special Report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 30.01.1985 at 12:00 P.M. 11. Dr. B.K. Trivedi (PW-13) on 30.01.1985 at 09:00 A.M. had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Hazari son of Kajod, aged about thirty-years. 12. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/6), said Doctor had noted following six injuries on the person of Hazari (deceased) :- "1. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 bone deep right temporal region 2. Lacerated wound 1½ x 1 cm x bone deep 3 cm back of right ear. Injury Nos.1 and 2 situated closely at a distance of 3 cm from each other. 3. Lacerated wound 2½ x ½ cm x bone deep, above left eye brow. 4. Bruise 3 x 3 cm forehead right side near centre (note - with black eyes both side) 5. Abrasion 3 x 3 cm face, outside left eye 6. Abrasion 1½ x ½ right knee front Above injuries no.1 to 6 are ante-mortem and caused by blunt weapon." 13. As per the opinion of the Doctor, all above said six injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by a blunt weapon. 14. Abrasion 3 x 3 cm face, outside left eye 6. Abrasion 1½ x ½ right knee front Above injuries no.1 to 6 are ante-mortem and caused by blunt weapon." 13. As per the opinion of the Doctor, all above said six injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by a blunt weapon. 14. A perusal of the above said injuries reveals that the Injury Nos.4, 5 and 6 are bruise and abrasions. It can be as a result of fall. Injury Nos.1 and 2 are very close to each other and can be result of one blow. Injury Nos.1 and 2 are on the right side on the temporal region. Injury No.3 is on the left eyebrow. Thus, injury Nos.1 and 2 are attributed to Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal and injury No.3 is attributed to Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal. Injury Nos.1 & 2 have cumulatively proved fatal, whereas injury No.3 is simple in nature. The deceased had suffered depressed fracture of right temporal bone & fracture of frontal bone, and as per the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was head injury, as a result of multiple fracture of skull bones leading to shock and haemorrhage; both internal and external. 15. On 30.01.1985 at 08:45 A.M., Dr. B.L. Trivedi (PW-13) had examined complainant - Tejmal (PW-5), and as per Injury Report (Exhibit-P/7), had found following six simple injuries on his person :- "1. Lacerated wound 2 x ½ x ¼ cm left temporal region. 2. Abrasion red seat 3 x 1½ cm left forearm near elbow back. 3. Abrasion red seat 1 x 1 cm right middle finger outer, proximal digit. 4. Abrasion red seat 1 x 1 cm right wrist outer aspect 5. Bruise with parallel lines transverse 6 x 2½ cm left side upper part back 6. Bruise with parallel lines oblique 12 x 2½ cm left side upper part back." 16. On the day of occurrence i.e. on 29.01.1985 at 11:50 P.M., Dr. B.L. Trivedi (PW-13) had also examined accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal, and as per Injury Report (Exhibit-D/6), had found following injuries on his person :- "1. Diffused swelling of right forearm from hand to near elbow 2. Lacerated wound fresh bleeding 1½ x ½ x ¼ cm occipital region 3. Lacerated wound fresh bleeding 3 x ¼ x ¼ cm right forehead 4. Diffused swelling of right forearm from hand to near elbow 2. Lacerated wound fresh bleeding 1½ x ½ x ¼ cm occipital region 3. Lacerated wound fresh bleeding 3 x ¼ x ¼ cm right forehead 4. Lacerated wound fresh bleeding 2½ x ¼ x ¼ cm right side near centre of head 5. Bruise oblique pink 12 x 3 cm left shoulder back 6. Bruise oblique pink parallel lines 6 x 3 cm left forearms 4-? data 7. Lacerated wound fresh bleeding CS... of right palm ½ x ¼ x ¼ right thumb near nail." Injury Nos.1 and 6, being fracture was declared as grievous in nature. 17. Defence examined Dr. B.L. Chobisa (DW-1). This witness on 04.02.1985 had examined accused - Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal and as per Injury Report (Exhibit-D/8), had noted following six injuries on his person. "1. Abrasion ¼ x ¼ on dorsal side of left forearm in lower third, simple blunt 2. Abrasion ¾" x ¼" on dorsal medial side of right forearm in lower third, simple blunt 3. Abrasion ½ x ¼ anterior side of left knee joint, simple blunt 4. Abrasion ½ x ¼ on anterior side of left thigh, simple blunt 5 Abrasion 2" x ¼ cm front side of right forearms, simple blunt 6. Three abrasions of size sic right hand, simple blunt." 18. All injuries suffered by Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal are simple in nature. However, Doctor stated that duration of the injuries was between four to seven days. Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal has raised a plea that when serious injuries were caused to his brother - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal, he had gone to Police Station. He was detained there and, thus, he was medico-legally examined at a later stage. 19. In the present case, the prosecution, in all, examined sixteen witnesses, namely Bhairu Lal (PW-1), Dala (PW-2), Kajod (PW 3), Ramchandra (PW-4), Tejmal (PW-5), Jagganath (PW-6), Sheoji (PW- 7), Deva (PW-8), Jagganath (PW-9), Laluram (PW-10), Naina (PW-11), Mahaveer Prasad (PW-12), Dr. B.K. Trivedi (PW-13), Jangbahadur (PW- 14), Jagdish Prasad (PW-15) and Amba Lal (PW-16) respectively. Bhairu Lal (PW-1) and Tejmal (PW-5) are eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence, named in the First Information Report. Dala (PW-2) has also stated that at around 07:00-08:00 A.M. he was going towards Village shop. B.K. Trivedi (PW-13), Jangbahadur (PW- 14), Jagdish Prasad (PW-15) and Amba Lal (PW-16) respectively. Bhairu Lal (PW-1) and Tejmal (PW-5) are eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence, named in the First Information Report. Dala (PW-2) has also stated that at around 07:00-08:00 A.M. he was going towards Village shop. When he saw that Hazari was lying in the pool of blood and number of persons had gathered there, he was informed that Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal and Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal have caused injuries. The defence took an objection that the statement made by above witness - Dala (PW-2), being a hearsay evidence is inadmissible. Kajod (PW-3), father of deceased - Hazari and Tejmal (PW- 5), also stated that they were informed about the alleged occurrence by Dalu and the injured in a tractor was brought to the hospital. Ramchandra (PW-4) stated that he, along with Kajod was sitting outside the house. Dala (PW-2) came and informed that Hazari has been caused injuries. Rather he stated in a provocative manner as to why they are sitting, go and find Hazari dead or alive, upon which witness had gone to the spot. Complainant - Tejmal (PW-5), brother of the deceased has reiterated the same as to what was stated by him in the written-report (Exhibit-P/1). Jagganath (PW-6) had attested Panchnama/Inquest vide Exhibit-P/2. Sheoji (PW-7), another eye-witness turned hostile to the prosecution and he stated that he is not aware as to how Hazari had suffered injuries. Deva (PW-8) has supported the case of prosecution. He stated that he was going towards shop and saw the alleged occurrence. To similar effect is the statement made by another Jagganath son of Radhakishan (PW-9). Lalu Ram (PW-10) is the witness of recovery of lathi from accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal. Naina (PW-11) is also the witness of recovery of lathi from accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal. We need not notice the testimony of other witnesses, who have participated in the investigation. After prosecution closed its evidence, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 20. Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal, accused took a specific plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that on 29.01.1985 he was going to call his father when he reached near the house of Hukma, Hazari (deceased), Tejmal (PW-5), Bhairu Lal (PW-1) and Mahaveer Prasad (PW-12) came armed with sticks. Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal, accused took a specific plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that on 29.01.1985 he was going to call his father when he reached near the house of Hukma, Hazari (deceased), Tejmal (PW-5), Bhairu Lal (PW-1) and Mahaveer Prasad (PW-12) came armed with sticks. In front of the house of Hukma, they all caused him injuries with lathis. He fell on the ground. His brother Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal was attracted there. On seeing him, Hazari left Kanwariya and took his brother Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal in his grip. His brother Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal with his hands covered his head. They caused injuries to his brother Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal. Due to blows given by complainant party to Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal, Hazari had also sustained injuries, as he had taken Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal into grip. He fell on the ground. The witnesses ran away from the spot. Kanwaria further stated that he informed the Police and went to Dilip Raj in the sugar factory, who gave a call to the Police. Kanwaria took a stand that he returned to his house, Police came there and took him to the Police Station to record his statement. Due to the serious injuries suffered by his brother, he was taken to the hospital by Police. Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal further stated that he was made to sit in the Police Station. His report was not recorded by Police. He was not medico legally examined. Later-on, he engaged a Counsel, then on 4th of February his medical examination was conducted. 21. Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for the accused-appellants, has submitted that all the witnesses belonging to complainant-party are from one brotherhood as they belong to Mali caste, whereas accused belong to Balai Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the complainant-party, being influential prevailed upon the Police and the report on behalf of the accused-party was not recorded. 22. It has been contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that the medico legal examination of Tejmal (PW-5) was conducted on the next day i.e. on 30.01.1985 at 08:45 A.M., Post Mortem Report of the deceased was also conducted on the very next day, whereas on the day of occurrence itself i.e. on 29.01.1985 at about 11:50 P.M., accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal was medico-legally examined. 23. 23. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants & Mr. B.N. Sandu, ld. A.A.G. cum P.P., duly assisted by Mr. Aladeen Khan, ld. Public Prosecutor, and have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the entire record of the case. 24. In the present case, occurrence, admittedly had taken place on 29.01.1985 at 07:30 P.M., the statement of complainant - Tejmal (PW-5), brother of deceased, purportedly was recorded in the Police Station on 29.01.1985 at 10:00 P.M. and the Special Report reached at Illaqa Magistrate on the next day at 12:00 P.M., thus, there is delay of fourteen hours in reaching of the special report. 25. We find that before reaching of the special report, Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal, accused was medico legally examined on 29.01.1985 at 11:50 P.M. He had suffered as many as seven injuries. Injuries No.1 and 6 are grievous in nature, being a fracture of hand. 26. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that it is safe to infer that before reaching of the special report, Police came to know that accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal has been admitted in the hospital. 27. As per medical evidence, accused - Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal had received six simple injuries in the alleged occurrence and duration, as per medical opinion relate to the timing of the occurrence. 28. Thus, we find that the last line of the First Information Report (Exhibit-P/1) that after causing injuries when accused-appellant-Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal was running away, he fell and suffered injuries, was introduced later as a result of consultations and deliberations. The above assertion made in the First Information Report as last line, is contradicted by the medical evidence. Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal suffered as many as seven injuries. Injury No.2 is a lacerated wound on the back of the head. Injury No.3 is on the forehead. Injury No.4 is on the middle of the head. Injury No.5 is on the back of shoulder. Injury No.6 is in front of the right hand. Sufferance of the injuries on the back of head, middle of head and front of head cannot be due to fall. Injury No.3 is on the forehead. Injury No.4 is on the middle of the head. Injury No.5 is on the back of shoulder. Injury No.6 is in front of the right hand. Sufferance of the injuries on the back of head, middle of head and front of head cannot be due to fall. Therefore, while running away if accused will fall as complainant has attempted to make us believe accused will suffer injuries on front side of the head or in case he fall on the back side, on back side of head. Thus, either way we reconstruct, injuries on the back of head, middle of head, front of head, back of shoulder and front of head they are not possible due to fall. 29. Thus, in the present case, the witnesses have not only suppressed the origin and genesis of the alleged occurrence, but they have furnished false explanation regarding the injuries suffered by Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal. 30. We cannot ignore that Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal had suffered not only three injuries on the head, which is a vital portion of the body, but has also suffered a grievous injury on his hand. Six injuries suffered by Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal, accused are also of same duration. Thus, by not explaining injuries on the person of accused, solitary witness has suppressed origin and genesis of the occurrence, from the Court. 31. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 394, the Apex Court 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. 32. 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 present 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 present 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 injuries 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 suppressed 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." It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the relations between the parties were inimical. 33. We find justification in the argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants that the complainant party prevailed upon the Investigating Agency and has furnished a false version regarding the injuries suffered by the accused. 34. Due to the suppression of origin & genesis of the occurrence and furnishing of a false explanation of the injuries on the person of accused, we are convinced that from the prosecution case, it can be safely said that when the parties met together, they came to blows and it is a case of free fight. 35. Our above view is fortified by observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jumman & Ors. v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1957 SC 469 ], wherein Their Lordships held as under :- "(24) In such a case where a mutual 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 a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Section 300, I.P.C., Exception 4. (25) The matter has to be viewed in this way. We are of the view that such a situation does not permit of the plea of private defence on either side and would be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Section 300, I.P.C., Exception 4. (25) The matter has to be viewed in this way. It is clear that there was no pre-meditation and therefore when the contending factions met accidentally and attacked each other, the conflict resulted in a sudden fight, in the heat of passions, upon a sudden quarrel and without the accused having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. On the finding that both the parties had arms, there was no undue advantage taken by either. Hence Exception 4 to Section 300, I.P.C., applies with the result that the offence is under Section 304 (Part I), I.P.C." A Division Bench of this court in Buddhi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [2007 (1) RCC 228], relying upon Dharman v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1957 SC 324 ], held as under :- "13. Coming to the incident that occurred with deceased Saltu we find that he sustained injuries in the course of sudden fight ensued in the field of accused party. The complainant party was also armed with deadly weapons and as many as eight accused persons received lacerated and incised wounds on the vital parts. In Dharman v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 324 the Supreme Court held that when two such contending parties, each armed with sharp edged weapons, clashed and in the course of a free fight some injuries were inflicted on one party or the other, it cannot be said that either of them acted in a cruel or unusual manner and that the case against the accused falls within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused who caused the injury was guilty under Part I of Section 304 and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code." 36. Thus, the above view is fortified for the reasons that the accused have also not taken a specific plea of self-defence. They have not stated in their self-defence that they had caused injuries to the complainant-party. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Kanwaria only stated that they were caused injuries. Thus, the above view is fortified for the reasons that the accused have also not taken a specific plea of self-defence. They have not stated in their self-defence that they had caused injuries to the complainant-party. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Kanwaria only stated that they were caused injuries. However a plea has been taken that Hazari took Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal into his grip and when persons belonging to complainant-party were causing injuries to Kanwaria's brother Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal, then because Hazari had taken accused - Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal into grip he also suffered injuries due to blows given by complainant-party. This, to us is also a false explanation given by the accused-party. Thus, the parties having inimical relations on the way met and came to blows. Both parties have given false explanation regarding the injuries suffered by both sides. 37. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that in the present case Section 34 I.P.C. cannot be attracted as each accused is responsible for his individual act. Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal in the occurrence caused simple injury on the eyebrow of the deceased, thus, he is held to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. 38. We find that for simple injuries on the person of Tejmal (PW- 5), Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal was not charged and there is no conviction recorded by the trial Court. Having convicted Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal for offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. only, considering that the occurrence took place thirty-two years ago, we sentence him to the period already undergone. 39. As per prosecution case, Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal had caused a fatal injury on the head of Hazari. We hold him guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. Thus, his conviction for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is set aside, along with sentence of life imprisonment. Having convicted Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C., we have to take into consideration that the occurrence took place thirty-two years ago. It is a settled legal proposition that the appeal is continuation of the trial and as interpreted by the Courts, right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India vests in the accused. It is a settled legal proposition that the appeal is continuation of the trial and as interpreted by the Courts, right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India vests in the accused. At the time of recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.0-9.1986, the age of Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal was recorded as thirty-one years and as on today, he is aged about sixty-three years. 40. Ordinarily, this Court for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. award seven years rigorous imprisonment, but taking into account that occurrence, in the present case, took place thirty-two years ago and as on today, Bhairiya @ Bhanwar Lal is aged about sixty-three years, we sentence him to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 41. Over and above the sentence of fine, we are of the view that the family members/legal heirs of Hazari are entitled to compensation under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under the Victim Compensation Scheme framed by the State of Rajasthan. We direct Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur to disburse the compensation to the family members/legal heirs of Hazari (deceased), as his death occurred in a free fight. As a result of conversion of the offence and modification in the sentence in the above terms, the present appeal stands disposed of.