JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan, J.) 1. Sole appellant Babu Ram @ Babau, in this case has challenged the judgment and order dated 3.8.1983 passed by the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 1978 (State versus Babau) arising out of Case crime no. 478 of 1973, Police Station Katra, District Mirzapur whereby appellant was convicted under sections 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for five years respectively. However, he was acquitted of charge under section 323 read with Section 34 IPC vide aforesaid judgment and order. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It appears that First Information Report (in short, FIR) (Ex-Ka-2) was lodged by one Champa Devi orally on 18.10.1973 at about 3:20pm alleging that three accused namely, Babu Ram @ Babau (appellant in this case) and co-accused Kashi and Saraswati armed with various weapons assaulted her, her deceased son Ram Lal and her husband Moti Lal and caused injuries resulting in the death of Ram Lal. 3. It is pertinent to point out that decision in the case of appellant Babu Ram @ Babau got delayed because of his continuous absence from the trial court. Co-accused Kashi and his mother Sarawati faced trial earlier wherein Kashi was convicted under sections 302, 326 read with Section 34 IPC and was accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigourous imprisonment of five years respectively. Trial Judge also convicted Sarawati under section 323 IPC However, Sarawati was not convicted for causing injuries to Moti Lal with the help of Section 34 IPC. 4. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by appellant Kashi in Criminal Appeal No. 2552 of 1975 (Kashi versus State) decided by a bench of Hon'ble P.N.Goel & Hon'ble V.N.Mehrotra, JJ. Vide judgment and order dated 1.5.1980. The Division Bench of this Court partly allowed the appeal. Conviction and sentence of Kashi under section 302, 326 read with Section 34 IPC recorded by Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar was set aside. However, he was convicted and sentenced under section 326 read with section 34 IPC and Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and two years respectively. Both these sentences were to run concurrently. 5. However, he was convicted and sentenced under section 326 read with section 34 IPC and Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and two years respectively. Both these sentences were to run concurrently. 5. It appears that charge-sheet against present appellant Babu Ram @ Babau was filed in his absence inasmuch as he could not be arrested in spite of repeated attempt by the Investigating Officer (in short, I.O.). PW-8 Jagjiwan Singh, the then Sub-Inspector, Police Station (in short, P.S.) Katra, Mirzapur. Subequently, appellant-accused Babu Ram @ Babau was arrested, tried and convicted as aforesaid. 6. It is stated that on 18.10.1973 at about 3:00pm, injured Moti (PW-5), deceased Rampal and informant Smt. Champa (PW-4) were sitting at the door of their house and were busy in making flower garlands. There was a bucket full of water lying thereby. Co-accused Kashi came on a bicycle and deliberately upturned the water bucket saying why they were sitting at the door of his house. Moti and deceased Ram Lal protested whereupon Kashi went inside his house, threating them. 7. Thereafter, co-accused Kashi armed with knife, appellant Babu alias Babau armed with spear (Ballam) and their mother armed with Danda, came to the place of occurrence. They attacked Moti lal and his deceased son Ram Lal with their respective weapons. It is alleged that Sarawati also assaulted, informant Smt. Champa (PW-4) with her Danda. The injuries sustained in this incident caused death of Ram Lal on the spot and Moti Lal was seriously wounded. The Police Station was 3 furlongs away from the place of occurrence. The informant Smt. Champa went to the Police Station immediately and lodged the report at 3:20pm at the P.S. Katra i.e. within 20 minutes of incident. The police personnel came on the spot by 3.40pm. Smt. Champa Devi was sent for medical examination. Moti Lal (PW-5) was seriously injured. He too was sent to medical treatment and examination with letter (Ex. Ka.-9). The letter written for medical examination of Smt. Champa Devi (PW-4) is available on record as Ex.Ka.-10. 8. The cadaver of deceased Ram Lal was lying on the spot. Inquest proceedings were conducted. Inquest report (Ex.Ka-11) was prepared. Moti Lal (PW-5) was seriously injured. He too was sent to medical treatment and examination with letter (Ex. Ka.-9). The letter written for medical examination of Smt. Champa Devi (PW-4) is available on record as Ex.Ka.-10. 8. The cadaver of deceased Ram Lal was lying on the spot. Inquest proceedings were conducted. Inquest report (Ex.Ka-11) was prepared. The requisite documents were also prepared on the spot and thereafter, corpse was sent for postmortem through Constables Inder Kumar Dev and Constable Zainuddin (PW-7).The samples of blood soaked earth along with plain earth were taken from the spot. The memorandum was prepared as Ex.Ka.-1. Site plan was also prepared on the same day, which is available on record as Ex.Ka.16. 9. The statement of Moti Lal was recorded on 22.10.1973 because he was not in a position to give any statement because of his hospitalization. The statements of other witnesses were also recorded. Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted on 18.11.1973 against co-accused Kashi and Saraswati but as appellant Babu Ram alias Babua could not be arrested, therefore, a separate charge-sheet Ex.Ka-18 was submitted against him on 18.12.1973. The record reveals that prior to submission of charge-sheet, serious attempts were made for arrest of appellant Babu Ram alias Babua. Publication, proclamation, repeated raids and attachment of property etc. were conducted by the I.O. These facts can be gathered from the record. 10. Dr. Inder Bhushan Dutt examined the injuries of Moti Lal (PW-5) on 18.10.1973 at about 4:00pm i.e. on the date of occurrence and following injuries were found on his person :- "1) Lacerated wound 3 cm.x 0.3 cam.x scalp at the back of the head left side 7cm.above the left ear. 2) Lacerated wound 2cm.x0.25cm x muscle deep 3cm. Below injury no. 1. 3) Punctured wound 1.5cm x 0.2 cam x 3 cm. deep on the medial aspect of the right forearm at about its middle directed upward and backward, edges clean out. 4) Traumatic swelling 4 cm. x 2.5 cm. on outer aspect of right forearm, middle. 5) Punctured wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. x pleural cavity (rectangular shaped) on the right chest 5 cm. below and outer to right nipple directed backward and medial ward. Edges were clean cut. 6) Transvers punctured wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x uncertain depth on the left chest on the left of xiph- sternum directed downward and backward. Edges were clean cut. x 1 cm. x pleural cavity (rectangular shaped) on the right chest 5 cm. below and outer to right nipple directed backward and medial ward. Edges were clean cut. 6) Transvers punctured wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. x uncertain depth on the left chest on the left of xiph- sternum directed downward and backward. Edges were clean cut. 7) Traumatic swelling 5 cm. x 4 cm. on the lower part of the right chest." 11. Dr. Vinshu Prasad Gupta (PW-1) examined Smt. Champa Devi on 18.10.1973 at 7:05pm and found the following injuries on her person :- 1) Lacerated wound ½ cm. x 1/8 cm x scalp deep on top of the skull 5 ½ cm. above and medial to the left ear with swelling around in an area of 3" x 3". 2) Abrasion 1 ½ cm x 1" with swelling 2 ½" on the dorsum of the right hand 1" below right wrist joint. 3) Traumatic swelling 3" x 3" on the left hand dorsum 1" below the left wrist joint. 12. The postmortem of corpse of deceased Ram Lal was conducted by Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, who found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased Ram Lal :- 1) Punctured wound 2.2. cm. x 0.3 cm. x thorax cavity deep on the left side chest in third intercostal space 4 cm. from the midline directed backwards and slightly inwards and margins clean cut. 2) Punctured wound rectangular in shape, each are 1.2 cm. This was the wound of entry. The margins were inverted, directed downwards, inwards, situated on the outer side upper third right arm with wound of exit of similar shape. Each are 1 cm. margins everted, both the wounds communicating through and through at a distance of 9 cm. below on back and inner side of the lower right arm. 13. Initially, appellant Babu Ram alias Babua was charged under section 302 read with section 34 IPC on 12.7.1978 by Sessions Judge, Mirzapur but later on, separate and fresh charges were framed on 5.12.1981 under sections 302, 307 and 323 read with section 34 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 14. Prosecution adduced evidence of PW-1 Dr. Shri Vishnu Prasad Gupta, PW-2 Chunni Lal (eyewitness), PW-3 Barku (eyewitness), PW-4 Smt. Champa (informant-eyewitness), PW-5 Moti (injured-eyewitness), PW-6 Shyam Surat Mishra (Sub-Inspector), PW-7 Zainuddin and PW-8 Jagjiwan Singh (I.O.). The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 14. Prosecution adduced evidence of PW-1 Dr. Shri Vishnu Prasad Gupta, PW-2 Chunni Lal (eyewitness), PW-3 Barku (eyewitness), PW-4 Smt. Champa (informant-eyewitness), PW-5 Moti (injured-eyewitness), PW-6 Shyam Surat Mishra (Sub-Inspector), PW-7 Zainuddin and PW-8 Jagjiwan Singh (I.O.). The statement of accused-appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations and claimed false implication. He has claimed alibi saying that he was giving training in wrestling at Amrawati (Maharashtra). 15. On conclusion of trial, the then 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur convicted appellant Babu Ram @ Babau vide judgment and order dated 3.8.1983 under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, as aforesaid. This judgment is under challenge before this Court in this appeal. 16. Heard Sri Jai Raj Tomar, Amicus Curiae for appellant and Dr. Abida Syed for State. 17. Learned Amicus curiae has argued that evidence of witnesses contains discrepancies which creates doubt about the occurrence. The submission is that FIR is ante-timed. He has also claimed that medical report is inconsistent with ocular evidence. He has also submitted that accused-appellant has already suffered a lot and incident occurred in the year 1973 and appellant is still suffering because of it. 18. Per contra, learned State counsel, Dr. Abida Syed has argued that co-accused Kashi has already been convicted on similar evidence and that disappearance of appellant Babu Ram alias Babau has caused delay in conclusion of trial. Hence, he cannot now take advantage of his own mis-deeds. She has also submitted that there is no significant discrepancies in the evidence and testimonies of injured witnesses establish their presence at the place of occurrence. 19. The evidence available on record would disclose that Ram Lal died on account of injuries sustained in the stated incident. The statement of Dr. Sri Vishnu Prasad Gupta (PW-1) and postmortem report available on record would indicate that deceased was attacked by sharp edged weapon and he did not die natural death. Deceased sustained two injuries, one punctured wound thorax cavity deep on left side chest in third intercostal from midline and another punctured wound rectangular in shape on the outer side upper third right arm. Doctor opined that injury no. 1 was caused by knife whereas injury no. 2 was caused by spear. Deceased sustained two injuries, one punctured wound thorax cavity deep on left side chest in third intercostal from midline and another punctured wound rectangular in shape on the outer side upper third right arm. Doctor opined that injury no. 1 was caused by knife whereas injury no. 2 was caused by spear. He further opined that injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Similarly injuries found on the person of injured Moti Lal were also caused by sharp edge weapon as well as blunt weapon. 20. The tendered evidence of Dr. Mahesh Chandra, testimony of PW-1 Dr. Vishnu Prasad Gupta as well as tendered evidence of PW-4 Dr. Indra Bhushan Dutt would disclose that deceased Ram Lal died on account of injuries caused by perpetrators of crime. Therefore, it is evident that deceased died due to homicide. This homicidal death has been attributed to appellant Babu Ram @ Babau and co-accused Kashi and Saraswati. We are dealing with the alleged act of appellant Babu Ram @ Babau only. The appeal of co-accused Kashi has already been decided, as stated in the earlier part of this judgment. 21. It is pertinent to point out that two injured-witnesses, namely, PW-4 Champa, informant and PW-5 Moti have testified in support of prosecution story. Both of them were injured in the same incident. Therefore, their testimonies carry considerable weight. PW-4 Smt. Champa, in fact, lodged FIR within 20 minutes of episode. This fact has been proved not only by FIR, Chik Report Ex.Ka.-2 but documents prepared subsequent to lodging of the FIR. Relevant entries were made in the G.D. immediately, the extract of which is available on record Ex.Ka-4. The testimony of PW-8 Jagjiwan Singh, PW-6 Shyam Surat Mishra and PW-7 Zainuddin have established that not only the FIR was recorded within 20 minutes of the stated crime, but the investigation was initiated promptly. Corpse was immediately sent for post mortem. 22. PW-8 Jagjiwan Singh has clarified that he reached on the place of occurrence at about 3:40pm i.e. within 40 minutes of the incident. In fact, he found injured Ramlal in serious condition therefore immediately sent him for medical aid and examination. But despite this promptness injured Ramlal succumbed to his injuries on account of excessive bleeding. Inquest proceedings were conducted on the same day. In fact, he found injured Ramlal in serious condition therefore immediately sent him for medical aid and examination. But despite this promptness injured Ramlal succumbed to his injuries on account of excessive bleeding. Inquest proceedings were conducted on the same day. Statements of PW-4 Smt. Champa Devi (eyewitness), PW-2 Chunni Lal and PW-3 Barku were also recorded on the same day. On the next day, several witnesses namely, Radhey Shyam and Chunni Lal etc. were examined. It is true that statement of injured Moti Lal was recorded on 22.10.1973 i.e. 4th day of incident but explanation is available on record that Moti Lal was in the hospital and because of his injuries he was not in a position to give any statement. In fact, first charge sheet was filed on 18.11.1973 i.e. almost within a month of the incident. However, because of continuous absence of appellant Babu Ram alias Babau, the charge-sheet against him was filed on 18.12.1973 i.e. within two months of incident. 23. Testimonies of PW-3 Champa and PW-5 Moti injured have established the prosecution case completely. The injuries found on the person of these witnesses, show that they were present on the spot. PW-5 Moti, in fact, was seriously injured. It is pertinent to point out that deceased Ram Lal was son of Moti Lal and Champa. There is no reason for them to spare real murderers of their son and to falsely implicate members of their own clan. The testimonies of these two injured witnesses have been amply and convincingly supported by two independent witnesses namely, PW-2 Chunni Lal and PW-3 Barku. It is pertinent to point out that residences of these two witnesses are near to the residences of both appellants and as well as victims. PW-2 Chunni Lal is not only resident of same Mohalla but his house was just 10 paces away from the house of appellant Babu Ram alias Babau. There is an exit on the back of the house of Babu Ram alias Babau. It is also evident from the site plan Ex.Ka.15. Similarly the house of PW-3 Barku is merely 15 paces towards the east from the place of incident. This witness has claimed to have seen the incident from wooden shop situated nearby. As far as line of visibility was concerned, there is no doubt about it. These witnesses have consistently supported prosecution story. Similarly the house of PW-3 Barku is merely 15 paces towards the east from the place of incident. This witness has claimed to have seen the incident from wooden shop situated nearby. As far as line of visibility was concerned, there is no doubt about it. These witnesses have consistently supported prosecution story. They have claimed that deceased Ram Lal, injured Moti Lal and his mother informant Champa were attacked by appellant and his companions on the date of occurrence. Both Ram Lal and Moti Lal were seriously injured though Moti Lal was saved by doctors. However, deceased Ram Lal succumbed to his injuries. The trial judge was convinced with the quality of evidence of four eyewitnesses. We have no reason to disagree with the opinion of the trial Judge. We have carefully examined testimony of all the four eyewitnesses. Their evidence is natural, highly credible and in accordance with normal human conduct as well as trustworthy. We believe that on the basis of their evidence, appellant Babu Ram alias Babau has been rightly convicted. 24. Learned Amicus Curiae for appellant has claimed that FIR was ante-timed and result of concoction and manipulation. We are afraid, this argument has no basis. The Police Station is merely three furlongs away and the FIR was lodged within 20 minutes. This finding is supported from various documents executed by the I.O. on the same day within few hours of murder. Inquest proceedings were initiated at 4:00pm within an hour of episode and this inquest (Ex. Ka.11) contains Crime no. 478 of 1973 under section 302, 307 IPC. This 43 years old inquest report is available on record. The crime number was enshrined in the contents of the inquest report. Usually, case crime number are recorded on the top of inquest report giving opportunity to the defence, to say that crime number was subsequently made part of the inquest report but in this case, crime number is mentioned on second page of inquest report. Therefore, it was virtually impossible to incorporate crime number subsequently. Not only this, Photonash (Ex.Ka-12) also contained crime number. The fact that significant portion of investigation was conducted on the same day and most of the documents contain the crime number, show that I.O. did everything according to the rules and regulations and there was no manipulation of any sort in this case. 25. Not only this, Photonash (Ex.Ka-12) also contained crime number. The fact that significant portion of investigation was conducted on the same day and most of the documents contain the crime number, show that I.O. did everything according to the rules and regulations and there was no manipulation of any sort in this case. 25. We are convinced that FIR is not result of concoction and manipulation. The murder took place in the broad day light and there was no occasion for the injured witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant. The site plan and sample of blood soaked earth establish the place of occurrence and this fact has not been challenged by the counsel for the appellant. 26. Learned Amicus curiae has pointed out some discrepancies saying that PW-4 Smt. Champa has stated that she came back to the place of occurrence within few minutes while PW-8 Jagjiwan Singh I.O. has said that she was present at the Police Station within 30-40 minutes of incident. Learned Amicus curiae has argued that these discrepancies create doubt about the presence of Smt. Champa on the spot. He has further argued that bucket and flowers were not found on the spot and this again creates doubt about the prosecution evidence. We are afraid, these are minor discrepancies. PW-4 is an illiterate women. Her mental condition can be visualized as all of a sudden her young son was murdered in her presence. His husband was seriously injured and in this condition, any person could have lost her mental balance. Few minutes, or 30-40 minutes are the manner of expression. It merely means that informant left the Police Station rather quickly. It is pertinent to point out that incident occurred in the year 1973 and the evidence of PW-4 Smt. Champa was recorded on 11.3.1983 and concluded on 28.4.1983. Similarly, testimony of PW-5 Moti Lal was recorded on 28.4.1983 i.e. after 10 years of incident. At the time of testimony, Moti Lal was 75 years old and Smt. Champa too was obviously an old woman. The continued absence of Babu Ram alias Babau delayed this trial. Therefore, there are bound to be some discrepancies in the earlier statements and deposition recorded in subsequent trial. These discrepancies are natural as subsequent trial was held after ten years, therefore, we do not believe that minor discrepancies adversely affect the core of prosecution case. 27. The continued absence of Babu Ram alias Babau delayed this trial. Therefore, there are bound to be some discrepancies in the earlier statements and deposition recorded in subsequent trial. These discrepancies are natural as subsequent trial was held after ten years, therefore, we do not believe that minor discrepancies adversely affect the core of prosecution case. 27. We have carefully examined all the material evidence on record. The prosecution is able to prove its case that appellant Babu Ram alias Babau was one of the assailants who attacked deceased Ram Lal and his father Moti Lal on 18.10.1973 at 3:00pm at Mohalla Ratanganj, Police Station Katra, District Mirzapur which ultimately resulted in the death of Ram Lal. 28. Now the question is whether role of appellant Babu Ram alias Babau would fall within the domain of Section 302 IPC ? Doctor opined that injury no. 1 sustained by deceased was caused by knife and whereas injury no. 2 caused by spear. The evidence reveals that co-accused Kashi was holding knife and appellant Babu Ram alias Babau was using spear (Ballam). However, Division Bench of this Court did not agree with the opinion of the doctor in Criminal Appeal No. 2552 of 1975 (Kashi versus State of U.P.). The evidence reveals that Ist appellant Babu Ram alias Babau and co-accused Kashi first assaulted injured Moti Lal (PW-5) with Ballam and knife. His deceased son Ramlal tried to save him but co-accused Kashi attacked deceased Ram Lal with knife. When he fell down then Babu Ram alias Babau attacked deceased with Ballam (spear). One thing is clear that incident occurred without any premeditation. There was some tension between rival parties on account of property dispute but that did not result in any other incident. Things erupted suddenly without premeditation. Even deceased Ram Lal received only two injuries. Evidence reveals that Babu Ram alias Babau was using spear. The testimony of PW-4 Smt. Champa (page 51 of paper book) says that Babaua caused injuries on the arm of deceased. 29. The evidence further revels that assailants initially attacked with hands and then suddenly knife was used by Kashi and spear by appellant. There is no doubt that incident occurred without any prior planning. We believe that offence committed by accused-appellant falls within the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 29. The evidence further revels that assailants initially attacked with hands and then suddenly knife was used by Kashi and spear by appellant. There is no doubt that incident occurred without any prior planning. We believe that offence committed by accused-appellant falls within the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Even if, we believe that fatal injury of deceased Ram Lal was inflicted by appellant Babu Ram alias Babau, the allegation of single blow would belie the claim of intention of appellant to cause death. In this regard, it would be appropriate to consider the impact of exception (4) of Section 300 IPC. Explanation (iv) of Section 300 IPC is reproduced below:- "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." 30. Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh versus Rayavarpu Punnayya & others) (1976) 4 SCC 382 in paragraph-21 has held thus :- "21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder,' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code is reached. This is [the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of murder' contained in Section 300. This is [the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes, within any of the Exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Penal Code. 22. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the court. But sometimes the facts are so inter-twined and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each other, that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages." 31. We have considered all the materials available on record. We have absolutely no doubt that attack indeed was made by appellant Babu Ram alias Babau along with his companions but single blow on the person of deceased belie the allegation of intentional murder. We believe that assault on the deceased was made without pre-meditation. It is also pertinent to point out that appellant did not take any undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner especially in the light of fact that deceased had received only single blow from appellant that too in his right arm. We believe that act attributed to accused-appellant falls within the domain of section 304 IPC Part (II) IPC. As far as injury on the person of Moti Lal is concerned, apparently, injury no. 5 found on his person was dangerous. This injury was rectangular in shape, meaning thereby that ordinarily this injury was not a result of knife blow. A coordinate Bench of this Court concluded that this rectangular injury was caused by use of Barcha (spear) by appellant Babu Ram alias Babau. This injury, in our opinion, would fall within the domain of Section 308 IPC. 32. This injury was rectangular in shape, meaning thereby that ordinarily this injury was not a result of knife blow. A coordinate Bench of this Court concluded that this rectangular injury was caused by use of Barcha (spear) by appellant Babu Ram alias Babau. This injury, in our opinion, would fall within the domain of Section 308 IPC. 32. Considering all the material on record, we believe that appellant Babu Ram alias Babau must be convicted under section 304 Part (II) IPC as far as injuries on the person of deceased are concerned. He has also to be convicted under section 308 IPC as far as injuries on the person of injured Moti Lal are concerned. 33. In the circumstances, appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 3.8.1983 passed by the then IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 1978 (State versus Ram Lal alias Babau) arising out of Case crime no. 478 of 1973) P.S. Katra District Mirzapur whereby appellant was convicted under sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 307 read with section 34 IPC, is set aside. Instead he is convicted under section 304 Part (ii) IPC for crime against deceased Ram Lal and sentenced to 8 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- , in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of one year. Appellant Ram Babu alias Babau is further convicted under section 308 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years for the offence committed against injured Moti Lal. Both substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 32. Office is directed to certify this judgment to the concerned trial court within 15 days through the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur. The trial court, thereafter shall report compliance of the judgment to this Court within one month.