JUDGMENT : KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.07.1983 in the morning at around 07:00 A.M. in Village Dangarthal, nine persons, namely Kalyan Singh, his three sons viz., Mamraj Singh, Hanuman Singh & Pep Singh, and Chatar Singh, Guman Singh, Devi Singh, Pooran Singh and Mst. Ramsari constituted an unlawful assembly to restrain Kailash Singh from raising a doll (ridge) and, thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is further case of the prosecution that Mamraj Singh caused lathi injury on the head of Kailash Singh resulting into his death and, thus, Mamraj Singh was charged substantively for offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code, whereas other eight co-accused having shared common object of the assembly to commit murder were charged of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that Mamraj Singh caused injuries on the eye of Man Singh (PW-7) and on the head of Omprakash (PW-1). The co-accused Kalyan Singh caused injury on the finger of Kanwarpal Singh (PW-6) and hand of Man Singh (PW-7). Devi Singh, accused also caused injury to Kanwarpal Singh. Guman Singh, accused caused injury on the mandible of Kanwarpal Singh, left shoulder of Satyanarain Singh (PW-2) and head of Man Singh. The accused Chatar Singh caused injury to Man Singh, whereas accused Hanuman Singh caused lathi injury to Man singh and, thus, had committed offences punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. All accused were also charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The Court of Sessions Judge, Tonk, vide its impugned judgment dated 30.10.1987, except Mamraj Singh, acquitted all other accused but convicted Mamraj Singh substantively for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing murder of Kailash Singh and for offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. for causing simple injuries to the witnesses. 5. Having convicted the appellant Mamraj Singh for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, the Sessions Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him as under :- "For offence under section 302 : The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5. Having convicted the appellant Mamraj Singh for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, the Sessions Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced him as under :- "For offence under section 302 : The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo four months simple imprisonment. For offence under section 323 : The appellant was sentenced to undergo four months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently." 6. The State of Rajasthan accepted the acquittal of co-accused of Mamraj Singh and has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of co-accused, whereas Mamraj Singh aggrieved by his conviction and sentence has preferred present appeal praying that his conviction be set aside and he be acquitted of the charges. 7. In the present case, the criminal proceedings were set into motion, on the basis of Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) of complainant Omprakash (PW-1), brother of deceased-Kailash Singh. Karan Singh (PW-13) in the Court deposed that on 31.07.1983 when he was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Niwai at 11:20 A.M. a private bus came from Dangarthal. In the said bus, five injured were present. The bus stopped in front of Police Station. He took the injured to Niwai hospital. Omprakash son of Nawal Singh stated in Parchabayan, (Exhibit-P/1), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report bearing No. 103/1983 (Exhibit-P/22) was registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149, 323, 452 and 341 of Indian Penal Code. After registration of the case, Kailash Singh died and, hence, an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was added. Complainant Omprakash (PW-1), brother of deceased, in the Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1) stated that on the morning of 31.07.1983 at around 07:30 A.M. he and his younger brother Kailash Singh in a bagichi (small garden) were raising a doll (ridge). Mamraj Singh and Kalyan Singh, residents of Dangarthal arrived and stated that they will not permit them to raise doll (ridge). Both caught-hold of the hands of Kailash Singh. Mamraj Singh caused lathi injury on the head of Kailash Singh. Mamraj Singh and Kalyan Singh, residents of Dangarthal arrived and stated that they will not permit them to raise doll (ridge). Both caught-hold of the hands of Kailash Singh. Mamraj Singh caused lathi injury on the head of Kailash Singh. When Omprakash came forward to save Kailash Singh then Mamraj Singh caused lathi injury on the head of Omprakash. Thereafter, complainant Omprakash took his brother Kailash Singh inside his house then Mamraj Singh, Kalyan Singh, Pep Singh, Devi Singh, Guman Singh, Chatar Singh and Mst. Ramesari armed with lathies followed them and trespassed into their house and gave beating. The accused started causing injuries to Kanwarpal Singh, Satyanarain Singh, Man Singh and Ramswaroop Singh. The above said persons sustained injuries on the various parts of the body. The accused also caused injuries to the mother - Laxmi and sister Parwati. On hearing noise, Kalu Singh, Babu Singh and Ummed Singh etc. arrived at the spot. They separated them. At that time, Pooran Singh came armed with sword, but he was intercepted by the Villagers. The Villagers took accused outside the house. The accused while going outside had thrown the stones. Kailash Singh became unconscious. When complainant-party wanted to take injured Kailash Singh to the hospital, accused came forward to cause them injuries and, thus, restrained them. However, Kailash Singh in a camel-cart was brought to the hospital, Niwai. From the above Parchabayan (Exhibit-P/1), on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/22) was recorded, following four facts are discernible :- "A. Mamraj Singh had caused a solitary blow on the head of Kailash Singh, who become unconscious at the spot. Furthermore, Mamraj Singh had also caused lathi injury on the head of Omprakash (PW-1) when he came forward to intervene. B. It is stated in the First Information Report that other accused, alongwith Mamraj Singh had trespassed into the house of the complainant and had caused injuries on various persons, namely Kanwarpal Singh, Satyanarain, Man Singh, Ramswaroop Singh, Laxmi and Parwati. C. The occurrence had erupted when Kailash Singh, deceased and Omprakash (PW-1) were raising a doll (ridge) and they were restrained by Mamraj Singh and his father Kalyan Singh. D. In the written-report (Exhibit-P/1), nothing has been stated, qua the injuries suffered by the accused in the alleged occurrence." 8. C. The occurrence had erupted when Kailash Singh, deceased and Omprakash (PW-1) were raising a doll (ridge) and they were restrained by Mamraj Singh and his father Kalyan Singh. D. In the written-report (Exhibit-P/1), nothing has been stated, qua the injuries suffered by the accused in the alleged occurrence." 8. Before we revert back to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it will be necessary for us to take brief note of the medical evidence. 9. Dr. Gopal Singh Rajawat (PW-8) on 31.07.1983 while posted as Medical Officer in Government Hospital, Niwai, had examined injured Man Singh (PW-7), brother of deceased Kailash Singh and complainant Omprakash (PW-1). The said Doctor in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/4) had noted following six injuries on the person of Man Singh :- "1. Abrasion " x " on the right eye-brow, simple blunt 2. Lacerated wound " x " x " on the right parietal bone. simple blunt 3. Lacerated wound 2"x " x " on the mid of the right parietal bone. simple blunt 4. Lacerated wound 2" x " x " on the left parietal bone. simple blunt 5. Contusion 31/2" x 1 " on the right forearm (posterior) simple blunt 6. Contusion 4" x 1" on the right back. simple blunt." Dr. Gopal Singh Rajawat (PW-8) on the said date and time, had noted following injury in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/5) on the person of Kailash Singh, deceased :- "1. Lacerated wound " x " x " on the mid of the right parietal bone. Grievous and blunt." The said Doctor had also examined Kanwarpal Singh (PW-6) and had noted following four simple blunt injuries in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/6) :- "1. Abrasion " x " on the lip of the left little finger. simple blunt 2. Contusion 2" x 1" on the mid of the right arm (hand) simple blunt 3. Lacerated wound x x on the left mandible. simple blunt 4. Abrasion 1" x " on the right back. simple blunt." Dr. Gopal Singh Rajawat (PW-8) on the said date and time had also examined Omprakash (PW-1), complainant and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/7) had noted following two simple blunt injuries :- "1. Lacerated wound 1" x " x " on the right parietal bone. simple blunt. 2. Contusion 3" x 1" on the mid of the right thigh. simple blunt. Dr. Gopal Singh Rajawat (PW-8) on the said date and time had also examined Omprakash (PW-1), complainant and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/7) had noted following two simple blunt injuries :- "1. Lacerated wound 1" x " x " on the right parietal bone. simple blunt. 2. Contusion 3" x 1" on the mid of the right thigh. simple blunt. Dr. Gopal Singh Rajawat (PW-8) had also examined Satyanarain Singh (PW-2) and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/8) had noted following four simple blunt injuries :- "1. Lacerated wound 1" x " x " on the left parietal bone. simple blunt 2. Abrasion 1"x 1" on the left shoulder. simple blunt 3. Contusion 21/2" x 1" on the back of the neck. simple blunt 4. Contusion 2" x 1" on the right thumb. simple blunt. Dr. Gopal Singh Rajawat (PW-8) also examined Smt. Parwati (PW-5) and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/9) had noted following two simple blunt injuries :- "1. Contusion 1" x 1" on the left mandible but below lower eye lid. simple blunt. 2. Abrasion " x " on the right supra scapular region. simple blunt. Dr. Gopal Singh Rajawat (PW-8) also examined Ramswaroop Singh (PW-3) and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-P/10) had noted following simple blunt injury :- "1. Abrasion " x " on the left parietal prominence. Simple blunt." Dr. Gopal Singh Rajawat (PW-8) has further stated that on the very same day i.e. on 31.07.1983, Kailash Singh expired. He had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Kailash Singh, vide Exhibit-P/11 and had noted one lacerated wound on the right side of the parietal bone measuring " x " x ". On the opening of skull, he had found depressed fracture of the parietal bone. As per opinion of the Doctor, Kailash Singh died due to shock caused to the injury to the brain. 10. In the cross-examination, Dr. Rajawat (PW-8) admitted that on the same date i.e. on 31.07.1983, he had examined Mamraj Singh, accused and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-D/8) had noted following nine injuries on his person :- "1. Lacerated wound 2" x " x " on the mid of the occipital. simple blunt. 2. Lacerated wound 11/2" " x " on the left parietal bone. simple blunt. 3. Lacerated wound 11/2" " x " on the left parietal bone. simple blunt. 4. Abrasion " x " on the left frontal parietal joint. simple blunt. Lacerated wound 2" x " x " on the mid of the occipital. simple blunt. 2. Lacerated wound 11/2" " x " on the left parietal bone. simple blunt. 3. Lacerated wound 11/2" " x " on the left parietal bone. simple blunt. 4. Abrasion " x " on the left frontal parietal joint. simple blunt. 5. Abrasion " x " on the right mandible. simple blunt. 6. Contusion with swelling 3" x 2" on the left lower forearm. simple blunt 7. Contusion 8" x 1" on the back (both). simple blunt 8. Contusion 8" x 1" on the left back. simple blunt 9. Contusion 2" x 1" on the mid of the right arm (lateral). simple blunt." 11. Out of the said injuries, Injury Nos. 2 and 6 were declared grievous in nature. We may highlight here that the injury No. 2 is on the left parietal bone, whereas injury No. 6 is on the left hand. Injuries No. 1 to 5 are on vital portion of the body. 12. On the said date and time, Dr. Rajawat had also examined accused-Kalyan Singh and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-D/9) had noted following eight simple blunt injuries :- "1. Contusion 6" x 1" on the left scapular. simple blunt 2. Contusion 4" x 1" on the right scapular. simple blunt 3. Contusion 2" x 1" on the right mid arm (lateral). simple blunt 4. Lacerated wound with swelling " x " x " on the right mandible. simple blunt 5. Abrasion " x " x " on the left temporal region. simple blunt 6. Lacerated wound 3" x " x " on the occipita parietal. simple blunt 7. Abrasion 3" x " on the left parietal. simple blunt 8. Abrasion " x " just above left eyebrow. simple blunt" Dr. Rajawat (PW-8) also examined Guman Singh, accused and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-D/10) had noted following two simple injuries :- "1. Abrasion " x" on the left parietal prominence. simple blunt. 2. Abrasion x " on left index finger II phalanx. simple blunt. Dr. Rajawat (PW-8) also examined Mst. Ramesari, on the side of the accused and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-D/11) had noted following two injuries :- "1. Abrasion " x " on the left parietal prominence simple blunt. 2. Swelling 2" x 2" on the right wrist joint. simple blunt. Dr. simple blunt. Dr. Rajawat (PW-8) also examined Mst. Ramesari, on the side of the accused and in the Injury Report (Exhibit-D/11) had noted following two injuries :- "1. Abrasion " x " on the left parietal prominence simple blunt. 2. Swelling 2" x 2" on the right wrist joint. simple blunt. Dr. Rajawat (PW-8) also examined Chatar Singh, accused and on his person in the Injury Report (Exhibit-D/12) had noted following one injury :- 1. Swelling 2" x 2" on the dorsum of the left hand simple blunt. 13. Thus, in view of above medical evidence, it is discernible that Kailash Singh, deceased had suffered only one injury on the parietal bone, which led to its depressed fracture. Thus, the injury attributed to Mamraj Singh has proved fatal. Besides Kailash Singh, deceased, in the alleged occurrence, Omprakash (PW-1), Satyanarain Singh (PW-2), Ramswaroop Singh (PW-3), Kanwarpal Singh (PW-6) and Man Singh (PW-7), all brothers of Kailash Singh, deceased have suffered simple injuries, along with their mother, Smt. Laxmi (PW-4) and sister Smt. Parwati (PW-5). Thus, on the side of the complainant party, besides deceased, seven persons have suffered injuries, whereas on the side of accused-appellant, Mamraj Singh, his father Kalyan Singh, & Guman Singh, Chatar Singh and Mst. Ramsari, all accused, had suffered injuries. 14. We may note here that two injuries on the person of Mamraj Singh were declared grievous in nature. Out of said two injuries, one injury was on the head. Kalyan Singh, Guman Singh and Mst. Ramsari have also suffered simple injuries on the head. All seven injured have been examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged occurrence. 15. Omprakash (PW-1) in the Court deposed that when he and his brother Kailash Singh were raising a doll (ridge) then Mamraj Singh and Kalyan Singh came, they started giving abuses and restrained them to raise doll/ridge. Kalyan Singh caught-hold of the hands of Kailash Singh and Mamraj Singh caused injury on his head and when he stepped forward, Mamraj Singh, also caused injury on his head. 16. The trial Judge noticed the demeanour of Omprakash (PW-1) by observing as under :- ^^,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd lk{kh us viuk ikB vPNh rjg ;kn fd;k gSA ;gka rd dh c;ku mlus fcuk :ds gq, /kkjk izokg :i ls Lor% fn;k gS tcfd yksd vfHk;kstd dks b'kkjs ls pqi jgus dks dg fn;k gSA^^ 17. 16. The trial Judge noticed the demeanour of Omprakash (PW-1) by observing as under :- ^^,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd lk{kh us viuk ikB vPNh rjg ;kn fd;k gSA ;gka rd dh c;ku mlus fcuk :ds gq, /kkjk izokg :i ls Lor% fn;k gS tcfd yksd vfHk;kstd dks b'kkjs ls pqi jgus dks dg fn;k gSA^^ 17. In cross-examination, this witness Omprakash (PW-1) stated that accused had also suffered injuries. He stated that accused had suffered injuries themselves, and he & his brother Kailash Singh and other brothers had not caused injuries to the accused. 18. We reproduce here following portion from the cross examination of this witness Omprakash (PW-1) :- ^^dSyk'k esjk lxk HkkbZ FkkA eqyfteku ds pksVsa vkbZ Fkh vkil esa gh yx tkus ls pksVsa vkbZ FkhA eSaus o dSyk'k flag us o esjs vU; Hkkb;ksa us eqyfteku esa ls fdlh ds Hkh dksbZ pksV ugha ekjhA^^ 19. The other witnesses, namely Satyanarain Singh (PW-2), Ramswaroop Singh (PW-3), Kanwarpal Singh (PW-6) and Man Singh (PW-7), being brother of deceased-Kailash Singh have corroborated the testimony of Omprakash (PW-1). Similarly, their mother Smt. Laxmi (PW-4) and sister Smt. Parwati (PW-5) have also reiterated the same as to what was stated by the complainant in the Parchabayan (Exhibit P/1). 20. However, undeniable fact remain that the complainant party has not explained the injuries on the person of five accused, rather a lame explanation was furnished that accused themselves have suffered injuries. 21. Therefore, Mr. Mohit Balwada and Mr. Deepak Soni, ld. advocates appearing for Mr. Praveen Balwada, ld. Counsel for the accused-appellant, have forcibly emphasised before us that the unsatisfactorily explanation given by the complainant party qua the injuries suffered by the accused amounts to suppression of origin and genesis of the alleged occurrence and, thus, we should extend the complete right of self-defence to the accused. 22. The learned advocates appearing for the accused-appellant, has relied upon the case of Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 , wherein 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. 23. 23. 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 probabilism 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. 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." 24. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we are of the view that both, the complainant and accused (party have not come before the Court with the clean-hands. The appellant Mamraj Singh, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 though has stated that he was caused injuries by the witnesses, had not taken a specific defence version. Even defence witness Ramnarain (DW-1) has not advanced the case of accused. He has also not highlighted specific version of the defence. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court from the prosecution case itself cannot extend the complete right of self-defence to accused, however, from prosecution case, it is evident that when Kailash Singh, deceased and Omprakash (PW-1) were raising doll (ridge) around the babiche (small garden), Mamraj Singh and Kalyan Singh protested, objected and attempted to restrain them and then both complainant and accused party without any premeditation on the spur of the moment came to blows. 25. Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C. reads as under :- "Exception 4. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." Thus, to us it is a case of sudden fight. 26. Our above view is fortified by observations made by Apex Court in case of Jumman & Ors. v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1957 SC 469 ], wherein Their Lordships held as under:- "(24). 26. Our above view is fortified by observations made by 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. 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." 27. 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. 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." 28. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Jumman (supra) and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the offence, if any, committed by Mamraj Singh, appellant will fall under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C. 29. Consequently, we alter the conviction of the appellant Mamraj Singh from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. Having modified the above offence, we set aside life imprisonment awarded to the appellant by the trial Judge. Having converted the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C., we have to ponder regarding the quantum of sentence. 30. On 29.04.1985 the statement of Mamraj Singh, accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 was recorded by the trial Court. In the said statement, the age of Mamraj Singh has been noted as twenty-five years and upon estimation by the Court as thirty-years. Thus, as on today, the appellant is about sixty-years old. 31. The occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year, 1983. Thus, the appellant has suffered pain and agony of a protracted trial for a long period of thirty-four years. It has been held by the Courts that the appeal is continuation of the trial. Thus, the present appellant is in the corridors of the Court from last more than three decades. Thus, the appellant has suffered pain and agony of a protracted trial for a long period of thirty-four years. It has been held by the Courts that the appeal is continuation of the trial. Thus, the present appellant is in the corridors of the Court from last more than three decades. It has been further held by the Courts while interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which vest the right of speedy trial in the accused that the protracted trial is to be construed as a mitigating circumstances. 32. The learned advocates appearing for the accused-appellant, have urged before us that the appellant, after registration of present case and prior thereto has not committed any offence and his antecedents are above board. It is further contended by ld. advocates appearing for the accused-appellant, that the appellant is a sole bread earner of the family and he has large family to support. 33. Considering the protracted trial, the age, the antecedents and the family conditions of the accused-appellant, we are of the considered view that the above circumstances, as spelt out by the ld. advocates appearing for the accused-appellant, are to be construed as mitigating circumstances. 34. Therefore, we are of the view that the sentence of three years under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. will serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the life imprisonment awarded by the trial Judge under Section 302 I.P.C. Hence, we sentence the appellant to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. The sentence awarded to the appellant for offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. is maintained and same shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded by us for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. However, we impose a fine of Rs. 20,000/- upon the appellant, along with the sentence awarded by us for offence under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. It is further ordered that in case, the appellant fails to deposit the amount of fine, he shall undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. The period already undergone by the appellant, during trial and after conviction shall be set off from the sentence of three years awarded by us under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. 35. The appellant at the time of admission of the appeal on 20.11.1987 was ordered to be released on bail. The period already undergone by the appellant, during trial and after conviction shall be set off from the sentence of three years awarded by us under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. 35. The appellant at the time of admission of the appeal on 20.11.1987 was ordered to be released on bail. Hence, we direct the trial Court to take the appellant into custody forthwith to undergo remaining period of sentence. 36. Kailash Singh, deceased at the time of alleged occurrence was aged fourteen-years, his family members and legal heirs are also concerned about the outcome of the present appeal. 37. Taking totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the family members of Kailash Singh, deceased, who died due to the injury caused by the appellant Mamraj Singh, are entitled to compensation under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. under the Victim Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan. 38. We direct Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jaipur to disburse the amount of compensation to the family members of deceased Kailash Singh under the Victim Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan in consonance with the Section 357-A Cr.P.C. 39. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the record be sent to the trial Court forthwith. 40. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, Jaipur.