JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Phool Chand and Rampal, two brothers being sons of Late Ganesharam, along with Smt. Bhagwati Devi wife of Rampal were tried along with Rampratap son of accused Rampal and Smt. Bhagwati Devi. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, Jaipur District, vide impugned judgment dated 9.1.2014, recorded acquittal of Phool Chand, Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Rampal and held the appellant Rampratap guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. Having convicted the appellant Rampratap for the above said offence, the trial court sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one year additional imprisonment. 2. To assail his conviction and sentence, the appellant Rampratap has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 183/2014, whereas State of Rajasthan to challenge the acquittal of Phool Chand, Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Rampal, has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 555/2014. We shall decide both these appeals together by this common judgment. 3. The criminal proceeding were set into motion on the statement (Exhibit-P/5) made by Arjun (P.W.2) before ASI, Kishan Lal not examined. The statement of Arjun (P.W.2) leading to registration of FIR (Exhibit-P/17) bearing No. 365/2009, registered at Police Station Harmada, when translated into English, reads as under:- "It is stated that today at about 7:00 PM in the evening, I along with my cousin Richhpal son of Shri Nahruram, Rajesh Meena, Vinod Meena were going from Dhani Asawali to Shrirampura. On the way, near the house of Rampal and Phool Chand, Rampal, Phool Chand, Balram and Siddharth opened the attack upon us. They all were armed with lathis and Farsis. Phool Chand gave a Farsi blow on my head. Rampratap caused a lathi blow on the head of Richhpal. Smt. Bhagwati Devi caused an injury with stone on the head of Rajesh. Rampratap gave a lathi blow to Richhpal, me and Rajesh. Richhpal due to injuries caused, became unconscious and fell upon the spot. We ran away from the spot to save our lives. Later we lifted Richhpal and brought him in Bulero vehicle of Bhagchand Sharma to Harmada Police Station and from there along with police reached at SMS Hospital and got Richhpal admitted. During the treatment, Richhpal died. Richhpal had died in the fight due to beating caused. We ran away from the spot to save our lives. Later we lifted Richhpal and brought him in Bulero vehicle of Bhagchand Sharma to Harmada Police Station and from there along with police reached at SMS Hospital and got Richhpal admitted. During the treatment, Richhpal died. Richhpal had died in the fight due to beating caused. We are already having litigation with Rampal and due to this grudge, they have given beating to us, as a result thereof, Richhpal had died. The dead body has been kept in Bangar Ward of SMS Hospital." 4. A perusal of the above FIR reveals that the occurrence had taken place on 19.8.2009 at 7:00 PM. The statement of Arjun (P.W.2) was recorded by ASI Kishan Lal not examined, in the Bangar Ward of SMS Hospital at 9:30 PM. The case was registered on the intervening night of 19th and 20th of August, 2009 at 1:15 AM. The special report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 20.8.2009 at 11:30 AM. 5. In the present case, the prosecution has examined Arjun (P.W.2), Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3), Vinod Kumar (P.W.4), Hari Narayan (P.W.6), Ramniwas (P.W.9) and Madan (P.W.10) as eyewitnesses. 6. Before, we notice the testimony of the eyewitnesses, it will be pertinent for us to note the medical evidence. 7. Dr. Vijay Kumar (P.W.11) on 20.8.2009, was posted as Medical Officer at Kawatiya Hospital. On the said date, this witness at 10:50 AM, examined Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3) son of Banwari Lal Meena aged 22 years, and in injury report (Exhibit-P/14), had noted following injuries:- "1. Abrasion with red clotted blood, (i) 1.5x0.5cm on left parietal region of scalp and (ii) 1.0 x 1.0 cm on right parietal region of scalp. 2. Abrasion with red clotted blood, (i) 1.5 x 1.0 cm, on right shoulder on tip, (ii) 1.0 x 1.0 cm, on tip of right big toe of foot, (iii) 1.5 x 1.0 cm, on tip of left big toe of foot." 8. Dr. Vijay Kumar (P.W.11) on the said date, at 10:30 AM, had also examined Arjun (P.W.2) son of Radhakishan and in the injury report (Exhibit-P/15) had noted following injuries on his person:- "1. Bruise, reddish, (i) 4 x 3 cm on right forearm upper 1/3rd Ex. Surface. 2. Abraded bruise, reddish, (i) 4.5 x 2cm, on right arm upper 1/3 Ex. Surface, (ii) 3.0 x 1.0 cm, on left arm upper 1/3 Ex. surface. 3. Bruise, reddish, (i) 4 x 3 cm on right forearm upper 1/3rd Ex. Surface. 2. Abraded bruise, reddish, (i) 4.5 x 2cm, on right arm upper 1/3 Ex. Surface, (ii) 3.0 x 1.0 cm, on left arm upper 1/3 Ex. surface. 3. Abrasion, reddish, (i) 4.5 x 0.5cm, on right thigh lower 1/3 Ext. surface. 4. Stitched wound with red clotted blood, (i) 4.0 cm long with four stitches, on left fronto parietal region of scalp." 9. Dr. Suman Dutta (P.W.14), being a member of Medical Board, on 20.8.2009, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Richhpal. As per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/16), Richhpal had died on 19.8.2009 at 11:15 PM. In the post mortem report, following injuries on the person of Richhpal were noticed:- "1. Abrasion, 2 x 1 cm, right leg, upper 1/3 anterior, red colour. 2. Abrasion, 3 x 1/3 cm, left leg, lower 1/3 red colour, anteromedially. 3. Abrasion, 1/4 x 1/4 cm, right 4th knuckle, red colour dorsally red colour. 4. Diffuse swelling right pariteo temporal region. 5. Diffuse swelling left temporal region with left ear dried red clotted blood. On Exn. Subscalp haematoma on right pariteo temporal region and left temporal region. On Exn. right coronal fracture line subdural (diastaris) and left temporal fracture line at base 5 cm long. Dura Congusted bluish with subdural haematoma on right fronto-parieto temporal thick membrane present and thin layer of left temporal subdural haematoma, left temporal contusion of size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm red colour. All injuries are antemortem in nature. 6. Abrasion 3x2 cm left shoulder back red in colour. Injuries are antemortem in nature and fresh in duration." 10. A perusal of above said injuries, reveals that injury Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 are abrasions on the non-vital parts of the body. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 are abrasions on the legs, whereas injury No. 3 is on the left hand. Injury No. 6 is the abrasion present on the back of left shoulder. Injury No. 4 was on right parieto temporal region and injury No. 5 was on the left temporo-parietal region. According to the Board of doctors, the cause of death was cerebral damage. In the post mortem report, it has been noted that injuries No. 4 and 5 cumulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 4 was on right parieto temporal region and injury No. 5 was on the left temporo-parietal region. According to the Board of doctors, the cause of death was cerebral damage. In the post mortem report, it has been noted that injuries No. 4 and 5 cumulatively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As per Medical Board, injuries No. 4 and 5 were caused by hard blunt weapon. 11. We may notice here that as per Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Rampratap, in the occurrence, Smt. Bhagwati Devi had suffered injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Smt. Bhagwati Devi was examined on 26.8.2009 at 10:50 AM and as per Exhibit-D/12, she complained of pain in the skull, however, there was no visible injury at the place where pain was complained of. Injury No. 3 is bruise accompanied by diffuse swelling on the later aspect of upper half of right leg. The same was blackish in colour. According to Mr. Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant, injury No. 3 was declared as grievous as same was fracture of Fibula. To support this fact, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon X-ray report (Exhibit-D/15). According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the occurrence, Rampratap had also suffered two abrasions. Abrasion No. 1 was 1.5cm x 1cm on left elbow joint, whereas, abrasion No. 2 was 1x0.2 cm on middle part of sternum. Phool Chand had also suffered two abrasions in the occurrence. He also complained of pain. 12. Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that vide Exhibit-D/12, Exhibit-D/13 and Exhibit-D/14, accused Smt. Bhagwati Devi, Rampratap and Phool Chand were examined by the doctor. We find that the trial court has exhibited Exhibit-D/12 to Exhibit-D/15 on the record. 13. Having noted the medical evidence, we revert back to the ocular version. 14. Arjun (P.W.2) being complainant, deposed in the court that on 19.8.2009, at about 7:00 PM, he along with cousin Richhpal, Rajesh and Vinod were going to Bisanpura. On the way, Rampal, Phool Chand, Rampratap, Balram, Siddharth and Bhagwati opened attack on them. Rampratap caused an injury on the head of Richhpal. Richhpal fell down and thereafter, Rampratap caused another blow on the head of Richhpal. On the way, Rampal, Phool Chand, Rampratap, Balram, Siddharth and Bhagwati opened attack on them. Rampratap caused an injury on the head of Richhpal. Richhpal fell down and thereafter, Rampratap caused another blow on the head of Richhpal. Thereafter, Phool Chand caused Farsi blow on his head and Bhagwati Devi pelted stone, which hit on the head of Rajesh. Rampal was standing and was exhorting his co-accused to kill the complainant party. Balram and Siddharth had given kick and fist blows. 15. In examination-in-chief, Arjun (P.W.2) stated that they were having a land dispute with the accused party. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that they were going on passage in front of the well near the house of accused Rampal. In cross-examination, this witness further admitted that fight had taken place in front of the house of Rampal. We shall reproduce the following portion from the cross-examination of Arjun (P.W.2), as under:- ^^xzke fc’kuiqjk okyks dks bl ckr dh tkudkjh gks x;h Fkh fd jkeiky ds edku ds lkeus gekjk >xMk gks x;k gSA** 16. Arjun (P.W.2) further stated that he had disclosed to the police that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of Rampal. This witness further admitted to be correct that in front of house of Rampal and Phool Chand, stones were lying and he had disclosed this fact to the police. This witness also admitted that fight between the parties continued for 2 to 3 hours. This witness further admitted to be correct that due to pelting of stones, police had lifted the stones in front of the house of accused and same were stained with blood. This witness stated as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd 19-8-09 dks bu nksuks ds edku ds ckgj iRFkj iMs gq, FksA eSus ;g ckr iqfyl dks Hkh crk;h FkhA >xMk nksuks ikfVZ;ks ds chp 2&3 ?k.Vs pyk FkkA iqfyl us ?kVuk LFky ij iRFkj iMs gksuk uD’ks es fn[kk;s ;k ugh eq>s irk ugh gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkil esa iRFkjckth es tks iRFkj pys ftu ij [kwu yxk gqvk Fkk oks iqfyl okys mBkdj ys x, FksA** 17. Arjun (P.W.2) in cross-examination stated that as to how Phool Chand, Rampratap and Bhagwati Devi revived injuries, he is not aware. ^^Qqypan] jkeizrki vkSj Hkxorh ds pksVs dSls vk;h bldh eq>s tkudkjh ugh gSA** 18. Arjun (P.W.2) in cross-examination stated that as to how Phool Chand, Rampratap and Bhagwati Devi revived injuries, he is not aware. ^^Qqypan] jkeizrki vkSj Hkxorh ds pksVs dSls vk;h bldh eq>s tkudkjh ugh gSA** 18. However, Arjun (P.W.2) in the court stated that he is not aware that Phool Chand had made telephonic call to the police and Phool Chand and Bhagwati Devi were rescued by the police from the house. 19. Rajesh Kumar Meena (P.W.3), so far as sequence of occurrence is concerned, has supported Arjun (P.W.2). This witness in the court stated that Hari Narayan (P.W.6) along with Shravan were attracted to the spot. Satpal and Nehruram had taken Richhpal to the hospital. This witness admitted that due to dispute over the land, both the parties were having grudge since long. 20. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that their house is at distance of half or two kilometer from the place of occurrence. This witness further admitted that they along with dead body of Richhpal directly reached police station and Arjun (P.W.2) and Vinod (P.W.4) had not lodged any report at the police station and the police had not enquired as to how they have suffered injuries. This witness stated that before 11:00 PM, regarding the occurrence, nothing was stated to the police. We shall reproduce the following portion from the cross-examination of Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3) as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd ?kVukLFky ls tc ge lh/ks Fkkus igqps rks ge yksxks }kjk dksbZ fjiksVZ Fkkus ij fy[kdj ugh nh x;hA tc vtqZu vkSj fouksn us dksbZ fjiksVZ Fkkus ij nh gh ugh rks tkudkjh D;k nsxs \ tc ge lHkh yksx Fkkus x, rks Fkkus ij iqfyl okyks us gels ;g ugh iwNk fd vki yksxks ds ;s pksVs fdl izdkj vk;hA tc ge vLirky igqps rks MkWDVj gekjh ckrphr gq;h FkhA iqfyl okys ,l,e,l vLirky es ipkZ c;ku ysus vk, FksA yxHkx 11-00 cts jkr dks vk;s FksA muds }kjk vtqZu dk ipkZ c;ku fy;k x;k FkkA jkr dks 11-00 cts ls igys gekjh dksbZ ckrphr ;k eqykdkr vkil esa IkpkZ c;ku ysus ls igys ugh gq;h FkhA** 21. Vinod Kumar Meena being a child witness was examined as P.W.4. This witness in the court also supported Arjun (P.W.2) and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3), as to how injuries were caused to Richhpal deceased, Arjun (P.W.2) and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3). Vinod Kumar Meena being a child witness was examined as P.W.4. This witness in the court also supported Arjun (P.W.2) and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3), as to how injuries were caused to Richhpal deceased, Arjun (P.W.2) and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3). Further, this witness admitted that even though he suffered injury on his back, he was not medico-legally examined. This witness in the court further admitted that fight had continued between the parties for half an hour. This witness stated as under:- ^^vkil es vk/ks ?k.Vs rd >xMk pyk FkkA** 22. Vinod Kumar Meena (P.W.4) further admitted that pelting of stones had occurred between the parties and the witness in cross-examination stated as under:- ^^iRFkjckth gq;h Fkh bldh tkudkjh eq>s gSA eSus ?kVukLFky ij gh iqfyl dks ;g crk fn;k Fkk fd ?kVukLFky ij tks iRFkjckth gq;h os ogh ij iMs gq, gS vkSj iqfyl dks Hkh [kwu yxs gq, iRFkj crk fn;s FksA** 23. Vinod Kumar Meena (P.W.4) further admitted to correct that stones pelted, stained with blood were lying on the side of the house of Rampal and Phool Chand. ^^;g lgh gS fd mDr [kwu yxs iRFkj jkeiky vksj Qqypan ds edku ds lkbZM es iMs gq, FksA** 24. Vinod Kumar Meena (P.W.4) stated that he is not aware that on 19.8.2009 police arrived at the house of Rampal and they made him open the door and rescued him. 25. Hari Narayan (P.W.6) is related to the complainant party. This witness stated that when the occurrence took place, he was at his house and he had taken the deceased Richhpal to the police station. This witness further admitted that both sides had pelted stones at each other. This witness stated as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd vkil es iRFkjckth gq;h FkhA** 26. Ramniwas (P.W.9) in the court stated that he was irrigating his field when accused came and caused injuries. This witness in the court stated that he is not aware as to how Phool Chand, Bhagwati Devi and Rampratap had suffered injuries. This witness in the court stated as under:- ^^eq>s ;g ugh irk fd Qqypan jkeizrki vkSj Hkxorh ds pksVs dSls vk;hA** 27. Ramniwas (P.W.9) in the court stated that fight continued between the parties for half an hour. 28. Madan (P.W.10) in the court stated that he was present in his field when he heard about the occurrence. This witness reached at the spot while running. Ramniwas (P.W.9) in the court stated that fight continued between the parties for half an hour. 28. Madan (P.W.10) in the court stated that he was present in his field when he heard about the occurrence. This witness reached at the spot while running. This witness stated that in his presence, accused were causing injuries. 29. Girdhari (P.W.12) was also attracted at the spot. This witness in his testimony in the court has stated that he was taking tea in the Dhani of Radhakishan when he heard the noise. This witness came to the spot and saw that the accused were giving beating. This witness stated that after he arrived at the spot, ten minutes later Hari Narayan, Madan and Sitaram reached there. The following lines from the cross-examination of Girdhari (P.W.12) are reproduced as under:- ^^esjs igqpus ds 10 feuV ckn gfj] enu o lhrkjke igqp x, FksA fQj ge e`rd fjNiky dks mBkdj ys x, FksA** 30. Shravan (P.W.15) was also attracted at the spot. This witness in the court also stated that they heard the noise and reached at the spot. Accused were causing injuries. 31. Girdhari (P.W.12) and Shravan (P.W.15) have not deposed regarding pelting of stones in front of them. 32. We have noticed the statement of eyewitnesses. So far Constable Mahendra Singh (P.W.1) is concerned, he had attested memo regarding arrest of the accused. Another witnesses namely Hari Narayan (P.W.7) and Kaluram (P.W.8) had witnessed the recovery of weapons from the accused. Constable Richhpal (P.W.13) had also witnessed the arrest of the accused. 33. Having noted the entire prosecution case, now we shall revert to the testimony of Dharmveer (P.W.16), who was posted as SHO, Police Station Harmada and had carried investigation of the case. This witness in cross-examination admitted that when the complainant party arrived at the police station along with Richhpal, at that time, Arjun (P.W.2) had not divulged anything regarding the incident. Following lines from the cross-examination of this witness are reproduced as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd bZ,Dlih&16 ds vuqlkj fjNiky Fkkus is vk;k Fkk csgks’k Fkk vtqZuyky Hkh Fkkus ij vk;k Fkk og gks’k es Fkk ;g lgh gS fd vtqZu us ml le; uk rks fjiksVZ nh uk >xMk djus okyks ds uke crk;sA** 34. Dharmveer (P.W.16) further admitted that he had investigated the cross case and got Bhagwati Devi medico legally examined. Dharmveer (P.W.16) further admitted that he had investigated the cross case and got Bhagwati Devi medico legally examined. This witness stated that in the cross case, he had submitted Final Report in negative form, holding that the complainant party had acted in defence. We shall reproduce the following portion from the cross-examination of the investigating officer, as under:- ^^;g lgh gS fd bl izdj.k dks ysdj /kkjk 156 ¼3½ lhvkjihlh ds rgr izdj.k ntZ gqvk Fkk ftldh rQrh’k eSus djh Fkh eSus eqyfteku dk esfMdy djk;k Fkk ftles dsoy Hkxorh ds pksVs vk;h Fkh eq>s /;ku ugh jkeizrki Qqypan ds pksV vk;h gks esfMdy gqvk gks ml eqdnes es ,Q vkj nh Fkh ,Qvkj cpko eqdnek ntZ djkus ij nh FkhA vfHk;qDrx.k ds pksVs dSls vk;h ;s eS i=koyh ns[k oxSj ugh crk ldrkA esus ekatwjk eqdnes ds vfHk;qDr i{k ds vk;h pksVks dk esfMdy fjiksVZ 'kkfey ugh dhA ;g lgh gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks muds }kjk ntZ djk;s eqdnes ls igys fxjQrkj dj fy;k FkkA** 35. Dharmveer (P.W.16) the investigating officer further admitted that in the occurrence, accused had also suffered injuries. 36. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 37. Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Arjun (P.W.2) in the court has admitted that the occurrence had taken place in front of house of Rampal and Phool Chand. It is contended that Bhagwati Devi acquitted accused is wife of Rampal and appellant Rampratap is son of Rampal and Bhagwati Devi, whereas Phool Chand is brother of Rampal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that very fact that occurrence took place in front of house of accused, should be sufficient for the court to construe that the complainant party was aggressor. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant party has admitted that they were having inimical relations with the accused and thus, it is submitted that the complainant party had no occasion to come in front of house of accused except to cause injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, by not explaining the injuries on the person of accused, the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence, thus, no reliance can be placed upon them as witnesses have admitted that they were having inimical relations with the accused party. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, by not explaining the injuries on the person of accused, the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence, thus, no reliance can be placed upon them as witnesses have admitted that they were having inimical relations with the accused party. It is further submitted that by denying the injuries on the person of accused, it is apparent that the prosecution witnesses are not truthful. 38. Mr. Anshuman Saxena, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant party was not armed with any weapon. They were going to village Bisanpura and when they reached near house of accused, the accused party with design came and attacked. 39. Mr. Aladeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial court has wrongly acquitted Bhagwati Devi, Rampal and Phool Chand as they shared common intention with Rampratap and had caused injuries to deceased Richhpal, Arjun (P.W.2) and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3). It is stated that specific role has been assigned to Bhagwati Devi. She pelted stone on the head of Rajesh Kumar and Phool Chand had caused injury with Farsi to Arjun (P.W.2). 40. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced before us. 41. In the present case, admittedly, pelting of stones on both sides had taken place. We have examined the injuries suffered by Arjun (P.W.2), Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3) and deceased Richhpal, accused Phool Chand and Bhagwati Devi. Except injury Nos. 4 and 5, on the head of Richhpal, all injuries suffered by both the sides are abrasions and complain of pain. These injuries are possible due to pelting of stones. Injuries Nos. 4 and 5 on the head of deceased Richhpal have been caused in the occurrence. In the context of nature of injuries, testimony of independent witnesses namely Ramniwas (P.W.9), Madan (P.W.10), Girdhari (P.W.12) and Shravan (P.W.15) assume importance. These witnesses in the court have stated that they were attracted to the spot after hearing noise and when they reached there, accused were causing injuries to Richhpal, Arjun (P.W.2) and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3). Thus, Ramniwas (P.W.9), Madan (P.W.10), Girdhari (P.W.12) and Shravan (P.W.15) reached at the spot when pelting of stones had already taken place. These witnesses are totally silent qua pelting of stones, thus, pelting of stones book before their arrival at the spot. Thus, Ramniwas (P.W.9), Madan (P.W.10), Girdhari (P.W.12) and Shravan (P.W.15) reached at the spot when pelting of stones had already taken place. These witnesses are totally silent qua pelting of stones, thus, pelting of stones book before their arrival at the spot. They have not stated that in their presence, pelting of stones had taken place. Arjun (P.W.2), Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3), Vinod Kumar (P.W.4) and Dharmveer (P.W.16) have not denied that pelting of stones had taken place. Thus, it is admitted fact that pelting of stones preceded causing of injuries. We cannot rule out that Arjun (P.W.2) and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3), Phool Chand, Rampratap and Bhagwati Devi have suffered injuries in the occurrence due to pelting of stones. We also cannot rule out that injury Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 on the person of Richhpal can be result of pelting of stones. 42. Considering that relations with the parties are inimical and regarding injuries suffered by the accused, there is complete denial on the part of the complainant party, we are of the view that witnesses have resorted to exaggeration. It seems that when Arjun (P.W.2), Rajesh Kumar (P.W.3), Vinod Kumar (P.W.4) and Richhpal deceased were passing in front of the house of accused, pelting of stones had taken place. Due to which, Bhagwati Devi suffered injuries on the leg, which resulted into fracture of Fibula. It seems that at that stage, Rampratap being young member of the family, after seeing injuries caused to mother, came out of the house and caused lathi blow on the head of deceased Richhpal. Thus, to us, Richhpal exceeded right of self defence by giving two successive blow on the head of deceased Richhpal. We cannot ignore that Rampratap had not caused injury on the non-vital parts of the body of Richhpal. Thus, after the mutual pelting of stones had taken place between the parties, Rampratap had caused two injuries in quick succession on the head of deceased Richhpal. 43. So far pelting of stone on each other is concerned, we hold that Phool Chand, Rampal and Bhagwati Devi had caused simple injuries due to pelting stones. Similarly, injuries on the person of Bhagwati Devi, Phool Chand and Rampratap were caused by the complainant party by pelting stones. So far case of Rampratap is concerned, same will fall under Exception II of Section 300 IPC. Similarly, injuries on the person of Bhagwati Devi, Phool Chand and Rampratap were caused by the complainant party by pelting stones. So far case of Rampratap is concerned, same will fall under Exception II of Section 300 IPC. Thus, we convert the conviction of the appellant Rampratap from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC and set aside the sentence of life imprisonment awarded upon him by the trial court. Having converted the offence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC, we sentence the appellant Rampratap to ten years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one year additional imprisonment. 44. We also accept the appeal filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and hold Bhagwati Devi, Phool Chand and Rampal guilty of offence under Section 323 IPC. Since the occurrence had taken place in the year 2009, we order that they shall be released on probation for a period of one year subject to furnishing personal bonds and bonds of the sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court with undertaking that during the period of probation, they shall be of good conduct and peace. We also empower the trial court to specify any or all other conditions which it may deem fit, to facilitate undergoing probation by accused Bhagwati Devi, Phool Chand and Rampal. The period of probation shall for a period of one year. 45. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, the both the appeals stands disposed of.