JUDGMENT 1. The appellants-accused were convicted for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. On the date of incident i.e. 24.09.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. deceased - Lachman Singh was allegedly dragging Jasbir Kaur, daughter of accused Mohinder Singh with the intention to outrage her modesty due to which the appellants and other accused got angry and attacked the deceased Lachman Singh. The appellants - Karnail Singh and Tarlok Singh are said to have attacked the deceased Lachman Singh with shoes, fist blows and kicks. Deceased Lachman Singh sustained as many as 26 injuries and succumbed to injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 304(II) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for five years which was affirmed by the High Court. 2. We have heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Karan Bharihoke, learned counsel appearing for the State and considered the impugned judgment and materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on seeing Jasbir Kaur being dragged by deceased Lachman Singh, it is quite natural that family and other relatives had to act in private defence. Learned counsel further submitted that on seeing Jasbir Kaur being dragged by deceased-Lachman Singh, the mob gathered and the said deceased was attacked by the mob and, therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted. Learned counsel further submitted that the investigating officer has not chosen to examine the residents of the nearby and such lapses on the part of the investigating officer vitally affects the prosecution case. The occurrence was at about 9.30 a.m. and the investigating officer reached the spot at 3.15 p.m. By the time, the crowd was dispersed and the investigating officer may not investigate to ascertain as who have witnessed the occurrence and, therefore, merely non-examination of the neighbours/residents surrounding the area is not vital to the prosecution case. In any case, omissions and lapses on the part of the investigating officer cannot go advantageous to the accused. 4. Based on the evidence of PW-2 Bhagwan Singh (brother of the deceased) and PW-3 Luna Singh (maternal uncle of the deceased) rightly held that the accused are guilty for causing murder of Lachman Singh. In any case, omissions and lapses on the part of the investigating officer cannot go advantageous to the accused. 4. Based on the evidence of PW-2 Bhagwan Singh (brother of the deceased) and PW-3 Luna Singh (maternal uncle of the deceased) rightly held that the accused are guilty for causing murder of Lachman Singh. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by deceased Lachman Singh, in our view, the High Court as well as the Trial Court rightly held that the accused party exceeded their right of private defence and rightly convicted the appellants under Section 304(II),IPC and we do not find any ground warranting interference with the conviction under Section 304 Part II, IPC. 5. Insofar as the question of sentence, the occurrence was of the year 1996, about 22 years ago. The appellants-accused are alleged to hit the deceased with shoes and fist blows. The fatal injury, injury no. 3 on the forehead and on the temporal region was caused by accused Mohinder Singh and the special leave petition preferred by the Mohinder Singh was already dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Karnail Singh is aged about 70 years and the appellant-Tarlok Singh is aged about 48 years. Having regard to the age of the accused and the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into consideration that the occurrence was of the year 1996, the sentence of imprisonment of five years imposed upon them is reduced to two years (including remission). 6. The reduction of sentence is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the same may not be treated as precedent. 7. The appellants shall surrender within a period of four weeks from today to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which, they shall be taken into custody. 8. The appeal is partly allowed.