JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. Nobody appears for the parties. I, however, note that the appellants have almost completed their substantive sentences of rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years each. In view of the aforesaid fact, I have taken up the hearing of the appeal today. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th/26th August, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia, in Sessions Trial No. III (November) 2008 [Sessions Case No. 5(7) 2008] convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 3. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that in the night of 11.04.2008 at around 9/10 P.M there was a heated altercation between the appellants on the one hand and the victim namely Baju Say, on the other hand in a brick field. In the course of quarrel, the appellants assaulted the victim with brick bats resulting in severe injuries. The victim was sought to be shifted to hospital but he succumbed to his injuries enroute. On the written complaint lodged by Sukdeb Halder (P.W 1), Chapra Police Station Case No. 106/2008 dated 12.04.2008 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia for trial and disposal. Charges were framed against the appellants under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. It was also argued that the appellants being intoxicated were entitled to exemption from criminal liability under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 25th/26th August, 2011, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. 4. I have perused the evidence on record. 5. It was also argued that the appellants being intoxicated were entitled to exemption from criminal liability under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 25th/26th August, 2011, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. 4. I have perused the evidence on record. 5. P.W 9, (Sukumar Ghosh) and P.W 10 (Gandhi Ghosh) appear to be eye-witnesses to the incident. P.W 9 deposed that he was a labour of M/s. Royal Brick Field at Simanagar. The appellants also used to work in the same brick field. Deceased Baju was another labourer in the brick field. He died in the month of April, 2008. The fateful day was one for making weekly payments. The accused persons and Baju had consumed liquor. Thereafter, a hot altercation ensued between them under a banyan tree within the compound of the brick field. The banyan tree was surrounded by bricks. The compound had adequate lightning. The appellants suddenly started assaulting Baju with brick bats. Baju sustained bleeding injuries on his face and head. The night guard Gandhi Ghosh (P.W 10) rushed to rescue Baju from the clutches of the appellants. The appellants fled away. They tried to shift him to Chapra P.H.C but Baju expired on the way. They informed the matter to the Manager of the brick field over phone. Manager, Sukdeb Halder (P.W 1) came to the spot. He informed the police over phone. Police of Chapra Police Station came there and arrested the appellants who have been detained in a room. His statement was recorded by Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proved the signatures on the statement. 6. P.W 10, Gandhi Ghosh, was the night guard of the brick field. He has corroborated the evidence of P.W 9. 7. P.W 1, Sukdeb Halder, is the Manager of the brick field. He deposed that Baju was a labourer in the brick field. He was murdered by the appellants on 11.04.2008 at around 9/10 P.M The incident occurred in the campus of the brick field. On that day labourers had been given wages. They had taken liquor. There was an altercation between Baju on one hand and the appellants on the other hand. The appellants started hitting Baju with brick bats. He received telephonic message from the brick field. On that day labourers had been given wages. They had taken liquor. There was an altercation between Baju on one hand and the appellants on the other hand. The appellants started hitting Baju with brick bats. He received telephonic message from the brick field. The appellants were also present at the place of occurrence. He informed the police station and police came to the spot. The complaint was written by one Timir Jyoti Majumder and he proved his signature thereon (exhibit 1). Inquest was held by the police. He signed on the inquest report. Police also seized some blood-stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence and prepared a seizure list. He put his signature on the seizure list. 8. P.W 6, Rabindra Nath Das, was a police officer who was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Chapra Police Station. On 11.04.2008 he received information that one person was lying dead in the premises of the brick field at Simanagar. He along with other police officers proceeded to the spot. On arrival they found a labourer of the brick field lying dead within the compound. Employees of the brick field namely Sukumar Ghosh and Gandhi Ghosh stated that the labourers had consumed liquor prior to the quarrel and were in an intoxicated state. He was also informed that the appellants had assaulted the deceased. A written complaint was received at the spot and forwarded by him to the police station where the case was started by A.S.I Ardhendu Das (P.W 5). 9. P.W 3, Jyoti Prasad Biswas, is a police constable who accompanied S.I Rabindra Nath Das (P.W 6) to the brick field. He carried the written complaint to the police station. 10. P.W 5, Ardhendu Das, received the written complaint at the police station and drew up the F.I.R (exhibit 6). 11. P.W 4, Md. Sabur Ali, also accompanied P.W 6 to the place of occurrence. He carried the dead body of the victim for post mortem examination to the district hospital. 12. P.W 7, Ajit Kumar Biswas, was the medical officer at district hospital at Saktinagar who conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the victim. He found the following injuries:— 1. Lacerated injury on medial aspect of left eye-brow extended down over bridge of nose measuring 3? × 1? × bone deep with fracture of nasal bones and left orbital bone under the injury. 2. He found the following injuries:— 1. Lacerated injury on medial aspect of left eye-brow extended down over bridge of nose measuring 3? × 1? × bone deep with fracture of nasal bones and left orbital bone under the injury. 2. Multiple bruise marks over forehead and face. 3. Lacerated injury on left zygomatic region on face measuring 1? × ½? × bone deep with fracture zygomatic bone and maxilla under the injury. 4. Lacerated injury on left side of lower lip measuring 1? × ½? × bone deep. 5. Left eye-ball - Ruptured. 6. Lacerated injury on left temporal region of head measuring 1½? × 1? × bone deep with fracture under lying skull bone. 7. Lacerated injury on left parietal region of head measuring 1½? × 1? × bone deep. 8. Lacerated injury on left side of occipital region of head measuring 2? × 2? × bone deep with fracture of occipital bone. 9. Lacerated injury on left of front of neck measuring 2? × 1? × laryngeal cartilage deep with fracture of laryngeal cartilage. 10. Multiple bruise marks on front of chest and on both arms and forearms. 11. Multiple muscle haematoma on front chest (seen after dissection). 12. Brain haemorrhage on all lobes. 13. Both lungs - Haemorrhage. 13. He opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage owing to the above noted ante-mortem and homicidal injuries. 14. P.W 12, Kartick Chandra Mondal, is the investigating officer in the instant case. He held inquest over the dead body of the victim (exhibit 2/1). He prepared rough sketch map with index (exhibit 9). He examined witnesses and arrested the accused persons. He seized blood stained earth from the place of occurrence (exhibit 3/1). He seized the wearing apparels of the victim (exhibit 5). He submitted charge-sheet. 15. From the aforesaid evidence it appears that 11.04.2008 was the day for payment of wages to the labourers in the brick field. The appellants as well as the victim Baju were labourers attached to the brick field. They had consumed liquor on that day and thereafter quarrel ensued amongst them. In the course of quarrel the appellants suddenly picked up brick bats from the place of occurrence and hit the victim resulting in multiple injuries leading to his death. The appellants as well as the victim Baju were labourers attached to the brick field. They had consumed liquor on that day and thereafter quarrel ensued amongst them. In the course of quarrel the appellants suddenly picked up brick bats from the place of occurrence and hit the victim resulting in multiple injuries leading to his death. Evidence of P.W.s 9 and 10, who are other employees of the brick field, with regard to the occurrence are most natural and convincing and I have no reason to disbelieve them. Ocular version of the said witnesses is corroborated by Ajit Kumar Biswas (P.W 7) who has noted ante-mortem injuries on the body of the victim. However, it has been argued that the appellants were intoxicated and therefore were unaware of the consequences of their acts. Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: “86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.—In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.” 16. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants had been administered intoxicants without their knowledge or against their will. In the absence of such evidence they cannot raise the plea of exemption from criminal liability for causing death of one of the co-labourers on the score that they had voluntarily ingested liquor and were unaware of the consequence of their acts. 17. Hence, the conviction of the appellants is upheld. 18. Coming to the issue of sentence I note that the appellants do not have criminal antecedents and the incident had occurred suddenly in the course of quarrel. They had not acted in a cruel and unusual manner. They have almost undergone their substantive sentences since the appellants were arrested on or about 13th April, 2008. Hence, I am inclined to reduce the sentences imposed the appellants and direct that they shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more. Hence, I am inclined to reduce the sentences imposed the appellants and direct that they shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone and shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months more. 19. The period of detention undergone by the appellants during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence, as aforesaid, in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. With the aforesaid modification as to sentence, the appeal is disposed of. 21. Copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance. 22. Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J. I agree.