JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 15/2010: Jitendra @ Jitu Offences Under Section Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences 148 IPC 1 Year R.I. Rs.1,000/ 1 Month S.I. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/ 1 Year S.I. 323/149 IPC 3 months S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days S.I. 341/149 IPC 1 Month Imprisonment Rs.500/- 7 days S.I. All the above sentences except for those in default of fine were ordered to run concurrently. Vikram, Ashok, Rama Ram @ Ram Lal and Phooter Mal @ Prakash Offences Under Section Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences 148 IPC 1 Year R.I. Rs.1,000/ 1 Month S.I. 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5,000/ 1 Year S.I. 323/149 IPC 3 months S.I. Rs.500/- 15 days S.I. 341/149 IPC 1 Month Imprisonment Rs.500/- 7 days S.I. All the above sentences except for those in default of fine were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 3. Since both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment, the same are being decided together. 4. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below: The Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/3) of Pratapchand (PW-2) was recorded by Chain Singh (PW-19), ASI, Police Station Sumerpur at Bhagwan Mahaveer Hospital, Udaipur on 26.09.2009 at about 11.45 pm. wherein, he alleged that on the very same evening, he had gone to the temple and his wife Smt. Kanya was at home. His sons Vinod and Bharat both had gone to the village. He returned home at about 10 O'clock. He and his wife discussed that there was no one in the colony and that all the persons from the colony would have gone to see the Graba dance. He had just switched the T.V. on when, he heard someone knocking the door of his house. His wife went to open the door. He also followed her. On opening the door, they saw 4-5 boys standing in front of their house. They inquired about his son Vinod threatening that they were out to kill him. He had just switched the T.V. on when, he heard someone knocking the door of his house. His wife went to open the door. He also followed her. On opening the door, they saw 4-5 boys standing in front of their house. They inquired about his son Vinod threatening that they were out to kill him. Pratapchand questioned as to what had happened and his wife with folded hands stated that the boys were not in the house and requested that they would counsel them on their return. Upon hearing this, Jitendra @ Jitu son of Tarachand Harijan gave a lathi blow on the head of Smt. Kanya due to which, she fell down and became unconscious. Pratapchand tried to intervene and save his wife on which, Ashok Kumar Heeragar, Hapiya son of Maganlal Heeragar, Bharat and other companions of Jitendra, launched an assault with an intention of killing them. Pratapchand was also hit on the head due to which, he started bleeding and he thus got frightened. The accused continued to rain blows on him and his wife due to which, both of them received a number of injuries. On hearing their shouts, Omprakash and Mohanlal Kalal came around on which, they too were beaten. In the meantime, Prakash Harijan and 2-3 other boys, who were the companions of the assailants, also came there. His sons Vinod and Bharat were coming back after watching Garba and on seeing them, the accused party diverted their attention towards the boys and assaulted them with the lathis at some distance from their house, in the street. Upon hearing this commotion, the inhabitants of the colony collected on and then, the accused ran away from the lane. Pratapchand further alleged in the Parcha Bayan that the accused had launched an assault due to which, all of them received injuries on heads and other parts of body. He also expressed that he was not sure whether Bharat Heeragar was present with the accused or not and that he ensured that he would apprise them of the same later on. 5. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, an FIR No. 297/2009 was registered at the Police Station Sumerpur on 27.09.2009 for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 307 IPC and investigation commenced Smt. Kanya succumbed to her injuries on which, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case. 5. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, an FIR No. 297/2009 was registered at the Police Station Sumerpur on 27.09.2009 for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 307 IPC and investigation commenced Smt. Kanya succumbed to her injuries on which, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case. The accused appellants were arrested. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 302/149, 307, 323, 341, 148 and 147 IPC. As the two accused Bharat son of Babulal Sargara and Hapiya @ Himanshu son of Magnaram were juveniles, charge-sheet as against them was filed in the Juvenile Justice Board concerned. Since the offences were sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur for trial. By the order dated 23.10.2010, the trial court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 323, 341/149 IPC. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses and exhibited 55 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Three documents were exhibited but no oral evidence was led in defence. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, and after appreciating the material available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence this appeal. 6. Sarva Shri Suresh Kumbhat and Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel representing the accused Vikram, Ashok and Rama Ram, vehemently and fervently urged that these appellants were not named in the Parcha Bayan of the deceased and thus, their implication in this case is absolutely unwarranted. They urged that the independent injured witness Omprakash (PW-3) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Regarding the other independent injured witness Mohanlal (PW-17), the contention of Shri Kumbhat and Shri Singh was that the witness admitted that the door of his house had been bolted from outside and was opened by Bharat. They urged that the independent injured witness Omprakash (PW-3) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Regarding the other independent injured witness Mohanlal (PW-17), the contention of Shri Kumbhat and Shri Singh was that the witness admitted that the door of his house had been bolted from outside and was opened by Bharat. He urged that by the time, Bharat and Vinod reached the place of incident, the assault on Pratapchand and Smt. Kanya had been concluded and thus, there was no possibility that Mohanlal could have seen the entire incident. They further urged that the incident erupted on the trivial issue between the accused party and two sons of Pratapchand and Smt. Kanya namely Vinod and Bharat during the Garba dance. The accused went to the house of the deceased to remonstrate against the conduct of the two boys. Some spontaneous altercation took place between the party on which, a free-fight ensued. Thus, as per Shri Kumbhat and Shri Singh, the trial court was absolutely unjustified in convicting these accused appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. As per them, the circumstances as available on record, do not warrant invocation of Section 149 IPC. They urged that as per the evidence of Pratapchand (PW-2), Bharat (PW-6), Vinod (PW-9) and Mohanlal (PW-17), the highest allegation of the prosecution as against the appellants other than Jitendra is that they also came to the house of Pratapchand after the incident which took place during the Garba Dance, and quarrelled with Pratapchand, Bharat, Vinod and Mohanlal after the accused Jitendra had struck Smt. Kanya with a lathi. It was their submission that in view of these admitted facts, the implication of the accused appellants with the aid of Section 149 IPC is absolutely unjustified and at best, they can be held guilty for causing simple injuries to the four injured persons referred to supra. In addition to the above, the submission of Shri Kumbhat was that as the accused Vikram was not named in the FIR, he is entitled to be acquitted in toto. 7. Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi learned counsel representing the appellant Jitendra @ Jeetu vehemently and fervently urged that there was no enmity between the accused and the victims. In addition to the above, the submission of Shri Kumbhat was that as the accused Vikram was not named in the FIR, he is entitled to be acquitted in toto. 7. Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi learned counsel representing the appellant Jitendra @ Jeetu vehemently and fervently urged that there was no enmity between the accused and the victims. A quarrel took place between the accused party and the two sons of Pratapchand during the Garba dance where after, the accused went to the house of Pratapchand looking for the boys Bharat and Vinod who had misbehaved with the accused party. They were simply making inquiries about the two boys when the deceased and Pratapchand adopted an abusive stance. In this process, a sudden fight flared up where after, the accused Jitendra inflicted a solitary blow on the head of Smt. Kanya who fell down unconscious. The contention of Shri Bishnoi was that in view of the fact that a solitary lathi blow was inflicted by the accused Jitendra on the head of Smt. Kanya and that too under grave and sudden provocation and at the spur of moment without taking any undue advantage, his conviction deserves to be altered from the offence under Section 302 to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. He further urged that the deceased was operated upon at the MDM Hospital, Jodhpur but her treatment record was not exhibited during trial and thus, the benefit of this deficiency in the prosecution case has to be given to the accused. He thus implored the Court to accept the appeal of the accused Jitendra to this extent. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the appellants. He urged that the deceased Smt. Kanya and Shri Pratapchand had no part to play in the quarrel which took place between their two sons Bharat & Vinod and the accused party. They were sitting at their house peacefully watching T.V. when the accused reached there armed to tooth. They knocked at the door and inquired aggressively about the whereabouts of Bharat and Vinod. When the informant and Smt. Kanya stated that the boys were not at home, the accused launched a merciless assault on them causing numerous injuries to Smt. Kanya as well as Pratapchand. They knocked at the door and inquired aggressively about the whereabouts of Bharat and Vinod. When the informant and Smt. Kanya stated that the boys were not at home, the accused launched a merciless assault on them causing numerous injuries to Smt. Kanya as well as Pratapchand. The blow inflicted by the accused Jitendra on the head of Smt. Kanya was so forceful that by the impact thereof, the parietal bone and the cranial fossa of the deceased suffered comminuted fractures. The entire brain was found to have suffered diffused sub-dural haematoma and contusions. He urged that the injury was so severe in the nature that there was no possibility of survival of the lady. The accused went to the house of the deceased after forming an unlawful assembly carrying dangerous weapons with them and despite the fervent pleas of the deceased and Pratapchand that they would make their sons to repent, they were not spared and were beaten mercilessly. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, the accused indulged in an unprovoked murderous assault on the deceased Smt. Kanya and her husband Pratap Chand. Thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court was perfectly justified in convicting the accused Jitendra for the offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor and the other accused persons for the charge under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have minutely appreciated the evidence on record. 10. The prosecution case hinges upon the testimony of the four eye-witnesses namely Pratapchand, the first informant (PW-2), Bharat (PW-6), Vinod (PW-9) and Mohanlal (PW-17). On a perusal of the statements of all these four witnesses, it is clear that the accused persons went to the house of the deceased in order to settle the scores with Bharat and Vinod because a quarrel had taken place between these persons during the Navratra Celebrations. Manifestly thus, the accused had no enmity with either Pratapchand or Smt. Kanya. It is an admitted position that after Pratapchand and Smt. Kanya opened the door of their house on hearing the knocks of the accused, the accused asked for the whereabouts of their sons and when they did not receive any satisfactory reply, the appellant Jitendra @ Jitu, who has criminal antecedents as per the trial court's judgment, attacked Kanya & Pratapchand. Manifestly, on going through the testimony of these witness, we are duly satisfied that the witness Bharat and Vinod must have reached the scene of occurrence after Pratapchand and Smt. Kanya had been assaulted. Thus, Pratapchand would be the best witness to make a deposition regarding the assault made on him and on his wife. In his evidence, Pratapchand categorically stated that Jitendra gave a lathi blow on the head of his wife. He came in between and tried to save her, when Ashok gave him a lathi blow. On hearing the shouts, Mohanlal, Omprakash and his two sons came around whereafter, the accused diverted their attention towards them and beat them up. On going through the statement of Pratapchand, it is amply clear that he has attributed a single lathi blow on the head of Smt. Kanya to the accused Jitendra. Manifestly, the common intention of the accused party was to teach a lesson to Bharat and Vinod and they went to the house of Pratapchand looking out for these two boys. On reaching the house of Pratapchand, the accused made an inquiry about Bharat and Vinod and when they did not receive a satisfactory explanation, it appears that Jitendra @ Jitu, who otherwise also is having criminal antecedents, turned aggressive and gave an unprovoked lathi blow on the head of Smt. Kanya which proved fatal. Ashok gave a lathi blow on the head of Pratapchand which as per the medical evidence, is simple in nature. As per the statements of Dr. M.P. Joshi (PW-11) and Dr. Suresh Bhandari (PW-15), Smt. Kanya was found having a lacerated wound on her fronto-parietal region underneath which, there was a fracture of the frontal bone extending to the cranial fossa as a comminuted fracture. A localised sub-dural haematoma was noticed underneath the left front of parietal area and a diffused sub-dural haematoma on right front of parietal area. Apart from this, contusion was present on the left front of parietal and right parieto-temporal lobes. The surrounding tissue had scattered blood over it. As per the opinion of the doctors, the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Apart from this, contusion was present on the left front of parietal and right parieto-temporal lobes. The surrounding tissue had scattered blood over it. As per the opinion of the doctors, the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A few other abrasions were noticed on the body of the deceased but having examined the nature thereof, and looking to the evidence of Pratapchand, we feel that these abrasions must have been received when the deceased fell down on the ground after having been inflicted the head injury which is attributed to the accused Jitendra. 11. So far as the witnesses Bharat (PW-6), Vinod (PW-9) and Mohanlal (PW-17) are concerned, apparently, on going through their evidence, we are duly satisfied that they became aware of the assault made by the accused on Smt. Kanya and Shri Mohanlal after the fatal injury had been inflicted by Jitendra to the lady. Thus, these witnesses were the witnesses to the incident of murder and their evidence is only relevant to the extent of the circumstances which materialised thereafter. The best evidence available to the prosecution regarding the assault made on Smt. Kanya is in form of the statement of Pratapchand whom we have found a reliable witness. So far as the contention of the learned counsel representing the accused appellant Vikram that he was not name in the FIR is concerned, suffice it to say that the FIR was lodged on the Parcha Bayan of Pratapchand who was admitted to the hospital. He specifically named Jitendra, Hapiya and Ashok as the assailants and added that some more companions of these accused also participated in the assault while the accused were assaulting Shri Pratapchand and Smt. Kanya. Bharat (PW-6) and Vinod (PW-9) reached there and they saw and identified all the accused as being the members of the unlawful assembly who were present at their house. Thus, omission of naming of Vikram in the FIR looses significance and no advantage thereof can be extended to this accused. 12. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the accused other than Jitendra had no common object so as to assault and kill Smt. Kanya. Thus, omission of naming of Vikram in the FIR looses significance and no advantage thereof can be extended to this accused. 12. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the accused other than Jitendra had no common object so as to assault and kill Smt. Kanya. Their object was to chastise Bharat and Vinod and as the accused party did not find them present in the house, Jitendra seems to have lost his cool and gave the fatal blow to the lady without any provocation being offered to him. 13. In the wake of the discussion made herein above, we feel that the accused other than Jitendra cannot be clothed with the motive or intention of killing the deceased and hence, it is not a case wherein, the rigor of Section 149 IPC can be applied so as to convict the accused for the charge under Section 302/149 IPC. 14. As an upshot of the findings recorded above, we are of the firm view that the accused other than Jitendra @ Jitu were wrongly held liable by the trial court for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Their conviction as recorded by the trial court for the offences under Section 323/149 and 341/149 IPC for causing simple injuries to the injured persons appears to be the justified conclusion in the facts and circumstances. 15. Now coming to the argument advanced by learned counsel Shri Bishnoi representing the accused Jitendra that as the said accused inflicted a solitary injury to the deceased by a lathi, and since there was no intention on his part to cause the death of the lady, his conviction should be altered from one under Section 302 to that under Section 304 Part I IPC. In this regard, we have already narrated the material facts in the preceding paras of the judgment. Manifestly, the deceased Smt. Kanya and her husband Pratapchand were peacefully watching T.V. in their house and the accused went there and knocked the door. Hence, these two definitely offered no provocation whatsoever to the accused which could have persuaded them to loose their cool and become aggressive. The deceased and her husband Pratapchand innocuously opened the door of their house as an inquiry was being made regarding their sons who were not present in the house. Hence, these two definitely offered no provocation whatsoever to the accused which could have persuaded them to loose their cool and become aggressive. The deceased and her husband Pratapchand innocuously opened the door of their house as an inquiry was being made regarding their sons who were not present in the house. When the accused were told that the boys whom they were pursuing, were not present in the house, the accused Jitendra took an offence, without any rhyme or reason, inflicted a brutal lathi blow on the head of the lady which resulted into the fatal injuries described above. 16. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that none of the exceptions provided for in Section 300 IPC can come to the aid of the accused Jitendra in his quest for getting the offence converted from one under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. The solitary lathi blow was undoubtedly aimed on the vital part of the body. It was very forceful because the parietal bone and the cranial fossa of the deceased was fractured as a direct result of the impact. The underlying brain was damaged. Thus, merely because the accused inflicted a single blow to the deceased, that by itself cannot be a reason to tone down the offence as none of the exceptional circumstances enumerated under Section 300 IPC is applicable to the facts at hand. We are gainfully supported by the following observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan vs. Kanhaiya Lal reported in (2019)5 SCC 639 : "6.1 We have considered in detail the judgment and Order passed by learned Sessions Court as well as the impugned judgment and Order passed by the High Court. The learned Sessions Court convicted the Accused for the offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in an appeal preferred by the accused, the High Court has converted the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. While doing so, the High Court has assigned the following reasons in paragraph 15: 15. In the circumstances of the case, it is proved beyond doubt that Rajmal had died because of single injury caused on his head by accused-Appellant Kanhaiya Lal by an axe. While doing so, the High Court has assigned the following reasons in paragraph 15: 15. In the circumstances of the case, it is proved beyond doubt that Rajmal had died because of single injury caused on his head by accused-Appellant Kanhaiya Lal by an axe. It is also an admitted fact that there was no repeated injury and furthermore, it is also on record that in the morning of the day of the incident, there was an altercation between the Accused and the deceased and so it can be said that in the circumstances of the case, that there was no intention to cause death on the part of the accused-Appellant but the act by which the death was caused appears to have done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and so his conviction deserves to be altered from Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code. 6.2 Now so far as the main reason given by the High Court while converting the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code i.e. it was a case of a single blow is concerned, it is required to be noted that the deceased had died because of single injury caused on his head by the Accused by an axe. The aforesaid can hardly be a ground to convert the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 6.3 In the case of Arun Raj (Supra) this Court observed and held that there is no fixed Rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted, Section 302 would not be attracted. It is observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that nature of weapon used and vital part of the body where blow was struck, prove beyond reasonable doubt the intention of the Accused to cause death of deceased. It is further observed and held by this Court that once these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows. 6.4 In the case of Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar (Supra), the death was caused by single blow on head of the deceased with a wooden pestle. It is further observed and held by this Court that once these ingredients are proved, it is irrelevant whether there was a single blow struck or multiple blows. 6.4 In the case of Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar (Supra), the death was caused by single blow on head of the deceased with a wooden pestle. It was found that the Accused used pestle with such force that head of the deceased was broken into pieces. This Court considered whether the case would fall Under Section 302 or Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. It is held by this Court that the injury sustained by deceased, not only exhibits intention of Accused in causing death of victim, but also knowledge of Accused in that regard. It is further observed by this Court that such attack could be none other than for causing death of victim. It is observed that any reasonable person, with any stretch of imagination can come to conclusion that such injury on such a vital part of the body, with such a weapon, would cause death. 6.5 A similar view is taken by this Court in the recent decision in the case of Leela Ram alias Leela Dhar (Supra) and after considering catena of decisions of this Court on the issue on hand i.e. in case of a single blow, whether a case falls Under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I or Section 304 Part II, this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court (in that case also the judgment impugned was from the Rajasthan High Court) and convicted the Accused for the offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the same decision, this Court also considered Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and observed in paragraph 21 as under: 21. Under Exception 4, culpable homicide is not murder if the stipulations contained in that provision are fulfilled. They are: (i) that the act was committed without premeditation; (ii) that there was a sudden fight; (iii) the act must be in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; and (iv) the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 7. They are: (i) that the act was committed without premeditation; (ii) that there was a sudden fight; (iii) the act must be in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; and (iv) the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the reasoning given by the High Court while converting the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I, the reasons stated in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment and Order, we are firmly of the view that the judgment of the High Court is manifestly perverse and is totally contrary to the evidence on record. As per the deposition of PW 1 Dr. K Asif, the deceased sustained following injuries: 1. Incised wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep and bone visible on the middle part of the head. 2. abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the middle portion of right leg. As per PW 15 Dr. Anees Ahmed, a fracture of 4 cm length was found in the parietal and occipital. He also stated that the said head injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the Accused used a deadly weapon-axe on the vital part of the body-head, which proved to be fatal. 8. Another reason given by the High Court is that there was no repeated injury. Aforesaid can hardly be a ground to convert the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. A single blow on the vital part of the body like head and that too by deadly weapon-axe and used with force which proved to be fatal, was sufficient to hold that it was a case of murder within the definition of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. A single blow on the vital part of the body like head and that too by deadly weapon-axe and used with force which proved to be fatal, was sufficient to hold that it was a case of murder within the definition of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 8.1 Another reason given by the High Court is that in the morning on the day of the incident, there was an altercation between the Accused and the deceased and so it can be said that in the circumstances of the case there was no intention to cause death on the part of the Accused but the fact by which the death was caused appears to hold down that the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The aforesaid is contrary to the evidence on record. It is required to be noted that it is not a case on behalf of the Accused that there was an altercation between the Accused and the deceased at the time of commission of the offence. The altercation, if any, had taken place, in the morning and much earlier than the time of incident. Merely because the altercation might have taken place much earlier and not immediately prior to and/or at the time of commission of the offence, it cannot be inferred that there was no intention on the part of the Accused to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground, the High Court has committed a grave error in converting/altering the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is manifestly perverse and is totally contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has committed a grave error in altering the conviction from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the interference of this Court is warranted to obviate a complete failure of interest of justice. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the Accused Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the Accused Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent-accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life as per the judgment of the learned Trial Court. If the Accused is already released after undergoing the sentence as per the impugned judgment and Order passed by the High Court, the Respondent-accused shall surrender forthwith to serve his sentence." 17. Having examined the facts of the present case in light of the facts discussed above in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kanhaiyalal (supra), we are of the firm opinion that the learned trial court was perfectly justified in convicting the accused appellant Jitendra for the offence under Section 302 simplicitor and there are no circumstances warranting to tone down the said charge. 18. As a consequence of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant Jitendra @ Jitu (Appeal No. 862/2013) is dismissed as the same lacks merit. However, the appeals filed by the accused appellants Vikram (Appeal No. 862/2013) and Ashok, Rama Ram & Phooter Mal (Appeal No. 806/2013) succeeds in part. Their conviction as recorded by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 11.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. However, their conviction as recorded by the learned trial court for the offence under Sections 323/149 and 341/149 IPC is sustained. These accused have remained in custody for nearly three months and thus, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. 19. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith. 20. A copy of this order be placed in each file.