ORDER : 1. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging judgment/order dated 29.07.1988 passed by the trial court, whereby, appellant Phool Chand was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), whereas, accused-appellants Mangi Lal and Madan Lal were convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of statement of injured Kajod. Injured in his statement stated before the police that on 22.08.1987, he and accused-appellant Mangi Lal were having a common well and he was operating his engine. Mangi Lal was running chadas (Persian Wheel). Belda (pot attached with persian wheel) of his pump got entangled and broke. Upon this, he told Mangi Lal that he had suffered loss. Due to this reason, Madan Lal, Phool Chand and Mangi Lal started abusing him and inflicted injuries to him with sticks (kharla). Accused-appellants Madan Lal and Phool Chand inflicted stick blows on his back. Mangi Lal also gave stick blows on the back of the complainant. However, the complainant rescued himself and came home. The moment, the complainant tried to enter his house, he was caught hold by Phool Chand and Madan Lal and he was inflicted more injuries by the accused. Phool Chand gave stick blow on the head of the complainant. Madan Lal and Mangi Lal also gave more injuries to the complainant. Formal FIR No. 89/1987 was registered on 24.08.1987 under Section 302 on account of death of Kajod on 23.08.1987. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants. 4. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. Appellant Phool Chand further stated that on 22.08.1987 at about 3-4 P.M., his father Mangi Lal was running chadas. Engine belonging to Kajod was also running at that time. He stated that his belda had got entangled in chadas and Kajod demanded money from them. Kajod started abusing them and inflicted injuries to him. He ran towards the village and Kajod followed him with a stick and inflicted injuries to him. 5. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated hereinabove. He stated that his belda had got entangled in chadas and Kajod demanded money from them. Kajod started abusing them and inflicted injuries to him. He ran towards the village and Kajod followed him with a stick and inflicted injuries to him. 5. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated hereinabove. Hence, present appeal by the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that accused-appellant Phool Chand had also suffered injuries in the incident. Said injuries were not explained by the prosecution. In-fact, appellants had been falsely involved in this case. Rather appellant Phool Chand had been inflicted injuries by the deceased. 7. Learned State counsel opposed the appeal. 8. Present case relates to murder of Kajod. Report was registered on the basis of the statement made by Kajod to the police officials. As per the said statement, appellants had inflicted injuries to Kajod. So far as appellant Phool Chand is concerned, he is attributed head injury to Kajod. Eye witnesses P.W.1 Prabhu Lal son of Moti Lal, P.W.2 Madan Lal, P.W.3 Kantibai, P.W.4 Manjubai, P.W.6 Chotu Lal, P.W.7 Prabhu Lal son of Ghansi, P.W.14 Santoshbai have corroborated the version given by the informant with regard to the involvement of the appellants in the crime. Thus, as per the ocular version, all the appellants had inflicted injuries to the deceased with sticks. 9. P.W.9 Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma deposed that on 22.08.1987, he had medico legally examined injured Kajod. He proved medico-legal-examination report of Kajod, Exhibit P-9. As per Exhibit P-9, Kajod had suffered following injuries: “1. Lac. wound 1/4”x 1/4”x1/4”-4” above Rt. ear on Rt. Parietal Bone-Simple/Blunt 2. Haematoma-3”x3”-3” above Rt. ear on Rt. Parietal Bone-Blunt Susp 3. Haematoma 1”x 1”-Lt. Elbow post asp-Simple/Blunt 4. Bruise-2”x1/2”-Rt. Scapular region verti. arranged-Simple/Blunt 5. Bruise-2.25”x 1/2”-1” Below Rt. scapular hori. arranged-Simple/Blunt 6. Bruise-2.5”x1/2”-3” Below Lt. Scapular vertically arranged-Simple /Blunt” 10. P.W.8 Dr. S. K. Sharma deposed that on 23.08.1987, he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Kajod. He proved post mortem examination report Exhibit P-8. A perusal of Exhibit P-8 reveals that deceased Kajod had died on account of head injury leading to fracture of skull bone, subdural haematoma and coma. 11. P.W.9 Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma deposed in his cross-examination that on 22.08.1987, he had also medico legally examined injured Phool Chand and proved his medico-legal-examination report Exhibit D-1. A perusal of Exhibit P-8 reveals that deceased Kajod had died on account of head injury leading to fracture of skull bone, subdural haematoma and coma. 11. P.W.9 Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma deposed in his cross-examination that on 22.08.1987, he had also medico legally examined injured Phool Chand and proved his medico-legal-examination report Exhibit D-1. A perusal of Exhibit D-1 reveals that appellant Phool Chand had suffered following injuries: “1. Incised wound 1”x1/4”x1/4”-3” above Rt. eye brow on Rt. parietal bone vertically arranged-simple/sharp-st. app. 2. Lac. wound 1.25”x1/4”x1/4” 3” above Rt. ear on Rt. parietal bone vertically arranged-simple/blunt-st. app. 3. Incised wound 1”x1/4”x1/2” Rt. upper arm on middle of lat. asp. Vertically oblique-simple/sharp-st. app. 4. Abrasion 1”x1/4”-Middle of Rt. Forearm Post. Asp,-simple/blunt 5. Bruise 3/4”x3/4” Lt. Patella asp-simple/blunt.” 12. P.W.11 Constable Mohammad Muslim deposed that on 22.08.1987, he had taken Kajod as well as Phool Chand for medical examination to the hospital and had got them medically examined. P.W.17 Investigating Officer Bhanwarlal deposed that on 22.08.1987, he had sent Kajod as well as Phool Chand for medical examination with Mohammad Muslim P.W.11. 13. Thus, from the medical evidence available on record, it is evident that appellant Phool Chand had also suffered five injuries on his person. He had suffered two incised wounds with sharp edged weapon and three injuries with blunt weapon. All the injuries were simple in nature. Appellant Phool Chand had suffered sharp edged incised wound above his right eyebrow and one wound near his ear. 14. Admittedly, the occurrence took place when Kajod was running the engine. Since one belda got entangled in the engine, dispute arose between the parties, as Kajod was demanding damages from the appellants. It appears that on account of the dispute, both the parties indulged in inflicting injuries to each other. Hence, it can be said to be a case of sudden and free fight. None of the parties had reached the spot with any premeditation to commit the offence. Rather the dispute occurred all of a sudden and resulted in a free fight. So far as appellants Mangi Lal and Madan Lal are concerned, they are attributed simple injuries to the deceased. So far as appellant Phool Chand is concerned, he is attributed injury on the head of the deceased. Appellant Phool Chand had also suffered injuries in the incident. So far as appellants Mangi Lal and Madan Lal are concerned, they are attributed simple injuries to the deceased. So far as appellant Phool Chand is concerned, he is attributed injury on the head of the deceased. Appellant Phool Chand had also suffered injuries in the incident. Hence, it can be said that appellant Phool Chand had no intention to commit murder of Kajod but had the knowledge that the injury inflicted by him on the head of Kajod could result in his death. 15. Hence, after carefully examining the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that so far as appellants Madan Lal and Mangi Lal are concerned, they are guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and are convicted thereunder. So far as appellant Phool Chand is concerned, he is held guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and is convicted thereunder. 16. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of appellant Phool Chand as ordered by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and conviction of the appellants Mangi Lal and Madan Lal as ordered by the trial court under Section 302/34 IPC are set aside. Appellants Mangi Lal and Madan Lal are convicted qua offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by them. Said appellants have already undergone more than nine months of custody. So far as appellant Phool Chand is concerned, he is convicted qua offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. 17. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.