JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - All these three appeals have arisen out of same judgment, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have preferred these appeals against judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 337/2013 by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 302/34 and 450 of the IPC and have been awarded life imprisonment and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-and 2,000/- each respectively and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months respectively. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.02.2013 at about 09:30 in the night in village Khatikhedi, District Ujjain near the house of Pope Singh, all the accused persons having battle axe and sticks in their hands constituted an unlawful assembly with intend to beat his son Mahipal on account of some altercation took place between Mahipal and the appellants on the preceding night on the issue of fetching water from the hand pump. They accosted the house, but Mahipal ran away. The appellants chased caught and beat him near Jai Maharaj Ka Bada . Here the accused Karan and Rajesh also joined them. They also beat Mahipal, but Amarsingh PW/3 rescued him. The appellant Nihal Singh also threatened him to kill. Mahipal sustained injuries including a severe injury on the head. Sarpanch Mukesh and Jitendra took him to Dewas for treatment. His father Pope Singh lodged FIR No. 18/2013 at Police Station Kaytha, which was registered under section 452, 323, 294, 506/34 of the IPC. 4. In District Hospital, Dewas, Dr. Narendra Raj PW/13 examined him on 21.02.2013 at about 00:35 in the night and advised X-ray of head. He was immediately taken to the MY Hospital, Indore and was admitted there at about 03:18 a.m. In M.Y. Hospital, Dr.Anupam Kulshrestha PW/11 and Mansi Chouhan started treatment, but his family members took him to Synergy Hospital and thereafter, to Aurobindo Hospital, Indore where during treatment, he died on 02.03.2013. The death was intimated to the Police Station Badganga, Indore (Ex.P/6), who sent it to the concerned Police Station Kaytha, District Ujjain, where Merg Ex.P/25 was registered. On 03.03.2013, Dr. Shailendra Patel PW/7 performed post-mortem and submitted report Ex.P/9. The death was intimated to the Police Station Badganga, Indore (Ex.P/6), who sent it to the concerned Police Station Kaytha, District Ujjain, where Merg Ex.P/25 was registered. On 03.03.2013, Dr. Shailendra Patel PW/7 performed post-mortem and submitted report Ex.P/9. He opined that the death of Mahipal was due to injury caused on head and its complications. The police converted the case into one under section 302 IPC and investigated the same. 5. Sub-inspector Madhav Sharma PW/9 investigated the case. He visited the spot, prepared spot maps Ex.P/2 & P/3 of the house and farmland of the deceased, arrested the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex.P/10 to 14, recorded their statements under section 27 of the Evidence Act Ex.P/15 to19, recovered battle axe from appellant Sanju and sticks from other appellants vide seizure memo Ex.P/20 to 24, seized medical papers from Aurobindo Hospital vide seizure memo Ex.P/35 and P/36, seized blood stained and plain soil from the spot, sent all the seized articles to the FSL vide letter Ex.P/32 and filed charge-sheet after completing the investigation. 6. All the accused persons were charge under section 148, 450, 302 in alternate 302/149, 294 and 506 Part II of the IPC. They abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. After the trial, accused Rajesh and Karan were acquitted from all the charges while accused/appellants Sunil, Sanjay and Nihal Singh were acquitted from the charge under section 148, 294, 506 Part II of the IPC , while they were convicted under section 450 and 302 and 302/34 of the IPC and punished as stated in para 2 above. 7. The appellants have preferred these appeals on several grounds, but during arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press merits of the appeal and also does not want to press conviction and imprisonment of the appellants under section 450 of the IPC. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel that both the parties are resident of the same village. There was no old enmity or rivalry between them. The appellants have no criminal antecedent. There was an insignificant dispute over a petty issue of taking water from common hand pump. Their was no motive to kill the deceased. The intention of the appellants was not to kill him. Unfortunately, he died, but there was no intention on the part of the appellants to kill him. The appellants have no criminal antecedent. There was an insignificant dispute over a petty issue of taking water from common hand pump. Their was no motive to kill the deceased. The intention of the appellants was not to kill him. Unfortunately, he died, but there was no intention on the part of the appellants to kill him. They only wants to give him a lesson and to warn him. They beat him by sticks. They did not cause him any serious injury even when they had opportunity. They did not cause any injury by axe or by any other sharp edged weapon. No deadly weapon was used. They only threatened him to kill and let him go. The offence was not committed brutally. The offence was initially registered only for the offences to cause simple injuries, threat or use of abusive language. There was no instant death. The deceased died after 13 days of the incident during the treatment. Possibility of infection during treatment cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the case of the appellants falls within the purview of Section 304 part II and not under Section 302 of IPC and, therefore, their conviction be converted accordingly. The appellants are agriculturists and belong to poor families and are sole breadwinner of their families. In their absence, their families are now on the verge of starvation. Therefore, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Though the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 10. Facts stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants are well supported by the evidence produced by the prosecution and the documents produced and proved by the prosecution. Facts of the case shows that both the parties belong to the same village. There is no evidence of any intention, preparation or premeditation. No deadly weapon is used in the incident. The appellants have no criminal antecedent. Looking to the surrounding circumstances, the case of the appellant falls within the four corners of the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the IPC. 11. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Madhavan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2017 SC 3847 ; Sikandar Ali Vs. 11. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Madhavan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2017 SC 3847 ; Sikandar Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2017 SC 2614 ; Arjun and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2017 SC 1150 ; Elavarasan Vs. State and Mahesh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1996) 10 SCC 668 all the appeals are partly allowed. 12. The conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC is hereby confirmed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is set aside. The appellants are convicted under Section 304 part II of IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and keeping in view the other attaining facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, ends of justice would be sub served, if the appellants are awarded 10 years Rigorous imprisonment. They are also fined for Rs. 10,000/- each. Fine amount be given to the victims of the crime. Fine amount already deposited, if any, be adjusted. 13. With the aforesaid, all the appeals stand disposed off. 14. The order of the learned Trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.