JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. These four appeals have been preferred by the appellants herein for assailing the judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota in Sessions Case No.03/2011, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2. For the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC : To undergo simple imprisonment of one year alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of one month. 3. For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC : To undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of three months. 4. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. The appellants have suffered the custodial period as follows :- Name of the appellant Name of the appellant Hariram 7 years 7 days as on 07.08.2021 Hariram 6 years 8 months 18 days as on 14.08.2021 Brijesh 6 years 11 months 2 days as on 14.08.2021 Ajay Singh 6 years 10 months 1 day as on 14.08.2021 6. The appeals being connected are being decided together by this common judgment. 7. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow :- 8. Pramod Gautam (P.W.6) lodged a written report (Ex.P/15) to the SHO, Police Station Mahaveer Naagar, Kota on 23.01.2009 at 05.10 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the same day between 02.30 p.m. and 03.00 p.m., he was standing at Samrat Cross Roads. His brother Pradeep Gautam, Sunny, Sonu and Deepak Gautam were having Kachoris at nearby Namkeen shop. They got into a quarrel with Kuldeep and Brijesh over a trivial matter. Brijesh slapped Sunny. After this incident, all went back to their respective homes. At about 04.00 p.m.-04.30 p.m., his brother Pradeep Gautam, Sonu and Deepak had gone to Samrat Cross Roads for a stroll. Deepak came running towards the informant and told him that Pradeep was being assaulted by Kuldeep, Brijesh, Hariram and 10-12 other boys by baseball bats and sticks etc. The informant immediately rushed to the place of incident and saw that Pradeep was being assaulted by Kuldeep, Brijesh, Hariram and 10-12 other boys with baseball bats in front of the Saras Booth. The informant immediately rushed to the place of incident and saw that Pradeep was being assaulted by Kuldeep, Brijesh, Hariram and 10-12 other boys with baseball bats in front of the Saras Booth. The informant, Deepak, Sonu and Sunny intervened in on attempt to save Pradeep from the assailants who escaped on their motorcycles. Deepak also received injuries in this incident. Pradeep became unconscious because of the grave injuries suffered in the incident and thus, 108 ambulance was called and he was rushed to Apollo Modi Hospital, where the doctors declared Pradeep to be dead. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.36/2009 came to be registered at the Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and investigation was commenced. The appellants were arrested and the usual recoveries were effected from them. The dead body of Pradeep was subjected to autopsy at the hands of Dr. Ashok Moondra (P.W.2) at the MBS Hospital, Kota, who noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased :- 1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right parietal region. 2. Bruise 15 cm x 2 cm transverse on the chest. 3. Bruise 10 cm x 2 cm little below the injury No.2. 4. Bruise 10 cm x 2 cm on the chest below the injury No.3. 5. Bruise 10 cm x 3 on the right side of abdomen. 8. In addition thereto, two superficial abrasions were noticed on the right leg and on the right cheek. 9. On dissection of the skull, sub-dural haemorrhage was seen underneath the injury No.1, but no internal damage was noticed on the skull or the brain. When chest was opened haemorrhage was noticed; 4th right rib was fractured and blood was collected underneath the injury. The right lung was ruptured and 500 ml. of blood and blood clots were collected below the site of the injury. The cause of death was found to be injury to right lung, which was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The postmortem report was proved as Ex.P/5. 10. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 IPC. The cause of death was found to be injury to right lung, which was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The postmortem report was proved as Ex.P/5. 10. After investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 IPC. The case was committed and transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota for trial, where charges were framed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 147 and 302 in the alternative 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the prosecution allegations, but did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. After appreciating the arguments advanced by learned Defence Counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and analysing the evidence on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, these appeals. 11. Learned counsel representing the appellants frankly conceded that the prosecution case regarding participation of the accused appellants in the incident is well-proved from the testimony of the first informant Pramod Gautam (P.W.6) and the eye witnesses Deepak (P.W.8) and Brijesh Kumar (P.W.1). However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that even if the highest allegations as set out in the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses are accepted to be true on the face of the record, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC cannot be held proved out against the accused persons. It was contended that the incident took place at the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation. The head injury noticed on the body of the deceased was found to be simple in nature. The injury on the chest caused by a blunt weapon led to the fracture of rib causing rupture of lung and proved fatal. It was, thus, contended that the accused persons neither had the intention nor the knowledge that causing such injury to the deceased could result into his death. It was further urged that the appellants do not have criminal antecedents. It was, thus, contended that the accused persons neither had the intention nor the knowledge that causing such injury to the deceased could result into his death. It was further urged that the appellants do not have criminal antecedents. They are young students and have suffered imprisonment of terms varying from 6 years to 7 years and thus, the conviction of the appellants should be altered either to Section 325 IPC or to Section 304 Part II IPC and they should be released on the sentences already undergone by them. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khuman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [ AIR 2005 SC 1281 ]. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the appeals may be partly accepted as above. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. She contended that the appellants and their companions (who could not be identified) formed an unlawful assembly and brutally assaulted the deceased Pradeep Gautam without any rhyme or reason and inflicted a forceful injury on the chest of the deceased by a heavy implement i.e. a baseball bat, causing fracture of the rib and as a result, the lung was ruptured leading to instantaneous death. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court does not warrant any interference by this court in these appeals. She, thus, implored the court to reject the appeals in toto. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 14. Learned counsel representing the appellants have fairly conceded that the prosecution has proved participation of the accused in the incident beyond all manner of doubt from the evidence of the eye-witnesses referred to supra. Their argument was limited to the aspect that the incident took place on the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation and that the accused did not act in a cruel manner. They were young boys at the time of the incident. The incident erupted all of a sudden following the quarrel which took place in the morning. Their argument was limited to the aspect that the incident took place on the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation and that the accused did not act in a cruel manner. They were young boys at the time of the incident. The incident erupted all of a sudden following the quarrel which took place in the morning. The accused could not have comprehended by any stretch of imagination that a blow of blunt weapon, landed on the chest of the victim could prove fatal. Thus, the accused neither had any intention nor the knowledge that inflicting such injury could lead to the death of the victim. Their submission was limited to the nature of offence. 15. After appreciating the evidence of the eye-witnesses Deepak (P.W.8) and Brijesh Kumar (P.W.1), we find that they have portrayed the incident in two parts. In the first part, a trivial verbal altercation took place between the parties, wherein accused Brijesh gave a slap to Sunny. In the second part, the deceased and his two companions Sonu and Deepak had gone to the same place where the incident of morning happened, and there it is alleged that Kuldeep, Brijesh, Hariram and 10-12 other boys came around and all these assailants, who were armed with baseball bats and sticks etc. launched an indiscriminate assault on the members of the complainant party. However, the allegation that nearly 15 persons armed with baseball bats launched an indiscriminate assault on the members of the complainant party is not corroborated and is rather contradicted by the medical evidence because Dr. Ashok Moondra (P.W.2), after conducting postmortem, took note of presence of only 7 injuries on the person of the deceased, of which 2 were superficial abrasions. The head injury was found to be skin deep and did not cause any damage to the internal organs. Three injuries were noticed on the thoracic region, one of which led to the fracture of the4th right rib, which in turn, perforated the right lung causing bleeding and ultimately, the victim expired as a result thereof. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the accused can not be clothed with either the intention or the knowledge that by causing such injury on the chest of the victim, they could cause his death. In the cases of (i) Kashi Ram & Ors. Vs. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the accused can not be clothed with either the intention or the knowledge that by causing such injury on the chest of the victim, they could cause his death. In the cases of (i) Kashi Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( AIR 2001 SC 2902 ); (ii) Dev Raj & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ( AIR 1994 SC 523 ) and (iii) Tara Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana ( AIR 1971 SC 1891 ), Hon’ble Supreme Court examined almost identical facts and circumstances and held that the offence attributed to the accused would not be one punishable under Section 302 IPC, but rather that under Section 304 Part II IPC. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the conviction of the accused appellants deserves to be toned down from the offence punishable Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 149 IPC. 16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota in Sessions Case No.03/2011 is modified in the terms that conviction of the appellants is altered from Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC to Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. However, their conviction and sentence awarded for the offence under Section 147 IPC is affirmed. For the offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC, the sentence awarded to the appellants, is reduced to the period already undergone by them as mentioned above. In addition thereto, we hereby impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each upon each appellant. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The fine upon being deposited, shall be paid to the family members of the victim by way of compensation under Section 357 CrPC. We further direct that the District Legal Services Authority, Kota shall initiate proceedings for awarding compensation to the family members of the deceased under the Victim Compensation Scheme. 17. The fine upon being deposited, shall be paid to the family members of the victim by way of compensation under Section 357 CrPC. We further direct that the District Legal Services Authority, Kota shall initiate proceedings for awarding compensation to the family members of the deceased under the Victim Compensation Scheme. 17. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court. 18. The appeals are partly allowed in these terms. 19. The record be returned back to the trial court forthwith.