JUDGMENT : Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 1. Heard Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respective appellants. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. Both these appeals are arising out of common crime number, common sessions trial and common judgment, therefore, both these appeals are being heard and decided together. 3. These criminal appeals have been filed by the respective appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.07.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2019, whereby the appellants/accused persons have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced for RI for life with fine of Rs. 500/- to each of the appellants/accused persons, in default of payment of fine 1-1 month additional RI. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Jainath Singh Keram has lodged a merg intimation on 07.11.2019 at about 12:05 p.m. that on 06.11.2019 at about 6-7 p.m., the deceased Beeralal asked him to convene a panchayat meeting in the village with respect to the dispute of partition of the property with his nephew Manijar. When Manijar came to know that the deceased is calling a panchayat meeting for partition dispute, he went near the house of the deceased, started hurling abuses and with his intervention they pacified. On 07.11.2019 at about 7.30 a.m. he along with Kaushalendra and Shivbalak were sitting in the house of the deceased, but Manijar and others had not come there, and they went to their own houses. About 8:00 a.m. he heard the noise of ^^cpkvks& cpkvks^^ and when he reached the place from where the noise was coming, he saw that the son of the deceased namely Indrakumar was caught hold by Narad and Pintu, and Manijar was assaulting the deceased by Danda. In order to save himself the deceased pushed Manijar by which he fell down, and then Narad and Pintu left the son of the deceased, namely Indrakumar and started assaulting by hand fists and kicks to the deceased. He, Indrakumar and Dhanmet Bai intervened in the incident and when he made a telephonic call to the police, they fled away. The deceased Beeralal was taken to the hospital, where PW-3 Dr. He, Indrakumar and Dhanmet Bai intervened in the incident and when he made a telephonic call to the police, they fled away. The deceased Beeralal was taken to the hospital, where PW-3 Dr. Mahamaya Pratap has medically examined him and gave his report vide Exhibit P/5. While examining the deceased, the doctor has found the following injuries: “Date and time of examination 7.11.19 at 10:25 a.m. O/E - Swelling and tenderness present over right side of temporo-parietal reg. of head (5x3 cm) A/w present over left side fore head (1x1 cm) A/w present over Rt. Side of chest (1x1 cm) CNS = Unconscious, dull. GC = V. poor. Opinion:- Patient condition is very critical. Refer to Higher Centre Ambikapur for further Managements.” 5. Looking to the critical condition of the deceased, he was referred to Higher Center, Ambikapur, for further management, but he succumbed to his injuries on the same day at 11.37 a.m. and the information about his death was sent from the hospital to the Police Station, Surajpur vide Exhibit P/6. 6. Based on the merg intimation (Exhibit P/12), the FIR (Exhibit P/14) was registered against the appellants/accused persons for the offence under Section 302, 34 of IPC. The inquest of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses vide Exhibit P/8, and the dead body was sent for its post-mortem to District Hospital, Surajpur, where PW-8 Dr. Priyank Patel conducted the post-mortem of the dead body and gave his report (Exhibit P/17). While conducting post-mortem, the doctor has found the following external injuries on his body: “External injury. 1. Swelling in head on both parietal area (diffuse). 2. Multiple abrasion over face approx 1x1 cm in length. 3. Abrasion over right side of chest 5x1 cm. 4. Abrasion over left knee joint 2x2 cm. No other external injury seen on examination.” 7. On internal examination, the doctor has found the following injuries: “Massive bleeding inside scalp present. Coronal fracture present in vault of skull of 15 cm length, massive subdural and sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. Present over entire right cerebral hemisphere, laceration present in occipital lobe of cerebrum.” 8. After conducting the post-mortem, the doctor has opined that cause of death is head injury leading to massive intracranial bleeding, time since death within 12 hour and manner of death is homicidal in nature. 9. Present over entire right cerebral hemisphere, laceration present in occipital lobe of cerebrum.” 8. After conducting the post-mortem, the doctor has opined that cause of death is head injury leading to massive intracranial bleeding, time since death within 12 hour and manner of death is homicidal in nature. 9. The spot map (Exhibit P/9) was prepared by the Patwari and Exhibit P/13 was prepared by the police. During the investigation, the appellants/accused persons were taken into custody and memorandum statement of the accused Manijar was recorded vide Exhibit P/1 and based on his memorandum statement, one wooden log was seized from him vide seizure memo Exhibit P/2. The accused persons have been arrested on 08.11.2019. The said wooden log was sent for its query report to the doctor and doctor (PW-8) has submitted the query report (Exhibit P/18A) and opined that the injuries described in post-mortem report can be caused by this wooden item and death can be happened with injury by this wooden item. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and after due investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302, 34 of IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Surajpur. 10. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 11. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. The statements under Section 313 of CrPC of the accused persons have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence, and have submitted that the deceased Beeralal and his family members were assaulting the accused Manijar, and, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. 12. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, passed the judgment of conviction and sentence and has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC, and sentenced them for RI for life with default stipulation, which is under challenge in these appeals. 13. Mr. 12. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, passed the judgment of conviction and sentence and has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC, and sentenced them for RI for life with default stipulation, which is under challenge in these appeals. 13. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant- Manijar (Criminal Appeal No. 1690 of 2023) submitted that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302, 34 of Indian Penal Code as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. He further submits that there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they are stating against their own statements. Looking to the evidence available on record, due to simple reason and with sudden provocation and also in the hit of passion, the incident has taken place and there is no motive available to commit murder of the deceased. He also submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that at the time of incident, the deceased himself has assaulted the accused Manijar, by which he received injuries, which proved by Exhibit D/1, and thus, it is quite apparent that there was quarrel between the accused Manijar and the deceased Beeralal, which further proves that the assault was made on sudden provocation. He would further submit that the eyewitnesses are the close relatives of the deceased and therefore their reliability is doubtful in view of the fact that the independent witnesses have not duly supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that although the deceased had received numerous injuries, but all those injuries are externally simple in nature, and no fracture has been found in the body of the deceased. He would further submit that although the deceased had received numerous injuries, but all those injuries are externally simple in nature, and no fracture has been found in the body of the deceased. He also contended that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to the deceased in spur of moment as they were fighting to each other, therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-I/II of the Indian Penal Code, hence the present appeal of the appellant Manijar deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 14. Mr. Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Pintu Vishwakarma and Narad Prasad (Criminal Appeal 129 of 2024) has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no allegation or assault by the present appellants Pintu and Narad. The witnesses have not supported their case that the present appellants Pintu and Narad have also assaulted the deceased and the allegation of assault is only upon the appellant Manijar. The complainant (PW-7) Jainath, though he claims to be the eyewitness of the incident, has not stated anything against the present appellants Pintu and Narad that they have also assaulted the deceased. He would further submit that nothing has been seized from them, which implicates them in the offence in question. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with respect to their involvement in the offence in question. By adopting the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Manijar, he would also submit that the present appellants Pintu and Narad are also entitled for their acquittal. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective appellants and has submitted that it is not a case where the appellants’ conviction under Section 302 of IPC can be altered/converted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC and as such the instant criminal appeals deserve to be dismissed. 16. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 17. The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of the deceased Beeralal was homicidal in nature or not. 18. The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly relying upon the post-mortem report of Dr. Priyank Patel, PW-8, has come into conclusion that the cause of death was head injury leading to massive intracranial bleeding and death was homicidal in nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court that the death of the deceased Beeralal was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we are hereby affirmed that finding. 19. Now, the next question for consideration would be, whether the accused persons/appellants are the preparator of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by relying upon the testimonies of eyewitnesses, PW-4 Dhanmet Bai, PW-5 Indrakumar and PW-7 Jainath Singh Keram. 20. PW-4 Dhanmet Bai has stated in her deposition that the deceased was her husband. On 07.11.2019, at about 7-8 a.m., her husband has called a panchayat meeting with respect to partition of the property with the accused persons. Shivbalak, Jainath, and Pushpraj were come for the panchayat meeting, but the appellants/accused persons had not come. When the witnesses went towards the lane, the accused persons came inside their house and assaulted her husband Beeralal by wooden log. They made multiple assaults on her husband. Her son Indrakumar was being caught hold by the co-accused Narad and Pintu. They pushed her husband by which he fell down on the ground and the accused persons again started assaulting her husband by wooden log, by which her husband has died on the spot. The persons of vicinity were gathered and tried to intervene and in the meantime, Jainath Keram has made a telephonic call to the police and informed about the incident. By the assault made by the accused persons, her husband received injuries on head and other parts of the body. The persons of vicinity were gathered and tried to intervene and in the meantime, Jainath Keram has made a telephonic call to the police and informed about the incident. By the assault made by the accused persons, her husband received injuries on head and other parts of the body. During the investigation, wooden log has been seized from the accused Manijar on the basis of his memorandum statement (Exhibit P/1) and the seizure memo is Exhibit P/2. In cross-examination, nothing could be elicited by the defence, which makes her evidence doubtful and she remained firm in saying that the accused persons have assaulted her husband. 21. PW-5 Indrakumar, who is the son of the deceased and eyewitness to the incident has stated in his evidence that on 07.11.2019 at about 7.30 a.m., Jainath, Shivbalak and Kaushalendra were come to his house to attend the panchayat meeting, but the accused persons had not come and then the witnesses have left the place. At about 8:00 a.m., the accused persons came to his house and started assaulting his father by wooden log. He was being caught hold by accused Narad and Pintu and Manijar assaulting his father. He gave multiple blows on the deceased. In the meantime, his father has pushed the accused Manijar, by which he fell down and thereafter the co-accused Narad and Pintu left him and they too started assaulting his father by hand, fists and kicks. When he tried to intervene in the assault, the accused persons tried to assault him and in between that period Jainath came there and he too had tried to save his father. Jainath has informed the police by telephone. His father was taken to the hospital at Surajpur, but his father has died on the spot. The PW-5 has also remained firm in his cross-examination by the defence and nothing could be brought in his cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. 22. PW-7 Jainath Singh Keram, who is the complainant and eyewitness to the incident, has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he went to the house of deceased Beeralal, because he called him for panchayat meeting. When Manijar was not come there, they left the place. 22. PW-7 Jainath Singh Keram, who is the complainant and eyewitness to the incident, has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he went to the house of deceased Beeralal, because he called him for panchayat meeting. When Manijar was not come there, they left the place. After about 10 minutes, he heard the noise ^^cpkvks& cpkvks^^ from the house of Beeralal and when he reached at the place from where the noise was coming, he saw that the appellant Manijar was assaulting the deceased Beeralal by wooden log. He tried to save him, but the accused Manijar has made the blow on his head, and therefore Manijar started assaulting the deceased Beeralal by fists and kicks. When he informed the police by mobile phone, Manijar fled away from that place. He stated in his deposition that when Manijar was committing the offence, the accused Narad and Pintu were standing on some distance. When the deceased was taken to the hospital, he was declared dead. He lodged the merg intimation (Exhibit P/12) and he is the eyewitness of inquest and other police proceedings. After declaring this witness hostile, he stated that when he reached on the spot, he saw that Indrakumar was being caught hold by accused Narad and Pintu and accused Manijar was repeatedly assaulting the deceased Beeralal by club. In order to save himself, Beeralal pushed the accused Manijar, by which he dashed with the wall. In cross examination, although he stated that he was not there on the spot, when the quarrel started and he subsequently reached there. He denied the fact that with the scuffling between the appellant Manijar and deceased, the deceased fell down on the ground and received injuries by the stone lying there. He admitted that in the same incident, the accused Manijar has also received injury on his head. From his lengthy cross-examination, he supported his evidence with respect to the assault made by Manijar upon the deceased. However, he could not duly supported the involvement of the appellants Pintu and Narad in the offence in question. 23. He admitted that in the same incident, the accused Manijar has also received injury on his head. From his lengthy cross-examination, he supported his evidence with respect to the assault made by Manijar upon the deceased. However, he could not duly supported the involvement of the appellants Pintu and Narad in the offence in question. 23. From perusal of the merg intimation (Exhibit P/12), it reflects that when PW-7 Jainath Keram reached on the spot and saw the incident, the appellants Pintu and Narad were caught hold the son of deceased Indrakumar, and when the deceased pushed the appellant Manijar, both these accused persons, Pintu and Narad, left Indrakumar and started assaulting the deceased by fists and kicks. The allegations against the present appellants have been duly supported by the PW-4 Dhanmet Bai and PW-5 Indrakumar, and thus, the involvement of all the appellants/accused persons and their active participation in the offence in question has been duly proved by these witnesses, in which the defence could not be able to point out any discrepancy to make their evidence doubtful or disbelieve. Although, PW-1 Kaushalendra Sahu, PW-2 Shivbalak and PW-6 Pushpraj were also cited as the eyewitness to the incident, but they have not duly supported the case of prosecution. Thus, on the basis of testimonies of PW-4 Dhanmet Bai, PW-5 Indrakumar, and PW-7 Jainath Keram, it is clear that it is the appellants who, on the fateful date and time, has caused grievous injuries to the deceased Beeralal, due to which he died on the same day. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the appellants/accused persons, who have caused injuries over the body of the deceased and caused his death. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 24. The aforesaid findings bring us to the next question for consideration as to whether the case of the appellants are covered with exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC vis-à-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and their conviction can be covered to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by the learned counsel for the respective appellants. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2002(3) SCC 327 has observed as under: “14. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2002(3) SCC 327 has observed as under: “14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2002) 3 SCC 327 has observed as under:- "21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part 1) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year." 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 15 SCC 635 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which state as under :- "23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under: (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations; (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. 24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused." 16. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda reported in (2012) 8 SCC 45, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death. 17. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2017) 3 SCC 247 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under:- "20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [ (1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under: (SCC p. 220, para 7) "7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (1) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly." 21. Further in Arumugam v. State [ (2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under: (SCC p. 596, para 9) "9. .... 18. Further in Arumugam v. State [ (2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under: (SCC p. 596, para 9) "9. .... 18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provisions means "unfair advantage". 18. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 19. 19. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2019) 6 SCC 122 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under: "16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 26. In the present case, PW-4 Dhanmet Bai, PW-5 Indrakumar and PW-7 Jainath Singh Keram are the eyewitnesses to the incident. They have stated that at about 7-8 a.m. when they were in their house, Kaushalendra, Shivbalak and Jainath had come to their house to attend the panchayat meeting, but the accused persons have not come and therefore they left the place. After about 10 minutes, the accused persons came to their house and started assaulting the deceased. It is not the case that the accused persons have assaulted the deceased in panchayat building or any other place and it is also not the case that some altercation took place before the assault made by them, rather from the evidence it reflects that the co-accused persons came to the house of the deceased and started assaulting him by wooden log. The two accused persons Pintu and Narad initially caught hold the son of the deceased and facilitated the accused Manijar to assault the deceased by wooden log and when the deceased in order to save himself pushed the appellant Manijar, both these accused persons Pintu and Narad left Indrakumar and started assaulting the deceased by fists and kicks. 27. On the report of PW-7 Jainath Keram, the merg has been registered. The document (Exhibit D/1) shows that certain injuries have also been received by the accused Manijar, which further proves that there was quarrel between the accused Manijar and the deceased. 27. On the report of PW-7 Jainath Keram, the merg has been registered. The document (Exhibit D/1) shows that certain injuries have also been received by the accused Manijar, which further proves that there was quarrel between the accused Manijar and the deceased. The place of incident i.e. inside the house of the deceased has not been disputed by the accused persons, which has also been proved by the PW-10 Khuleshwar Dayal Singh, who is the Patwari and who has prepared the spot map as well as PW-12 Vikesh Tiwari, who is the Investigating Officer. 28. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above stated judgments and considering the statements of the witnesses, it is quite vivid that the appellants came together in the house of the deceased and started assaulting the deceased by wooden log. From the evidence of the witnesses, it also reveals that the deceased was given blow by wooden log as well as fists and kicks by the accused persons, by which he received grievous injuries on his body, including intracranial bleeding, which leading to his death. Within a short span of time from the assault made by the accused persons, the deceased died. The appellant Manijar has also received injuries over his body. Though, the appellants did not have any intention to cause death of the deceased Beeralal, but by causing such injuries, they must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by them would likely to cause death of Beeralal. As such, their case would fall within the purview of exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC as the act of the appellants herein satisfied the necessary ingredients of exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code. 29. Considering the above stated facts, further considering the evidence of eyewitnesses PW-4 Dhanmet Bai, PW-5 Indrakumar and PW-7 Jainath Singh Keram, and further taking into consideration the age of the appellants at present and the fact that they are in jail since 18.11.2019, also considering the post-mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit P/17) and the materials available on record, it would meet the ends of justice that if the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is altered/converted to Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of IPC. 30. 30. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302, read with Section 34 of IPC, is set aside, however they are convicted under Section 304 Part-I, read with Section 34 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. The appellants are stated to be in jail. They shall serve the remaining sentence as modified by this Court. 31. These Criminal Appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 32. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.