JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. These criminal appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 19.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli (for short “the Learned Trial Court”). in sessions case No.32/2012 (40/2009) whereby, while acquitting the accused- appellant Babu Lal Meena for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and accused-appellant Ramji Lal for the offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of , they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused-appellant Babulal:- (i). Under Section 323 IPC :- One year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default thereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment. (ii). Under Section 302 IPC :- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-; in default thereof, one year’s additional simple imprisonment. The sentences to run concurrently. Accused-appellant Ramjilal:- (i). Under Section 323 IPC :- One year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default thereof, one month’s additional simple imprisonment. The relevant facts in brief are that based on the parcha bayan of injured Manroop dated 27.07.2008, an FIR No.132/2008 came to be registered at Police Station Mandrayal, District Karauli for the offence under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 307 and 302 of IPC against the accused-appellants and co-accused persons. It was alleged therein that in the night of 26.07.2008 at about 11:00 PM, when Karan Singh- his brother was on way to his home, appellant-Babulal has beaten him and when persons from their side arrived at the spot, the appellant and their family members, armed with deadly weapons, attacked them. It was further alleged that the appellant Babulal inflicted an axe-blow on the head of Bhanwar S/o Motilal with an intent to cause his death. During the course of treatment, Bhanwar expired. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused persons. Charge for the offence under Sections 148 , 323 and 302 of was framed against the appellant Babulal whereas, against appellant Ramjilal, charge under , 302/149 and 323 of was framed. The appellants pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, they have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 19.05.2017, as stated hereinabove. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant Babulal under Section 302 of IPC . The appellants pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, they have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 19.05.2017, as stated hereinabove. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant Babulal under Section 302 of IPC . He submits that even if the prosecution case is taken to be true on its face value, the offence does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part I of . Inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of the prosecution witnesses including S/Shri Devi Singh (PW-3), Dhan Singh (PW-4), Karan Singh (PW-7) and Manroop (PW-13), he would submit that all of them have stated in unison that Babulal inflicted a single axe-blow with its reverse side on the head of the deceased Bhanwar. He further submits that the witnesses have also deposed that the co-accused Ramjilal also inflicted an axe-blow on the head of the deceased Bhanwar. He, referring to the cross-examination of Dr. Dashrath Singh (PW-9) dated 06.12.2014, would submit that therein, he has stated that the injury No.1 on the head of the deceased Bhanwar Meena could be a result of two blows; one from front side and another from lateral side. Learned counsel submits that it corroborates the prosecution story of two separate and independent axe blows on the head of the deceased Bhanwar Singh; one by the appellant Babulal and another by the appellant Ramjilal whereas, the learned trial Court has convicted only Babulal for the offence under of . Learned counsel submits that there is no evidence available on record to support the conclusion that the blow only by Babulal resulted into death of Sh. Bhanwar Singh and the blow by Ramjilal did not contribute to it in any manner. He further submits that even as per the prosecution case, there was no previous enmity in between the parties and the incident occurred at spur of the moment. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed in terms that conviction of the appellant Babulal under of may be altered into conviction under Section 304 Part I of and the substantive sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed in terms that conviction of the appellant Babulal under of may be altered into conviction under Section 304 Part I of and the substantive sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone. Qua appellant Ramjilal, learned counsel submits that he has already served the sentence for a period of 5 months and 14 days and while maintaining his conviction, under Section 323 IPC , the substantive sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the prayer and supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 19.05.2017, would submit that the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant Babulal had inflicted an axe-blow on the head of deceased Bhanwar with a clear intention of assassinate him and in view thereof, learned trial Court did not err in recording his conviction under Section 302 of IPC . He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeals. Heard. Considered. The prosecution story begins from the parcha bayan of injured witness Manroop (PW-13) dated 27.07.2008 wherein, he has alleged that when his brother Karan Singh was going to his house at about 11:00 PM on 26.07.2008, Babu (Babulal) has beaten him whereupon, on raising hue and cry by him, S/Sh. Bhanwarlal S/o Motilal, Narayan Singh, Bhanwar S/o Dataram reached at the spot. It is stated that the co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons attacked the complainant party resulting into multiple injuries to them. It is further alleged that the appellant Babulal inflicted an axe-blow on the head of Bhanwarlal S/o Motilal and looking to his serious condition, he has been referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Upon his death, the FIR No.132/2008 came to be registered for the various offences including the offence under Section 302 IPC . The injury report of deceased Bhanwar Meena (Exhibit P-29) reflects three injuries on his body including a traversely placed lacerated wound on frontal parieto occipital part of skull by blunt weapon and as per his post- mortem report (Exhibit P-30), it has resulted into fracture of right parietal bone so as to cause his death. Thus, cause of death of Sh. Bhanwar Singh is injury No.1 i.e. head injury caused by a blunt weapon. Sh. Thus, cause of death of Sh. Bhanwar Singh is injury No.1 i.e. head injury caused by a blunt weapon. Sh. Devi Singh (PW-3)- an eye witness, has stated in his examination-in-chief that Ramjilal inflicted an axe-blow from its reverse side on the head of Bhanwar above his eye and the second axe-blow from the reverse side on head was inflicted by the appellant Babulal. During his cross-examination, he has stated that Ramjilal and Babulal have inflicted injuries to Bhanwar simultaneously. Sh. Dhan Singh (PW-4)- another eye witness has stated in examination-in-chief that Babulal as well as Ramjilal have inflicted an axe-blow each on the head of Bhanwar from its reverse side. Another prosecution witness Sh. Pawan Singh (PW-5) has deposed that on the head and body of deceased Bhanwar Lal, Babulal, Ramjilal as well as Sawanti inflicted lathi and axe- blow. He has claimed that all these three persons were carrying axe with them. Smt. Guddi (PW-6) has stated in her examination- in-chief that the accused-persons namely Babulal, Ramjilal, Shree Path, Buddha, Munesh, Laku, Sawanti, Rameshwari and Bhagwan Devi were blindly beating Bhanwarlal with axe and lathis and Babulal has inflicted an axe-blow on the head of Karan Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Narayan Singh. The injured eye witness Sh. Karan Singh (PW-7) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that Babulal inflicted an axe-blow on the head of Bhanwarlal from its reverse side and thereafter, Ramjilal inflicted second blow with an axe from its reverse side on the head of Bhanwarlal above left eye. The complainant and the injured witness Sh. Manroop (PW- 13) has alleged that Babulal has inflicted an axe-blow on the head of Bhanwarlal. Dr. Dashrath Singh (PW-9), who has prepared the medico-legal report of deceased Bhanwar as well as conducted the autopsy, has stated during his cross-examination on 06.12.2014 that looking to the size and nature of injury No.1, it could be result of two blows; one from the front and another from the lateral side. The prosecution has failed to explain that the injury in the nature of “T shaped lacerated wound on fronto-parieto occipital part of skull” of the deceased Bhanwar Meena could have been result of a single blow. Therefore, in view of overwhelming evidence that two axe-blows were inflicted on the head of deceased; one by the appellant Babulal and another by the appellant Ramjilal and the explanation furnished by Dr. Therefore, in view of overwhelming evidence that two axe-blows were inflicted on the head of deceased; one by the appellant Babulal and another by the appellant Ramjilal and the explanation furnished by Dr. Dashrath Singh during his cross-examination as referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the injury No.1 on the head of deceased Bhanwar Meena was on account of cumulative effect of the injuries inflicted by two persons. In absence of the prosecution case or in absence of any cogent evidence on record to suggest that the death of Bhanwar Meena was brought on account of the injury inflicted only by the appellant Babulal, we do not find that his conviction under of is sustainable especially, in view of deposition by the prosecution witnesses that the injury was inflicted by the appellant Babulal from reverse side of the axe. No explanation is offered by the prosecution as to why, despite opportunity, the appellant Babulal did not use the sharp side of the axe to inflict head injury had he intended to cause death of Bhanwar Meena. Moreover, it is not the prosecution case that the appellant Babulal was prevented by the complainant side or otherwise from inflicting further injuries on the head/body of the deceased Bhanwar, if he had intention to eliminate him. There is another important aspect of the matter. The prosecution itself has admitted that there was no previous enmity between the parties and the incident has occurred at spur of the moment. PW-1 Sh. Narayan Singh- an injured eye witness has admitted during his cross-examination that they had no previous enmity with the accused side. This averment has been reiterated by S/Shri Devi Singh (PW-3) and Pawan Singh (PW-5). Shri Devi Singh (PW-3) has also admitted during his cross-examination that the quarrel started at spur of the moment. From the conspectus of aforesaid prosecution evidence, we find substantial force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the case against the appellant- Babulal does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 part I of IPC as it is found to be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Further, prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant Ramji Lal to the period already undergone is not seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Further, prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant Ramji Lal to the period already undergone is not seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Resultantly, these appeals are partly allowed in following terms. Appeal No.1226/2017- The conviction of the accused-appellant Babulal recorded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment order dated 19.5.2017 under Section 302 of IPC is altered to the conviction under Section 304 part I of . As per the custody certificate dated 10.11.2025 furnished by Deputy Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Karauli, the appellant Babulal has served the sentence of 14 years 19 days as on 10.11.2025, including the remission. In view thereof, the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone. Since, Babulal is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Appeal No.1024/2017: The appellant Ramjilal has already served the sentence of 05 months and 08 days. Looking to the nature of accusation against him and the nature of injuries resulted on account of his overt act, we find that ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence awarded to him under Section 323 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone. Resultantly, both the appeals are partly allowed in aforesaid terms. However, the appellants shall deposit the fine imposed, if not already deposited, within a period of two months from today failing which the learned trial Court shall ensure that they serve the default sentence. In view of the provisions of Section 437 -A CrPC ( Section 481 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellants namely Babulal and Ramjilal are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety in the like amount within four weeks before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in that event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgement or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.