JUDGMENT : K. Surender, J. 1. Crl.A.No.1164 of 2019 is preferred by A-1 to A-3, and Crl.A.No.1049 of 2019 is preferred by A-4. 2. Since both the Appeals are filed questioning the conviction in S.C.No.205 of 2018, on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Asifabad, both the appeals are considered and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 4. P.W.1 is the wife of Dasharatham (deceased). According to her, on 03.08.2017, at about 10 a.m., the deceased, along with his brother Ankaiah (not examined), went to the MRO office in connection with a land issue. In the evening at about 6 p.m., the deceased returned home and informed her that A-4 threatened him with dire consequences in connection with land disputes between the deceased’s family and the family of A-4. Around 9 p.m., the deceased went out. P.W.1, daughter, Swathi Priya/P.W.2, and son, Sai Preetham (not examined), were in the house. They heard the deceased shouting and went out. They found the deceased lying on the road with bleeding injuries in front of the house of P.W.4. A-1 to A-3 were near the deceased. A-1 was armed with a knife, A-2 and A-3 with an axe and an iron rod, respectively. When P.W.1 questioned him, the deceased stated that A-1 stabbed him. Immediately, Kotaiah/P.W.6 arrived at the scene, and he was also assaulted. The deceased was then taken to the hospital and treated by P.W.14. The deceased died on 03.08.2017. 5. P.W.14 examined P.W.6 and found the following injuries: “1. A laceration measuring 2.3cm., x0.5 cm., on the right side of the chest. 2. A laceration measuring 2cm., x 0.5 cm., on the left forearm. 3. Fracture of left ulna.” 6. Postmortem was conducted by P.W.14 on the deceased, and P.W.14 found the following injuries: “1. A deep laceration over left chest laterally 1 ½ x 2 inches. 2. Left lung was lacerated measuring 1 ½ x 3 inches. 3. Left side heart was lacerated measuring 1 x 2 inches.” 7. According to P.W.14, the death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock, followed by a stab injury over the left chest. 8. P.W.1 lodged a complaint at 8 a.m. on 04.08.2017, narrating the incident and stating that the death of the deceased occurred at the hospital. 9. 3. Left side heart was lacerated measuring 1 x 2 inches.” 7. According to P.W.14, the death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock, followed by a stab injury over the left chest. 8. P.W.1 lodged a complaint at 8 a.m. on 04.08.2017, narrating the incident and stating that the death of the deceased occurred at the hospital. 9. The Investigating Officer/P.W.15 took up investigation after the crime was registered. He went to the scene and conducted the scene of offence panchnama. Inquest was also held. Thereafter, the postmortem was conducted on 05.08.2017, and A-1 to A-3 were arrested. At their instance, M.Os.10, 11, and 12 were seized. The bloodstained shirt and trouser of A-2 were also seized. During the confessions of A-1 to A-3, it was revealed that A-4 also had a role to play. Accordingly, A-4 was also arrayed as an accused along with A-1 to A-3. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the only eye-witness to the incident is P.W.4. According to him, A-1 stabbed the deceased with a knife, and when he approached A-1 and the deceased after hearing a quarrel, A-2 and A-3 came there. P.W.4 called Kotaiah/P.W.6. When P.W.6 arrived, he was also attacked by A-1 to A-3. However, P.W.4 did not witness A-1 to A-3 assaulting P.W.6. 11. According to P.W.6, there was a quarrel between the deceased’s family and the family of the accused. In the MRO office, the deceased was threatened by A-2 and A-4. On the same day, in the night, the deceased called P.W.6 and informed him that A-1, along with one Annam Rakesh (not examined), came on a motorcycle and kicked him. The deceased lodged a complaint against them. Thereafter, P.W.6 received a phone call from P.W.4 informing P.W.6 that A-1 stabbed the deceased. When he came to the scene, according to P.W.6, A-2 hacked him with an axe on his left hand. A-1 stabbed him on his right side below the chest, and A-3 beat him with an iron rod on his back. P.W.3 came to the scene and tried to stop the accused from attacking P.W.6. Immediately, both the deceased and P.W.6 were taken in an auto to the Police Station and from there to the Government hospital at Bellampally. 12. A-1 stabbed him on his right side below the chest, and A-3 beat him with an iron rod on his back. P.W.3 came to the scene and tried to stop the accused from attacking P.W.6. Immediately, both the deceased and P.W.6 were taken in an auto to the Police Station and from there to the Government hospital at Bellampally. 12. According to the learned counsel, P.W.6 was not at the scene, and there is no eye-witness account as to who attacked the deceased. P.W.4 attributed overt acts only to A-1. Counsel further submits that, even admitting that A-1 attacked the deceased, the same would not fall under Section 300 of IPC but would fall under Section 304-I of IPC. 13. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Stalin vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police , [ (2020) 9 SCC 524 ] . The relevant paragraphs read as under:- “Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, more particularly the decisions on the single injury and the facts on hand, it is required to be considered whether the case would fall under Section 302 IPC or any other lesser offence. PW3 – Nelson, who is an eyewitness to the incident right from the beginning, deposed that when the deceased – Kalidas served extra beer to two persons who came from outside, the accused became angry and told the deceased why he is giving more beer to outtown people and not giving to local people and thereafter the problem started and in that scuffle the accused took out the knife and stabbed from behind. From the medical evidence, the deceased sustained the following injuries: “External Injuries: A stab wound about 3 x 1.5 cm and 8 cm deep with clean edges present over the back on the right side corresponding to D11 vertebera present. Wound edges swollen, read with adherent blood.” 10. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Wound edges swollen, read with adherent blood.” 10. As per Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case, at the place of incident the beer was being served; all of them who participated in the beer party were friends; the starting of the incident is narrated by P.W.3, as stated hereinabove. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, culpable homicide cannot be said to be a murder within the definition of Section 300 IPC and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove and the manner in which the incident started in a beer party, we are of the opinion that Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. 11. Now, the next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the case would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC? Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly that the accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is to be presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause the death. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and not under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.” 14. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment in Deepak vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 8 SCC 228 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that since the assault on the deceased was pursuant to a quarrel, the conviction was altered from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-II of IPC. 15. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly admits that the allegation of stabbing is against A-1 and A-4 was not present at the scene. 16. As seen from the evidence of P.W.4, he only speaks about the presence of A-2 and A-3 at the scene, and that too after the assault by A-1 on the deceased. P.W.1/wife and P.W.2/daughter of the deceased arrived at the scene after the incident of assault by A-1. 16. As seen from the evidence of P.W.4, he only speaks about the presence of A-2 and A-3 at the scene, and that too after the assault by A-1 on the deceased. P.W.1/wife and P.W.2/daughter of the deceased arrived at the scene after the incident of assault by A-1. According to P.W.4, A-2 and A-3 came out of the house after hearing the quarrel between A-1 and the deceased. 17. The injury was inflicted by A-1. It was one stab injury on the chest. Admittedly, there were disputes between the deceased’s family and the family of the accused regarding a land issue. Witnesses have narrated that on the morning of the said day, there was a quarrel in the MRO office. Thereafter, an altercation ensued in the evening, and consequently, there was an assault by A-1. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Stalin’s case (supra), held that where there was one injury on a vital part of the body, in such circumstances, the conviction was altered to Section 304-I of IPC. 19. A-2 and A-3 were convicted with an aid of Section 34 of IPC. An accused can be convicted with an aid of Section 34 of IPC only if the prosecution proves that the act was committed in furtherance of a common intention. In pursuance of such common intention, the accused must have participated in the act for the Court to infer that he shared the common intention. According to P.W.4, A-2 and A-3 arrived at the scene after P.W.4 had separated the deceased during the quarrel, and by that time, A-1 had already inflicted the knife injury on the chest. Considering the evidence of P.W.4 that both A-2 and A-3 went there only after hearing the quarrel and that the stabbing had already taken place, the question of them sharing a common intention with A-1 does not arise. 20. P.W.6 stated that there was an attack by A-1 to A-3. A-1 stabbed him on the left side below the chest and A-2 beat him with an iron rod on his back. When the injuries received by P.W.6 are looked into, there is a laceration on the right side of the chest, which is simple in nature and laceration on the left forearm, which is also simple. The grievous injury was a fracture to the left ulna. When the injuries received by P.W.6 are looked into, there is a laceration on the right side of the chest, which is simple in nature and laceration on the left forearm, which is also simple. The grievous injury was a fracture to the left ulna. During the course of cross- examination, P.W.14 admitted that P.W.6 underwent treatment in Singareni hospital where the X-ray was taken. In the X-ray, fracture injury was found. No Doctor from Singareni hospital was examined. It is not known whether the injury or fracture sustained by P.W.6 was received on the date of the incident or prior to it. 21. In view of the above discussion, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC r/w. 34 of IPC against A-1 to A-3 is set aside. However, A-1 is convicted under Section 304-I simpliciter and sentenced to undergo 7 years of imprisonment. 22. The conviction of A-1 and A-2 under Section 307 of IPC for injuring P.W.6 is set aside. However, A-1 and A-2 are convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment. 23. Since there is no evidence against A-4, he is acquitted of all the charges. 24. Accordingly, the Crl.A.No.1164 of 2019 is partly allowed and Crl.A.No.1049 of 2019 is allowed.