JUDGMENT

In this appeal, the conviction of the appellants by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by order dated November 29, 1983 in Criminal Appeal No.585-DB of 1983 is under challenge. The appellants along with one Sukhwinder Singh were tried on a charge under. Section 148, Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur in Sessions Case No. 14/83 arising out of F.I.R. No. 359/82 of Polic Station Gobindpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence adduced in the case, convicted the accused Karnail Singh and Mohain Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted three other accused Avtar Singh, Bawa Singh and Sukhwinder Singh alias Chhinda under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. All the five accused were also convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the said count. It was indicated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in the case of default of payment of fine the defaulting convict would suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused, thereafter, preferred the said Crl. Appeal No. 585-DB of 1983 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and by the impugned judgment dated 29-11-1983, the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused Sukhwinder Singh alias Chhinda and acquitted him and in view of such acquittal of Sukhwinder Singh, the High Court also acquitted all the accused under Section 148, I.P.C. and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the other accused under Section 148, I.P.C. It appears that the High Court has given the benefit of doubt to Sukhwinder Singh alias Chhinda in view of the fact that Sukhwinder Singh was son-in-law of Karnail Singh and brother-in-law of other accused and he was resident of a different village. That apart, it appears that in the F.I.R. the name of the father of Sukhwinder Singh was wrongly mentioned. So far as the other accused are concerned, the High Court inter alia came to the finding that the other four accused who are appellants before us had participated in committing the said crime which ultimately caused the death of one Bawa Singh. But the High Court has held that such murder was not committed with any pre-planning because altercation started at the spot. The said four accused inflicted the injuries on the deceased which ultimately caused the death. As the commission of crime had taken place out of such altercation, without any motive for murdering the High court was of the view that it was not a fit case for conviction under Section 302, or under Section 302/149, I.P.C. Accordingly, the High Court modified the conviction of the accused and convicted them under Section 304, Part I and sentenced to each of the said four accused to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 7500/- in default of payment of such fine, further rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years. The High Court has also indicated that the entire amount of fine, when recovered, will be paid to the next of kin of deceased Bawa Singh as compensation.

2. Mr. Kohli, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that in the instant case, there was hardly any strong motive for committing the said murder. According to the prosecution case, the dispute arose when the accused were cleaning the path way. He has submitted that at the time of the murder, Karnail Singh was aged about 70 years old and his sons were all adults and hardly there was any occasion for old man to go for cleaning the path way. Mr. Kohli has further submitted that in the instant case, there was an attempt to implicate Sukhwinder Singh, the son-in-law who was resident of a different village but the High Court f