( 1 ) THE three appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1979 and the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 1979 along with two others were indicted of the offences punishable under S. 147, 148, 302 read with S. 149 and 325 read with S. 149 Indian Penal Code on the allegations that they all formed themselves into unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of that assembly they committed murder of Preetam Singh and caused grievous hurt to Public Witness 4. As the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 1979, namely, Pyare Singh was absconding, the case as against the three appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1979 was split up and the three appellants along with two others were tried for the above-said offences and convicted under S. 302 read with S. 149 Indian Penal Code and S. 325 read with S. 149 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and 3 years rigorous imprisonment respectively and further the appellants 1 and 3 and another were convicted under S. 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and appellant 2 and another under section 147 Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a direction that all the sentences imposed on each of the appellants are to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 1979, namely, Pyare singh was separately tried and convicted under S. 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, under S. 326 read with S. 149 Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and under S. 148 Indian Penal Code for two years rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the trial court the appellants in both the Criminal Appeal Nos. 258 of 1979 and 259 of 1979 preferred their respective appeals before the High court. It may be stated that criminal Revision No. 239 of 1973 was preferred by one Harnam Singhnot only for enhancing the sentence in respect of Pyare Singh for the offence under S. 304 Part II read with S. 149 IPC, but also against the acquittal of Pyare Singh under S. 302 IPC. The High court altered the conviction of all the appellants as one under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life besides confirming the convictions and sentences for the other offences. Hence these two appeals.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the entire records, we are of the view that the conviction recorded by the High court under S. 304 Part I Indian Penal Code does not call for interference. However, we are not going into the question of the legality of the judgment made by the High court (giving rise to Criminal appeal No. 258 of 1979) in altering the conviction and enhancing the sentence, at the instance of a private party as well as in the appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction when the State has not preferred any appeal.

( 5 ) NOW coming to the question of sentence we, having regard to the facts of the case and the attending circumstances indicated above feel that the sentence of life imprisonment is not called for and the ends of justice will be met by reducing the sentence to 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the conviction under S. 304 Part I IPC.

( 6 ) IN the result, while confirming the conviction, we set aside the sentence of life imprisonment imposed for the offence under S. 304 part I Indian Penal Code awarded to all the appellants and instead sentence each one of them to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The convictions and the sentences imposed for other offences are confirmed, but the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly subject to the modification of the sentence as indicated above.

( 7 ) IN view of the above order no separate order is necessary in SLP (Cri.) No. 1496 of 1979, which is preferred by