The High Court noted that the injury to the head of the deceased did not prove fatal right away as the deceased survived for around seven days after the incident.

"These circumstances clearly indicate that even though the accused persons were carrying two weapons, they restricted themselves to only one injury on the vital part of the body (head) and that too without exercising much force, otherwise there would have been at least a fracture to the scull like to the right tibia-fibula. The deceased died due to complications following the head injury," the bench said.

The Court added that these circumstances clearly indicated that the homicidal death of the deceased was without premeditation. It followed injuries sustained in a sudden fight, without the accused persons having taken undue advantage of defenceless condition of the deceased or acting in cruel or unusual manner, the Court said.

The Court further noted that it was not certain as to which of the accused dealt the blow to the deceased man's head. The Court concluded that the appellants should be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, instead of the offence of murder.

"Therefore, we find it difficult to conclude that the injury to head was caused intentionally. However, looking to the external and internal nature of the head injury coupled with the fracture caused to the right leg of the deceased, it is safe to conclude that the injury to the head was inflicted with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. Therefore, the homicidal death of the deceased is not murder," the bench opined.

With these observations, the bench altered the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Their sentence was modified from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of ₹25,000 each.

Jaayaa A Kumarr joins Talwar Thakore & Associates as Head - Strategy and Communications