S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab by which while confirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part-I the High Court reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years R.I.
2. The facts of the case are detailed in the Judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat them all over again. It appears that on the 5th March, 1972, at 6 30 P. M., there was some altercation between the deceased and the accused as a result of which the 4 accused persons viz., Bhag Singh, Piara Singh, Mit Ram and Bansi Lal entered into the house of the deceased Sarwan Singh and assaulted him with Toki, Gandhali, Bahala and Kirpan. The doctor found as many as 24 injuries on the person of the deceased. The doctor also was of the opinion that the injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. The prosecution examined PWs. 3, 4 and 5 viz.. Harbhajan Lal, the widow and the nephew of the deceased to prove the murderous assault on the deceased. Both the Courts before accepted the evidence of these three witnesses who were very natural witnesses because being the members of the Family they were expected to be present in the house where the occurrence took place. We are unable to find any error of law in the judgment of the High Court. On the other hand we feel that this was a clear case of murder where the four accused persons battered the deceased to pieces and killed him intentionally. The appellants were however fortunate in escaping conviction under Section 302 and they should thank the stars for the same. It is rather unfortunate that the state of Punjab did not consider it accessory to file an appeal against the acquittal of the appellants under Section 302. However, Mr. Hardev Singh strongly contended that the appellants, having been released on bail on the 18th April, 1975 (and they have done about 3 years) should not be sent back to jail because they are the only bread earners of the family. There can be no doubt that the offence committed by the appellants in a very serious one and the sentence given to them is extremely lenient, hence we find absolutely no room for any further reduction in the sentence. For these reasons, therefore, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed The appellants must now surrender and serve out the remaining portion of the seatence.