JUDGMENT Allsop, J. - This is an appeal by Sumer Singh and Amarnath Singh, who have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a periord of four years each and to a fine of Rs. 200 each u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. They have also been sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment under Sections 147, 374, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for rioting, using force to compel labour and voluntarily causing simple hurt. The shorter sentences are concurrent with the longer one. 2. The story is that Amarnath Singh was a contractor who quarried stone near a railway station called Bharatkup in the Banda District and that he collected a number of Rawats as labourers. It is further said that these labourers were discontented because there were some disputes about recouping advances which had been made to them. On the day of the occurrence some of them went to Amarnath Singh to demand a settlement of accounts or something of that kind and Amarnath Singh abused them and struck one of them with a lathi. The men went back to their huts. Amarnath Singh followed them and found that some of them were not going to their work. He again struck the same man. Thereupon the news was spread among the labourers and they went on strike, packed all their goods and set off, as they say, to the police station with their wives and families. The allegation is that they were intercepted near the railway station by Amarnath Singh and his brothers, Sumer Singh, the other Appellant, and by four other persons who were the employees of Amar Nath's. These people, when the labourers insisted on proceeding towards the police station, attacked them with lathis and beat them. The medical evidence shows that several labourers were injured and one of them Raman was hit on the head with a lathi and died as the result of a fracture of his skull. 3. The witnesses in support of the prosecution are a number of these labourers and two independent witnesses, employees of the Railway Company. The appellancs and three others were prosecuted, but the learned Sessions Judge convicted only the Appellants There was some possibility of doubt about the identity of the other three. 4. 3. The witnesses in support of the prosecution are a number of these labourers and two independent witnesses, employees of the Railway Company. The appellancs and three others were prosecuted, but the learned Sessions Judge convicted only the Appellants There was some possibility of doubt about the identity of the other three. 4. The defence is that Sumer Singh and Amarnath Singh were not at the village near the quarry on the date of this occurrence. The only evidence produced is that of an Honolary Magistrate, who says that Sumer Singh was at a town called Naraini the day before in connection with a criminal case. The Magistrate also said that Amarnath Singh attended his Court from time to time, but he was unable to swear that he had been in Court that day. The evidence is of little assistance to the Appellants because it appears that it would have been quite possible for Sumer Singh to be in Naraini on the day before the occurrence and still to be at the village near the quarry namely the village of Akbarpur, the next morning There is a lorry service between Naraini and a station called Atarra. From Atarra to Bhuratkup there is a train by which the Appellants could have reached the latter station. The evidence for the defence is really quite irrelevant to the decision of the issues. As a matter of probability it is not at all likely that a story such as that told by the witnesses for the prosecution could have been invented. Some of the accused who were acquitted suggested that the injuries were caused in the course of a drunken quarrel between the labourers themselves. If such a quarrel had taken place, it is not at all likely that a story would have been invented involving Amarnath Singh and Sunder Singh and their servants. If there was a dispute about labour and an attempt was made to intercept the labourers, it is very probable that Amarnath Singh, the contractor, would have been present with the intercepting party. There is no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, specially the two railway employees. 5. Learned Counsel has particularly stressed the case of Sumer Singh. He has pointed to the evidence that Sumer Singh had apparently no connection with this contract. There is no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, specially the two railway employees. 5. Learned Counsel has particularly stressed the case of Sumer Singh. He has pointed to the evidence that Sumer Singh had apparently no connection with this contract. The answer to that is that Sumer Singh and Amarnath Singh are brothers and for all we know may be the members of a joint Hindu family and even if they are not, Sumer Singh might well be interested in his brother's business. Then Learned Counsel has pointed to the fact that Amarnath Singh has been living at Akbarpur and Sumer Singh admittedly lives in another village about a couple of miles away. He suggests that it is not probable that Sumer Singh would have been at Akbarpur on the morning of the occurrence. It does not seem to me that my conclusion of this kind can be drawn. Sumer Singh might or might not have been there. If Sumer Singh had not been there, it is possible that he might have been summoned by Amarnath Singh for advice or assistance when this labour dispute arose. We are in the field of pure conjectures on this point. The direct evidence is that Sumer Singh was present and in my judgment there is no such improbability about his presence as would lead one to suppose that the direct evidence must be untrue. Learned Counsel has referred me to the fact that some of the witnesses for the prosecution said that Sumer Singh had not been seen by them for fourteen or fifteen days before the occurrence. This fact does not seem to me to justify the conclusion that he could not have been in Akbarpur or could not have joined the intercepting party on the morning when the incident took place. As I have already said there is direct evidence that he was present and there is no reason to disbelieve it. Learned Counsel argued that the witness had not been consistent because they had said at some time that Sumer Singh had used his lathi and at other times that he had not. I do not think this criticism is justified. Learned Counsel argued that the witness had not been consistent because they had said at some time that Sumer Singh had used his lathi and at other times that he had not. I do not think this criticism is justified. The witnesses did say at sometimes, as for instance, in the first information report, that there were six people who joined in the attack, but I do not think that this statement necessarily meant that all those six people had actually struck any of the labourers with lathis. All that it meant was that there was a body of six people and that these as a body made an attack From the evidence of the head constable who recorded the statements of the witnesses, it appears that they told him that Sumer Singh had not himself used a lathi, although he instigated others to do so. The witnesses made the same statements in the Court of Sessions. In examination-in-chief they said that all six people were members of a body who attacked them, but when cross-examined on detail they said that Sumer Singh had not himself used a lathi. In my judgment there is no reason for thinking that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is untrue. I am satisfied that the Appellants are guilty of the offences of which they have been convicted. 6. A question arises about the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. I cannot accept the argument that an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder was not committed, It seems to me that any person who joins a body of men who are going to use lathis to attack others must know that it is likely that death may be caused and consequently if death is caused, they are all liable and are guilty of offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It may seem somewhat severe to send two apparently respectable people to jail for a period of four years, but one must remember the death has in fact been caused and I do not feel justified in taking any action which would suggest that an attack with lathis which results in death is a light matter which should be lightly treated. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for reducing the sentences. 7. I dismiss the appeal. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for reducing the sentences. 7. I dismiss the appeal. The Appellants shall surrender to their bail and serve out their sentences.