JUDGMENT Roy, J. - The Appellants in this case are Chet Ram, his two sons Lal Singh and Joti, and his three nephews Ram Ratan, Dhori and Ganga Ram. They have been convicted and sentenced u/s s. 147, 302/149, 325/149 and 323/149, IPC, the maximum sentence being one of life imprisonment u/s 302/149 IPC. 2. The facts alleged on behalf of the prosecution and supported by the eye witness account of six injured persons, namely, Karan Singh, Chob Singh, Paras Ram, Rup Ram, Budhu and Smt. Javitri, which are not now seriously disputed by counsel for the Appellants, are these. Ram Sarup Had been in cultivation of a plot of land bearing No. 279 in which his house also existed. His family was originally joint with the family of Chet Ram accused. A partition took place between ancestors of Ram Sarup and Chet Ram several years ago and since then the two families had been separate in residence, mess and cultivation. After the partition Ram Sarup and his brothers constructed the present house in their field bearing No. 279 outside the village abadi, whilst Chet Ram and his sons and nephews continued to reside in the village abadi. Adjacent to plot No. 279 there is another plot of land bearing No. 280 which also belongs to Ram Sarup and his brothers and they had been in cultivation of that plot as well. On the morning of 5-6-1954, three of the members of the family of Ram Sarup, namely, Karam Singh, Rup Ram and Paras Ram were actually ploughing plot No. 279 and Ram Sarup and Budhu were picking the roots and stalks in that field. At about 8 a. m. the Appellants along with certain others appeared there armed with lathis. Chet Ram and his nephew called upon Ram Sarup and his men to unyoke the bullocks and he contended that he had a share in the field. Ram Sarup and his men replied that he had no such share and Ram Sarup and his men refused to get out. Thereupon all the accused assaulted Ram Sarup and his men with lathis. Ram Sarup fell down in the field and became unconscious. Karan Singh, Budhu, Rup Ram and Paras Ram also received a number of injuries at the hands of the assailants. Thereupon all the accused assaulted Ram Sarup and his men with lathis. Ram Sarup fell down in the field and became unconscious. Karan Singh, Budhu, Rup Ram and Paras Ram also received a number of injuries at the hands of the assailants. On hearing the alarm Chob Singh and Smt. Javitri came to their rescue and they too were assaulted by the assailants. It was said that Chhanga, Gokul, Bola and Kalyan Singh were also present at the time of the assault and on their intervention the assailants left the place. 3. Ram Sarup was taken in a can to the Thana where Karan Singh lodged the first information report without any appreciable delay. A case u/s s. 147 and 323, IPG was registered, and Ram Sarup and the other injured persons were sent to the hospital at Firozabad for medical examination. The injured persons were examined by Dr. Mehrotra on that very day. Ten injuries were found on Ram Sarup,seventeen on Chob Singh, three on Paras Ram, five on Budhu, four on Karan Singh, three on Rup Ram and two on Smt. Javitri. Some of the injuries of Ram Sarup and Budhu were found to be grievous. Ram Sarup succumbed to his injuries on that very date. 4. The post-moretem examination on the dead body of Ram Sarup revealed the following injuries ; (1) Constused wound 1 1/3"X 1/2" X scalp deep on the right side of top of head. (2) Haematoma 3" diameter on the right side of head. (3) Lacerated wound on the middle two fingers of the left hand. (4) Simple fracture of the left arm bone near its middle under a contusion on the back arm. (5) Compound fracture of both bones of the left leg under contused wound in front of the leg. (6) Abrased contusion on the front of right leg. (7) Diffused irregular contusion about 4" X 3" on the right buttock. (8) Diffused contusion on the back of right shoulder and shoulder blade. (9) Diffused contusion on the back of shoulder. 5. The right temporal bone was fractured and this fracture extended upto the base of the scalp. The mid-bone of the scalp was also found fracturned. Death in the opinion of the doctor was the result of shock of the injuries and fracture of the skull bones and congestion and compression of the brain. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty. 5. The right temporal bone was fractured and this fracture extended upto the base of the scalp. The mid-bone of the scalp was also found fracturned. Death in the opinion of the doctor was the result of shock of the injuries and fracture of the skull bones and congestion and compression of the brain. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty. The Appellants admitted that an occurrence of marpit(sic) took place, but they contended that it happened on plot No. 280 which had been held by them and had been in their occupation and that when the complainant's party wanted to take forcible possession of that land, they wielded their lathis in right of self-defence of person and property. 7. Undoubtedly a serious riot took place in village Kutubpur Chaudra on 5-6-1954, in which Ram Sarup and the other members of his family sustained a number of injuries. This is evident from the statement of the eye-witnesses who are corroborated by the medical evidence. Ram Sarup sustained compound fracture of left humerus and several head injuries, whilst Budhu received two cut wounds and a compound fracture, and Karan Singh, Rup Ram, Paras Ram, Chob Singh and Smt. Javitri received a number of simple injuries. Ram Sarup succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. The medical evidence clearly shows that his death was due to the shock of the injuries, fracture of the skall bones and congestion and compression of the brain. The accused did not dispute the rioting or the consequent death of Ram Sarup and the injuries of Budhu and other members of his family during the riot. They, however, maintained that the riot in question did not take place on the plot adjoining Ram Sarup's house but on the other plot which lies to the east of the same and they further maintained hat that plot had been in their cultivation and it was the complainant's party that came to take forcible possession of it and that what they themselves did was in the exercise of the right of self-defence of person and property. Hari Shankar the village Lekhpal was examined on their behalf. According to him there are two adjoining plots bearing Nos. 279 and 280 each having an area of nearly three bighas pukhta. Hari Shankar the village Lekhpal was examined on their behalf. According to him there are two adjoining plots bearing Nos. 279 and 280 each having an area of nearly three bighas pukhta. Plot No. 279 is adjacent to Ram Sarup's house and the house in fact is situate therein: whilst plot No. 280 lies to the east of plot No. 279 and is flanked on the eastern side by the Kotla road. This witness was, however, unable to say whether the rioting took place in plot No. 279 or in plot No. 280. Plot No. 279 is admittedly in the possession of the complainants. The eye-witnesses examined in the case were unanimous on the point that the riot took place over plot No. 279 and they were supported on that point by the evidence of the investigating officer who upon inspection of the locality found marks of marpit on plot No. 279, and he also found some blood stains there. It is true that he never recovered any bloodstained ea th from the said plot, but the explanation that was given by him and which was accepted by the court below appears to be satisfactory. The stains of blood were trampled upon and in that state of the matter he did not think it necessary to recover any blood-stained earth from there. Failure to obtain blood stained earth from that plot will not justify the contention of the defence that the dispute took place over plot No. 280 and not over plot No. 279 especially when it is admitted that a riot took place and bones were broken and blood must have fallen either in plot No. 279 or in plot No. 280 It was further in evidence that plot No. 280 was also in possession of the complainant. It was the common case of the parties that the riot took place because the land was encroached upon and ploughed. The investigating officer, however, did not find a single furrow in plot No. 280. He stated that plot No. 280 was lying uncultivated and fallow, whilst plot No. 279 had been partly ploughed up; and he was corroborated on that point by the site plan in which plot No. 280 was clearly indicated as uncultivated and lying fallow. It can therefore, be safely held that the rioting took place over plot No. 279 and not over plot No. 280. It can therefore, be safely held that the rioting took place over plot No. 279 and not over plot No. 280. Obviously therefore the accused could possibly have no right of private defence of property in this case. Even if Ram Sarup was lawfully in possession and in cultivation of this land belonging to Chet Ram and his nephews, the accused had no right to take the law into their own hands and to attack the complainants party, even if they thought that they had some semblance of title, which in fact they had not. The complainants party were unarmed. The attack was unprovoked. The right of self-defence, either of person or of property, was not, upon any view of the matter, available to the accused. 8. The prosecution produced besides the injured persons, four witnesses, namely, Kalyan, Bola, Gokul and Chinga as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge was not inclined to place any great reliance upon their testimony for the reason that they were not mentioned as witnesses in the first information report and some of them appeared to be chance witnesses. Whilst we do not fully subscribe to the view taken on that point by the learned Sessions Judge, we are of opinion that even if the testimony of these witnesses is ignored, the testimony of the other witnesses cited above was clear, cogent and convincing to sustain the charge. 9. The complicity of the Appellants having been proved and admitted, the question is whether the offence fell within S. 302 or S. 304 IPC. The learned Sessions Judgt was of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the injuries that were inflicted on the deceased it was a clear case u/s 302 read with S. 149, IPC Ram Sarup, as has already been stated above, received no less than nine injuries. Two of the injuries were on the head. The right temporal bone was fractured and the fracture extended to the base of the scalp. The mid-bone of the scalp was also found fractured and death was due to these injuries which caused compression of the brain. Two of the injuries were on the head. The right temporal bone was fractured and the fracture extended to the base of the scalp. The mid-bone of the scalp was also found fractured and death was due to these injuries which caused compression of the brain. The medical evidence thus makes it manifest that Ram Sarup was the victim of a number of lathi blows inclusive of the blows over the head and two other blows one of which caused simple fracture of the left arm bone and another a compound fracture of both bones of the left leg. In judging the Appellant's guilt we have to take note of these factors and also of the circumstances in which Ram Sarup had been attacked. The attack was unprovoked and was made without any just cause. The Appellants aggravated their unlawful acdon by using lathis and some of them striking the deceased over the head with great vigour. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Behari v. State,1953 AWR HC 63 sets out the distinction between offences u/s s. 304 and 302, IPC. It was pointed out that S. 299 defines culpable homicide which is of two kinds, namely, culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. That section cannot be taken to be the definition of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the section clearly speaks of culpable homicide simpliciter. The scheme of the Penal Code is such that first the genus 'culpable homicide'is defined and next is defined "murder" which is a species of culpable homicide; and what is left one of culpable homicide after the special characteristics of murder have been taken away from it, is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It was further pointed out that S. 304 applies to the following three classes of cases, namely: (i) where the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of S. 300 but it is covered by the exceptions to that section, (ii) when the injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury "likely to cause death" and the case does not fall u/Cl. (2) of S. 300, and (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but there is no intention to cause death or injury likely to cause death. With regard to the important question of intention it was observed that the true rule was that where the injury caused is not the result of accident or of negligence, a strong presumption arises that the injury caused was intended to be caused, though this presumption may be rebutted by other circumstances, for example, the motive of the accused, the nature of the attack, the time and place of the attack, the position and condition of the deceased, the number of injuries, the force used, etc. This decision was followed in a recent case in Bansi v. State1956 AWR HC 532. Applying these principles to the case before us we find it exceedingly hard to see how the Appellants can escape liability u/s 302, 11 C. S. 300 of the IPC, inter alia, provides that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned Counsel has argued that Exception 2 of S. 300 and Exception 4 of that section would apply. Exception 2 cannot help him because the act was not done in the exercise of good faith of the right of private defence of person or property -the right of private defence of persons not having existed because the complainant's party was absolutely unarmed and no attack had been made by the complainant's party over the accused ; and the right of private defence of property also not having existed because the property belonged to the complainant and they were in lawful possession of it and and had been ploughing it. Nor can they take advantage of Exception 4, for even if we were to assume that they acted in the heat of passion and without premeditation there was neither a sudden quarrel nor a sudden fight between them and the deceased, and, besides, they did take undue advantage and acted in a cruel or unusual manner. We are ready to concede that in attacking Ram Sarup, the Appellants did not intend to cause his death. We are ready to concede that in attacking Ram Sarup, the Appellants did not intend to cause his death. We might even agree that they did not intend to cause such bodily injury as they knew was likely to cause death within the meaning of Cl. (2) of S 300. But in view of the circumstances in which the attack was made, the use of a dangerous weapon like a lathi for it, the ferocity with which the blows were struck, the fact that the victim was unarmed, the delicate parts of the body which were hit, and the presumption that in the absence of accident or negligence every person must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts, leave no room for doubt in our minds that the Appellants intended to cause bodily injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause Ram Sarup's death. Since his death was due to the head injuries which were the direct result of lathi blows, the Appellants must by virtue of the third clause of S. 300, IPC he held liable for culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s 302 read with S. 149, IPC Since the learned trial Judge has himself awarded the Appellants the lesser sentence for this offence, no reconsideration of the sentence is possible. 11. In the result we affirm the Appellants' conviction and the sentences passed on them and dismiss the appeal.