JUDGMENT G.D. Sahgal, J. - Ratipal, aged 35 years, son of Dattu, resident of Pure Chauhan, hamlet of village Mawai Alampur, police station Nasirabad in the district of Rae Bareli has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Rae Bareli of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing the murder of one Ram Dhani by striking him on the head with a pharsa on the 26th of October, 1966 at about 2 p.m. in Pure Chauhan itself in front of the house of the deceased and sentenced to death. Along with him were also tried Ram Lal, who is his brother, and one Satti for sharing common intention with him in killing Ram Dhani though they were armed with lathis. They also gave blows with their lathis on the deceased. They have been convicted of the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to life imprisonment. Ratipal submitted an appeal from jail and a reference also was submitted by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the death sentence passed against him. Ratipal submitted a represented appeal also along with the other two co-accused. While the appeal from jail has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 1967. the represented appeal has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 351 of 1967. The two appeals and the reference have all been heard together. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Assistant Government Advocate on behalf of the State. The prosecution case is that on the 25th of October, 1966, i.e., a day prior to the alleged murder, the wives of Ratipal and Satti were caught by Ram Dhani redhanded plucking pods of Urd in his field. Ram Dhani took them to the door of the village Pradhan, but he was not available there. They were then dismissed by Ram Dhani after being given a slap each. It appears that this fact came to be known by their husbands Ratipal and Satti, Ram Lal appellant being a brother of Ratipal. On the 26th of October, 1966 after midday, say at about 2 p.m., Ram Dhani and his uncle Ram Hitkari (P.W. 2) were thrashing Urd in front of their door. It appears that this fact came to be known by their husbands Ratipal and Satti, Ram Lal appellant being a brother of Ratipal. On the 26th of October, 1966 after midday, say at about 2 p.m., Ram Dhani and his uncle Ram Hitkari (P.W. 2) were thrashing Urd in front of their door. The three appellants are said to have come there, Ratipal armed with a pharsa and the other two with lathis and they assaulted Ram Dhani. This occurrence is alleged to have been seen, among others, by Ganga Ram (P.W. 7), Raghunath (P.W. 8) and Rameshwar (P.W. 11) . Ganga Ram was irrigating his field from a well not far from the house of Ram Dhani at a distance of about 30 to 40 paces. The door of the house of Ram Dhani is said to have been visible from that well. It is said that it was from there that he saw the assault. Raghunath (P.W. 8) was during those days, also irrigating his field by means of a pur. His field is not in the vicinity, but at about mid-day he had come back home to take his meals and was on his way back to the field taking along with him food for his son and wife who were left at the field. On his arrival in front of the chaupal of Ahorey he is claimed to have seen the occurrence. Rameshwar (P.W. 11) is a neighbour of Ram Dhani. He was thrashing his paddy at his door and he claims to have seen the occurrence from that place. Ram Dhani was taken to the police station Nasirabad which is at a distance of about 21- miles from the place of occurrence where Rant Hitkari (P.W. 2) , his uncle, lodged the first information report regarding the offence at 4.20 p.m. Ram Dhani was arranged to be sent to the Dispensary at Jais for medical examination, but as no doctor was available there, he was rendered first aid by the Compounder and was directed to proceed to the District Hospital at Rae Bareli. He was brought to the District Hospital where his injuries were examined by Dr. P.K. Srivastava at 7.30 p.m. that very day. He prepared the injury report (Ex. Ka-1) . Dr. P.K. Srivastava was examined before the Committing Magistrate, his statement being tendered before the Sessions Judge,' it being Ex. He was brought to the District Hospital where his injuries were examined by Dr. P.K. Srivastava at 7.30 p.m. that very day. He prepared the injury report (Ex. Ka-1) . Dr. P.K. Srivastava was examined before the Committing Magistrate, his statement being tendered before the Sessions Judge,' it being Ex. (P.W. 7) , Raghunath (P.W. 8)Ka-15. The following three injuries were and Rameshwar (P.W. 11) . He is found on the person of Ram Dhani: - 1. Incised wound 7" x 1" bone deep over the right side of head. it was bleeding. 2. Lacerated wound ." x x muscle deep over the back and inner aspect of left for the accused, but they could not be forearm with a swelling. This injury was kept under observation. 3. Abrasion 3" x 1 "over the back scapular region. Inquiry No. 3 was simple and, as to injury No. 2, it was found later that there was a fracture of the ulna below it. Ram Dhani was in a semi-conscious condition. He ultimately died at the District Hospital on the 31st of October, 1966 at 7 a.m. Information about his death was sent to the Kotwali at Rae Bareli. Sub-Inspector Mitthan Lal (P.W.1) held the inquest on his body. There was then postmortem examination. The external ante-mortem injuries as found by Dr. D.R. Saluja, whose Statement recorded before the committing Magistrate and tendered before the Sessions Judge is Ex. Ka 16 were the same as those we described above and found by Dr. Srivastava. Internally was found by Dr. Srivastava. Internally was found fracture of the right parietal bone 6" long up to the right parieto occipital suture. The bone was clean cut. Under this fracture there was 4" cut in the membrances. Extra dural clotted blood was present on the posterior part of the fracture, Brain substance had come out in the posterior part of the injury. Dr. Sasluja was of opinion that the cause of death was the head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. At the police station Nasiragad no Sub-Inspector was present with the result that the papers were sent to the out-post at Jais which was in charge of Sub-Inspector Ram Ratan Singh (P.W. 10). He too was not present at the outpost. At the police station Nasiragad no Sub-Inspector was present with the result that the papers were sent to the out-post at Jais which was in charge of Sub-Inspector Ram Ratan Singh (P.W. 10). He too was not present at the outpost. He returned there at about 9.45 p.m. but, strange though it may appear, he did not proceed to the spot during the night. He arrived there ion the next morning and made some interrogations, the persons interrogated including Ram Hitkari (P.W. 2), Ganga Ram (P.W. 7), Raghunath (P.W. 8) and Rameshwar (P.W. 11). he inspected the spot, prepared a site plane, found blood on the found blood on the ground near the north-western corner of the house of Ram Dhani and Collected stained and unstained earth from that place in two separate tins. He searched for the accuse, but they could not be found. At their hose nothing incriminating was recovered. Information was received at police station Nasirabad on the 3rd of November 1966 about the death of Ram Dhanin when the case was converted from one under Section 307, I.P.C. under which section it was originally registered to one under Section 302, I.P.C. The appellants surrendered in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judl.), Rae Bareli on the 7th of November, 1966. Blood stained and unstained earth was sent to the Chemical Examiner who ultimately forwarded it to the Serologist and the stained earth was found to be stained with human blood, The appellants were challaned on the 15th of November, 1966. They all pleaded not guilty to the changes. Ratipal claimed that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity with Pradhan and some other village people. He denied that he had assaulted Ram Dhani in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The case that his wife was in her field of Urd. He heard her cries and rushed to the spot from the bed of the rivulet where he was scraping grass. He saw that Ram Dhani deceased was holding the hand of his wife and he was pragging her in his field. He gave him a lathi blow on the head and his lathi had a pharsa like thing attached to it. Ram Lal could not assign any reason of hi8s false implication. He saw that Ram Dhani deceased was holding the hand of his wife and he was pragging her in his field. He gave him a lathi blow on the head and his lathi had a pharsa like thing attached to it. Ram Lal could not assign any reason of hi8s false implication. The case of satti was that he was on inimical terms with Kurmis of village Fateh-Ka-Purwa in connection with dispute regarding fields and they got his name recorded in the first information report. The first information report, it may be mentioned, mentions the names of all the three applicants and it mention about the incidents which is said to have taken place on the 25th of October 1966 also that Ram Dhani had caught the two ladies and had brought them to the door of the Pradhan having found them plucking pods of Urd in his tarai field, the Pradhan being not present at the house. No mention is, however, made of their being dismissed after being slapped. Fourteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Out of them Ram Hitkari, Ganga Ram, Raghunath and Rameshwar (P.Ws. 2, 7, 8 and 11) are the eye-witnesses. Mitthan Lal (P.W. 1) is the Sub-Inspector who held the inquest. Blood stained earth was recovered in the presence of Parmeshwar Din (P.W. 3). The information report was scribed by Constable Clerk Rama Shanker (P.W. 4). The Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Ram Ratan Singh is P.W. 10. The other witnesses are of a formal nature. No evidence was produced either oral or documentary in defence by any of the appellants. That Ram Dhani received injuries on his body including the one on his head which proved to be fatal cannot be denied and has in fact not been denied. It cannot also be denied that he died as a result of injury No. 1 on his head. Thus there is no doubt that Ram Dhani was murdered. The question is whether he was murdered by the appellants in the manner in which he is said to have been murdered. Of the eye-witnesses the learned Sessions Judge rejected the testimony of Raghunath (P.W. 8). Thus there is no doubt that Ram Dhani was murdered. The question is whether he was murdered by the appellants in the manner in which he is said to have been murdered. Of the eye-witnesses the learned Sessions Judge rejected the testimony of Raghunath (P.W. 8). Raghunath has stated that he was irrigating his field by means of a pur along with his wife and son and at about mid-day he went to his house to take his meals and to bring the food of his wife and his son and it was in these circumstances that when he happened to pass by that side, he saw the occurrence. In his cross-examination he has stated that at about 12 noon he had gone to his house and he stayed there for about 10 minutes and when he was coming back, he saw the occurrence. Thus according to this statement the occurrence would fall at about quarter past twelve or half past twelve in the day which is contrary to the prosecution case which brings it at about 2 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge was also impressed by the fact that normally his wife should have gone to the house to fetch food for her husband and the son. On these grounds he thought that the statement of this witness could not be relied upon. We ate not impressed by the reasons which impelled the learned Sessions Judge to reject his testimony, for all villagers do not keep watches with them and if the witness had stated that at about 12 noon he went to his house, it cannot be said that it was necessarily 12 O'clock by the clock and thus there was discrepancy of time. We must also remember that the food had already been prepared at home and it was kept there and it was only to be brought to the pur and if the wife did not go to the house and he came to fetch it, it cannot be said that the circumstance is such that his testimony should be disbelieved. We see, therefore, no reason why Raghunath's testimony should have been rejected. We are, however, inclined to reject the testimony of Rameshwar (P.W. 11). He was thrashing paddy at his door. We see, therefore, no reason why Raghunath's testimony should have been rejected. We are, however, inclined to reject the testimony of Rameshwar (P.W. 11). He was thrashing paddy at his door. According to him, his house lies in the west of Ram Dhani's house and there is a garhi in between Ram Dhani's house and his house. After the Garhi there stands the house of Sukh Nandan and thereafter his house. He says that he had to advance about 20 steps from his door in order to witness the marpit. The assault could not have taken much time, because one blow was given by each of the appellants to the deceased when they arrived at the place of assault and if he had to advance 20 steps from his door, he could not possibly see the actual assault taking place as by that time the assault must have been over. We would, therefore, not place reliance on the statement of Rameshwar (P.W. 11) . As to the other witnesses, certain alleged infirmities may be pointed out in order to appreciate their evidence. Ram Hitkari (P.W. 2) states that he raised an alarm when his nephew fell down and that the witness came up after he had raised the alarm. This, however, would not detract from the value of the testimony of the witnesses as the witnesses claim to have seen the assault from the very places where they were. It may be that on the raising of the alarm they arrived on the spot. He states that the assailants did not beat the deceased after he had fallen down. But Ganga Ram (P.W. 7) states that even after he had fallen down, these persons beat Ram Dhani. Raghunath (P.W. 8) has some what different story to tell. He states that Ram Dhani was sitting while he was thrashing Urd. He stood up while he was beaten. Ganga Ram states that he was sitting when he was beaten. These are but minor discrepancies and are, in our opinion, guarantee of the truthfulness of the evidence produced in the case as against concocted uniformity in the evidence which is always suspicious. He stood up while he was beaten. Ganga Ram states that he was sitting when he was beaten. These are but minor discrepancies and are, in our opinion, guarantee of the truthfulness of the evidence produced in the case as against concocted uniformity in the evidence which is always suspicious. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the conduct of Ram Hitkari (P.W. 2) was most unnatural inasmuch as even after his nephew was beaten he did not go inside the house to pick up anything in order to resist the assailants. We must, however, remember that he is 60 years of age and the assault finished only alter three blows. It was also pointed out that the defence set up by Ratipal appears to be probable, because Ram Dhani was a bachelor and a young man aged 30 years only, as would appear from the postmortem report, and there was every likelihood of his having misbehaved with the wife of Ratipal. In the teeth of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, as we have pointed out above, which there is no reason to disbelieve, it is very difficult to hold that the accused Ratipal says may be true simply from the circumstances that Ram Dhani was a bachelor and a young man. We are not, therefore, impressed by this argument. As to the incident a day earlier, we have the statements of Ram Hitkari (P.W. 2) and Raghunath (P.W. 8) who happened to be present at the door of the Pradhan when the ladies were brought there and were slapped because the Pradhan was not available there. They, no doubt, do not speak anything about the ladies having been seen by them plucking pods of Urd from the field of the deceased, but the deceased did complain before them about that behaviour of theirs and they must have seen the pods also with them for Raghunath (P.W. 8) has stated that the women had chhimis (pods) in their kouchhas. The occurrence of a day earlier also stands established. If the first information report does not mention about the slaps being given to the ladies, it being a matter of detail, it cannot be concluded that this part of the story is wrong. The occurrence of a day earlier also stands established. If the first information report does not mention about the slaps being given to the ladies, it being a matter of detail, it cannot be concluded that this part of the story is wrong. The conclusion, therefore, is that a day earlier the wives of Ratipal and Satti had entered the Urd field of Ram Dhani and had plucked some pods from there. They were caught red-handed and were brought to the house of the Pradhan where on account of the Pradhan being not available no complaint could actually be made to him, but they were dismissed after being given slaps. The next day Ratipal, Satti and Ram Lal, brother of Ratipal, came together at the door of Ram Dhani, where he was working, and there they assaulted him with the result that he received the injuries described above one of which proved to be fatal, the injury that proved to be fatal being caused by Ratipal by means of a pharsa which he had with him, while the other two injuries were caused by lathis which Ram Lal and Satti had with them. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has held Ratipal to be guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter and sentenced him to death, while the other two have been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. and have been sentenced to life imprisonment. We have, in the circumstances, to see as to what offence has been made out against which of the accused and what sentence should be passed against them. Ram Dhani and Ram Hitkari, as we have found, were working together in front of their house: The three persons, namely, Ratipal, Ram Lal and Satti came together to that place. Of them while Ratipal was armed with a pharsa, Ram Lal and Satti were armed with lathis. Only a day earlier Ram Dhani had given slaps to the wives of Ratipal and Satti for their stealing the Urd pods from his field which fact naturally must not have been liked by their husbands. Ram Lal is a brother of Ratipal. After they arrived, they gave blows to Rain Dhani, one each with their lathis and the one, who had a pharsa, with the pharsa. Ram Lal is a brother of Ratipal. After they arrived, they gave blows to Rain Dhani, one each with their lathis and the one, who had a pharsa, with the pharsa. The learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to a portion of the statement of Rameshwar (P.W. 11) at page 30 when he states that a lathi blows were given first to Ram Dhani. Ram Lal had first beaten and thereafter Satti had beaten the victim. After it Ratipal struck the pharsa blow. Thus, if this statement of Rameshwar (P.W. 11) is relied upon, we must come to the conclusion that first lathi blows were given to the deceased by Ram Lal and Satti. These two blows were not given on vital parts. One of the blow., was given on the back at the scapular region and the other on the left fore-arm which resulted in the fracture of the ulna. These two injuries were not such from which, according to the learned counsel and we agree with him, it could be inferred that they were given with an intention to cause death. It is thereafter that Ratipal gives the pharsa blow and strikes with it on the head and causes an injury which ultimately results in the death of the victim. After these three injuries are given, no further injury is inflicted even though Ram Dhani does not die and on the arrival of the witnesses the assailants run away. From these circumstances it is urged, we should infer that there was no common intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death of the deceased and they just wanted to teach him a lesson. No doubt, Ratipal had a pharsa with him and he struck Ram Dhani with the pharsa on the head, but even after he had struck with the pharsa, no further action was taken by them in continuing to beat the deceased even though he had not died with also shows that probably that pharsa injury, that was caused, also was not intended by any of them and it seems to have come to them by way of surprise and they must have been stunned and did not pursue the beating to the deceased any further. Though we have stated above that the statement of Rameshwar (P.W. 11) cannot be said to he reliable, even then let us assume for the sake of argument that the injuries were given in the order in which they are indicated in his statement to have given on the body of the victim. We have, taking his statement to be correct, still to examine whether it is a case in which Ratipal should be held guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and the other two companions of his of that offence with he assistance of Section 34, I.P.C. So far as Ratipal is concerned, his case seems to have been concluded by an authority of the Supreme Court, namely, Virsa Singh v. State of Punjabi, A.I.R. 1958 SC 465. The injury that was caused by the pharsa used by Ratipal was, in the opinion of the doctor, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Ratipal did cause that injury with the pharsa that he had with him. He did intend to cause that injury. It is immaterial whether Ratipal had an intention to cause the death of the deceased or not, for the injury, which he caused, happening to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, his case is covered by clause 3rd of Section 300, I.P.C. and he must be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. This is the position which cannot be escaped so far as Ratipal is concerned in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Virsa Singh'si case. The question now arises as to whether the other two companions of Ratipal, namely, Ram Lal and Satti, also could be held vicariously liable for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The three appellants came together, two armed with lathis and one with a pharsa. If a man comes armed with a pharsa in the company of two others who are armed with lathis and all the three cause injuries to their victim, it cannot be said that the only legitimate inference is that the person, who came with the pharsa, came with that dangerous weapon only by way of show or to use it only in case there was any resistance and not otherwise. As it is, the pharsa wag actually used as a result oP which the injury was caused. The person who used the pharsa may not have had the intention to cause the death of the victim and also the other two who accompanied him. They may just have thought that they might teach Ram Dhani a lesson, but an injury was caused by the pharsa in furtherance of their common intention and this causing of injury was not such as may not have been anticipated even by the person who did not have pharsa with them. Even the person, who cause the injury the pharsa, as we have said above, may not have intended to cause death of the victim, but he has to be held guilty of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. on account of the causing of injury by virtue of the fact that that injury resulted in the death of the victim and it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. If the person, who used the pharsa, himself did not intend to cause the death, but still he has been held guilty of the offence under Section 300, I.P.C. punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., the other two, who shared a common intention with him to cause that injury and which was in fact caused in furtherance of that intention, also have to be held guilty of that offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. The result is that the conviction must be held to have been correctly recorded and the appellants have been rightly convicted, Ratipal of the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter and the other two of that offence with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. Ratipal has been sentenced to death. We see no reason why that sentence should not be confirmed. It was the case of an attack with a pharsa on the head and Ratipal must have known that he was causing an injury which might result in death. It was a case of a cold-blooded attack on an unarmed person. His sentence, therefore, cannot be reduced. So far as Ram Lal and Satti are concerned, they have already been awarded the lesser penalty under the law. It was a case of a cold-blooded attack on an unarmed person. His sentence, therefore, cannot be reduced. So far as Ram Lal and Satti are concerned, they have already been awarded the lesser penalty under the law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed and the conviction of Ratipal under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter and of Ram Lal and Satti under that provision of law with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C. is upheld and the sentence of death passed against Ratipal and of life imprisonment passed against the other two maintained. The,reference submitted by the learned ions Judge is accepted. The appellant are in jail. The sentences passed against them shall be carried in accordance with law. Appeals dismissed.