JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13/17th January, 1977 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants Durgalal, Gomda and Pratap as under:- 1. Durgalal Under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. 2. Gomda Pratap Under Sec. 3241.P.C. Two years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 250/- each. In default of payment of fine three months' R.I. each. 2. Tersely speaking shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case, as disclosed at the trial is that on the fateful day viz. 2.11.1975 Kalu (since deceased) took his bullocks to graze in his field. It is alleged that he cut the Jwar crop from the field of the accused and spread it before his bullocks. Nearly at about 6 a.m. the accused persons arrived at the scene of occurrence and seeing the bullocks feasting on their crop were enraged and all the three accused Durgalal, Gomda and Pratap belaboured Kalu (since deceased). Appellants Gomda and Pratap inflicted Gandasi and axe blows on the head of Kalu whereas Durgalal inflicted two blows with parania on the scapular region of Kalu. At a result of the injuries Kalu met instantaneous death. The first information report Ex. P/1 of the occurrence was lodged at the police station Chhipa Board on the same day at 10. a.m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is 7 miles. Autopsy on the dead-body of Kalu deceased was performed by PW. 4 Dr. Prem Kumar. The post mortem report is Ex. P/3. At the time of post mortem following external injuries were found on the dead body of Kalu deceased:- 1. Clear cut incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep over left parietal region of scalp. 2. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep over right parietal region of scalp. 3. Incised wound 2" x 1/2' x bone deep left occipital region of scalp. 4. Contused swelling 3" x 2" over left infra-scapula region on back. 5. Contusion-swelling 4' x 21/2" left infra scapula region on back below injury No. 4. On internal examination the doctor noted that membrance and brain were congested. There was rupture on posterior aspect. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was haemorrhage and neurogesic shock due to rupture of spleen and sharp wound over scalp. 3. 5. Contusion-swelling 4' x 21/2" left infra scapula region on back below injury No. 4. On internal examination the doctor noted that membrance and brain were congested. There was rupture on posterior aspect. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was haemorrhage and neurogesic shock due to rupture of spleen and sharp wound over scalp. 3. The medical witness further opined that the head injuries and back injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the spleen injury was. however, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against ail the three accused in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. The accused-appellants were ultimately tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, for committing the murder of Kalu. All the accused-pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of their case. The accused persons denied their complicity in the crime but did not examine any witness in support of their case. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statements of PW.l Saligram, PW.6 Ramnarain corroborated by the statement of PW. 4 Dr. Prem Kumar post mortem report Ex. P/3 and the first information report Ex. P/1 and the probabilities of the case convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as mentioned above. However, all the accused were acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. It is not necessary for me to consider the Prosecution evidence in detail and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused as the learned counsel for the appellants has conceded that there are no sufficient grounds for challenging the fact that the appellants had caused injuries to the deceased Kalu with sharp and blunt objects. However, I have looked iato the relevant portions of the record of the trial court. Having looked into it, I am satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt by over-whelming evidence that the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution and the accused caused injuries with sharp and blunt weapons to the deceased Kalu. However, I have looked iato the relevant portions of the record of the trial court. Having looked into it, I am satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt by over-whelming evidence that the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution and the accused caused injuries with sharp and blunt weapons to the deceased Kalu. The only question canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the trial court committed a grave error of law in convicting the accused Durgalal under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. and according to the learned counsel at the best the case against Durgalal can fall under Section 324 I.P.C. It has further been urged that the sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused Gomda and Pratap under Section 324 I.P.C. is excessive. He has further urged that the Addl. Sessions Judge has misread the evidence of the doctor. 5. Mr. Gupta appearing for the State has supported the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 6. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants it would be in the first instance necessary to examine the nature of the injuries inflicted by the accused to the deceased. According to the post-mortem report Ex. P/3 and the statement of PW. 4 Dr. Prem Kumar Kalu deceased sustained three injuries with sharp edged weapon and two injuries with blunt weapon. There is nothing on record to support that Kalu sustained any other injury on his person. I have carefully read the statement of the doctor. This witness in his examination in-chief stated that Kalu deceased died as a result of haemorrhage and neurogesic shock due to rupture of spleen. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants is correct in urging that a perusal of the post-mortem report and the statement of PW. 4 Dr. Prem Kumar does not show any corresponding external injury on the person of Kalu on the basis of which it can be said as to which particular injury was responsible for causing the rupture of the spleen. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State in the trial court neither asked any question nor made any suggestion from which it can be inferred that injuries Nos. 4 and 5 could have caused the rupture of the spleen of Kalu (since deceased). The learned Public Prosecutor for the State in the trial court neither asked any question nor made any suggestion from which it can be inferred that injuries Nos. 4 and 5 could have caused the rupture of the spleen of Kalu (since deceased). There is nothing to hold that any injury was caused on the spleen of Kalu (deceased). The vague statement of the eye-witnesses that three or four injuries were caused on the person of Kalu does not stand corroborated by the medical evidence. In the absence of definite evidence on record to the effect that accused Durgalal was the person who inflicted any blow on the spleen or in the region where spleen is located, it would not be safe to maintain his conviction under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Learned counsel for the State has showed his inability to connect the rupture of spleen with any of the external injuries sustained by Kalu deceased. 7. The conviction of the accused-appellants Gomda and Pratap under Section 324 I.P.C. is maintained. It is alleged that they were arrested on 3.11.1975 and remained in detention upto 9.2.1977. Thus they remained in detention for a period nearly 15 months. The incident is an offshoot of trifling matter and the occurrence is of the year 1975. After their release on bail they have turned a new leaf of life. In my opinion, it would not be in the interest of justice to send them back to jail for remaining term of imprisonment.The result of the above discussion is that the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant Durgalal under Section 304 Part II is altered to that under Section 323 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to one years simple imprisonment He has already remained under detention for a period exceeding two years. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.The convictions of the accused-appellants Gomda and Pratap under Section 324 I.P.C. are maintained but the substantive sentence of imprisonment of each of them is reduced to the period of their detention already undergone. However, their sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- each is maintained. In default of payment of fine each of them shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, their sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- each is maintained. In default of payment of fine each of them shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. One months time is allowed to the appellants to deposit the amount of fine in the trial court failing which learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall take appropriate steps for sending them to jail for serving out their sentences awarded by this Court in default of payment of fine. *******