JUDGMENT 1. 1. Appellants Padtal, Rudia and Palia, were, convicted by the learned Sessions judge, Alwar, by his judgment dated October 4, 1973, for committing offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and each one of the accused-appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Padtal, Rudia and Palia were further, convicted for offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment. Rudia was further convicted under section 326 I.P.C. for causing injuries to deceased Chiranji by Pkarsi and he was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. It is against this conviction that these three appellants have filed their appeal before this Court. 2. Prahlad had a civil litigation with the accused party about a dispute regarding land. Prahlad, being an old man and having been operated, called his brother-in-law Chiranji to assist him in managing the cultivation. The accused persons did not like this arrangement because they were under the impression that if Chiranji had not come to his help, Prahlad would have left the cultivation and the land would have reverted to them. It was out of this spite that on November 21, 1972, when Chiranji was going for easing himself early morning at 6 a.m., he was attacked by the accused party. On hearing the cries of Chiranji, it is alleged by the prosecution that Prahlad, his wife, Mishri and his daughter-in-law Murti, who were working in a nearby Nohra immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. Mishri and Murti covered Chiranji, who was lying on the ground, in order to save him from further assault. But it is said that they were also beaten by the accused party, and Chiranji was thereafter dragged into the house of Padtal where again he was given beating by the accused party, with the result that the victim died. 3. The same day at 7 a. m., Prahlad lodged a report of this incident at Police Station Behror, district Alwar. 4. After the death of Chiranji at the hospital, the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chiranji was conducted by Dr. Brij Mohan P.W. 9 who found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased : 1. Lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/2" upto the bone over frontal bone, grievous, blunt with 'U' shaped fracture of frontal and left parietal bones. 2. Brij Mohan P.W. 9 who found the following external injuries on the body of the deceased : 1. Lacerated wound 11/2" x 1/2" upto the bone over frontal bone, grievous, blunt with 'U' shaped fracture of frontal and left parietal bones. 2. Lacerated wound with star shaped fracture of left parietal bone 11/2" x 1/2" x 1/4 over left parietal bone-grievous-blunt. 3. Lacerated wound with inverted fractures of occipital bone 1" x 1/2" bone deep over occipital and left parietal bone, grievous-blunt. 4. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x skin deep below left eye, simple by blunt. 5. Bruise with swelling 4" x 1" over lateral side of the right forearm-simple-blunt. 6. Bruise with swelling with multiple fracture of right radius and ulna 3" x 2" interior side, of the right forearm in the middle-grievous by blunt. 7. Bruise with swelling 2" x 1" anterior side of the right forearm above wrist joint, simple blunt. 8. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" to skin deep posterior side of right wrist. Injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 9. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x upto bone posterior side of right arm, above elbow joint. Injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 10. Bruise with swelling 5' x 2" over left deltoid muscles-simple by blunt weapon. 11. Bruise with swelling with fracture of the humorous in the middle 4" x 2' lateral side of the left arm in the middle. The injury was grievous and caused by blunt weapon. 12. Bruise with swelling 4' x 2' below injury No. 11. It was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 13. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" upto bone positions side of the left elbow joint. Injury was simple and caused by blunt object. 14. Incised wound 1' x 1/2 x bone deep lower end of the left arm posterior side. Injury was simple and caused by sharp weapon. 15. Bruise with swelling with multiple fractures of radius and ulna bone of the left arm 6" x 4" posterior side of the left fore-arm. Injury was grievous and caused by blunt weapon. 16. Lacerated wound 11/2 x 1" into skin deep over posterior side of left forearm. Injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 17. Bruise with swelling 4" x 1" over right frontal region. The injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 18. Bruise 4" x 1' over left scapula. Injury was grievous and caused by blunt weapon. 16. Lacerated wound 11/2 x 1" into skin deep over posterior side of left forearm. Injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 17. Bruise with swelling 4" x 1" over right frontal region. The injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 18. Bruise 4" x 1' over left scapula. The injury was simple caused by blunt weapon. 19. Bruise with swelling 11' x 2' over left scapula and back. Injury was simple caused by blunt weapon. 20. Bruise with swelling 5" x 2' over superior border of left scapula. The injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 21. Bruise with swelling 1" x 2" over middle of left scapula. Injury was simple and caused by blunt object. 22. Two bruises in cross-form 5'x 1' each over left glutial region. Injury was simple caused by blunt weapon. 23. Bruise 4" x 1" over left buttock. Injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 24. Two bruises 4' x 1" each of left buttock below injury No. 23. Injury was simple caused by blunt weapon. 25. Bruise 3" x 1" over greato-charter left. Injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 26. Bruise 8" x 1" over lateral side of left thigh. Injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 27. Bruise 4" x 1" below injury No. 26. The injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon. 28. Lacerated wound with multiple fracture of tibia and fibula in the middle, 2"x 1/2" into upto bones, over sking of the left tibia 3" above ankle joint. The injury was grievous and caused by blunt weapon. 29. Bruise with swelling with multiple fractures of tibia and fibula in the middle 3" x 1' over anterior side and middle of left leg. Injury was grievous and caused by blunt weapon. 30. Incised wound three 1/2' x 1/4' into upto bone each, anterior side of left leg in the middle. Injury was simple and caused by sharp weapon. 31. Bruise 3'x 1' anterior side of the left leg below knee joint. Injury was simple caused by blunt weapon. 32. Wo bruises 4'x 1" each over anterior side of right thigh. Injury was simple caused by blunt weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was severe haemorrhage of the brain the wound and the fractures, causing shock. Injury was simple caused by blunt weapon. 32. Wo bruises 4'x 1" each over anterior side of right thigh. Injury was simple caused by blunt weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was severe haemorrhage of the brain the wound and the fractures, causing shock. He was also of the opinion that the internal haemorrhage in the anterior and posterior lobe of the brain caused coma. At the time when the patient was being brought to the hospital, his pulse was found very weak and his wounds were bleeding severely, specially the left leg and left hand wound which were caused by the Pharsi. 5. P.W. 1 Prahlad, P.W. 2 Mishri and P.W. 3 Murti were examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. P.W. 4 Sheo Narain, brother of Prahlad and P.W.6 Deep Chand were also examined as eye-witnesses, but it appears that they had not seen the actual beating of the deceased, by the accused party. 6. It may be mentioned here that along with these three appellants, Hariya, son of Padtal, was also committed for trial. Smt. Janki and Smt. Santara, who were named in the first information report, were also tried but these two ladies were acquitted by the trial court while Hariya was convicted under section 323 I.P.C. Looking to his age, the trial court extended to him the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hariya, however, did not choose to challenge his conviction under section 323 I.P.C. 7. After a careful scanning statements of the eye witnesses, the learned trial court found that all the three accused persons were guilty of beating the deceased Chiranji. Rudiya, according to the prosecution witnesses, was armed with Pharsi whereas Padtas and Palia had Lathis with them. It is clear from the injury report that 5 blows were inflicted on Chiranji's head by the assailants, while 2 sharp edged weapon injuries inflicted, one on his hand and one on his leg. 8. Padtal and Palia, in their statements admitted their presence at the scene of occurrence and they further admitted that they beat Chiranji because he entered their house for committing theft of their camel, while Rudia denied his presence. 9. 8. Padtal and Palia, in their statements admitted their presence at the scene of occurrence and they further admitted that they beat Chiranji because he entered their house for committing theft of their camel, while Rudia denied his presence. 9. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, urged only two points before us viz., (1) that the case against Rudia has not been established by the prosecution and therefore, he deserves acquittal, and (2) that the case of Padtal and Palia does not fall under the provisions of section 302 I.P.C. and they should, at best, be convicted for offence under section 304 part 2 I.P.C. 10. The evidence of P.W. 2 Mishri and P.W. 3 Murti was read over to us. They are the ladies who immediately reached the spot after hearing the cries of Chiranji "maar diya, maar diya." At that time, Chiranji was being beaten by the assailants. These ladies, in order to save Chiranji, covered Chiranji when he was lying on the ground. This action of the ladies was not tolerated by the assailants of Chiranji and, therefore, they gave beating to these ladies also. Mst, Murti has categorically stated that she was hit by the Pharsa by accused Rudia. Her statement finds corroboration from the testimony of the doctor who found the injuries on her body caused by the sharp edged weapon. Mst. Mishri also supports the testimony of Mst. Murti. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the statements of these two ladies, who had sustained the injuries at the time of the occurrence and therefore, their presence at the place of the occurrence cannot be ruled out. P.W.1 Prahlad did not sustain any injury though he says that he had reached the place of occurrence simultaneously with P.W. 2 Mst. Mishri and P.W. 3 Mst. Murti. On a careful perusal of his statement it is clear that he did not see with his eyes the actual beating of Chiranji and therefore, we cannot trust him as an eye-witness to this act of beating. However, the statements of Mst. Mishri and Mst. Murti are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons who were actually indulging themselves in the act of beating Chiranji. The fact that Rudia was armed with Pharsa cannot be denied because Mst. However, the statements of Mst. Mishri and Mst. Murti are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons who were actually indulging themselves in the act of beating Chiranji. The fact that Rudia was armed with Pharsa cannot be denied because Mst. Murti sustained injuries at the hands of Rudia who was armed with a weapon which was a sharp-edged one. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that sharp-edged weapon was, in the beginning, given to Palia, but the statements recorded by the trial court are very clear on this point that it was Rudia who was armed with a sharp-edged weapon and Mst. Murti has categorically stated that she had sustained the injuries at the hands of Rudia which are undoubtedly incised wounds that could only be inflicted by the sharp-edged weapon. In the light of this categorical statement of Mst. Murti, it is difficult for us to accept the ,contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that it was Palia who had the sharp-edged weapon with him. Besides, Rudia's presence is proved at the place of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubt,that his participation in the act of beating is also established by the testimony of these two eye-witnesses Mishri and Murti. In the circumstances, we do not find any life in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that Rudia's case causes suspicion. 12. We have already given the injuries sustained by the deceased Chiranji. They are 32 in number. That shows that a severe and callous beating was given to him by the assailants. Both Palia and Padtal had Lathis in their hands. Chiranji sustained 5 injuries on his head and the other 27 injuries on the other parts of his body.The nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased at the hands of the assailants hardly leaves any room for doubt that they were caused to Chiranji with an intention to kill him. In such matters, injuries do indicate the intention of the assailants. Both, the number and the nature of the injuries also establish beyond doubt that the assailants had knowledge that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The knowledge that the natural and probable consequence of an act would be death is sufficient for the conviction of the accused under section 302 I.P.C. 13. Both, the number and the nature of the injuries also establish beyond doubt that the assailants had knowledge that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The knowledge that the natural and probable consequence of an act would be death is sufficient for the conviction of the accused under section 302 I.P.C. 13. The learned counsel urged that the doctor has not said in so many words in his deposition that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and therefore the act of the accused persons fell under section 304 part 2 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the Supreme Court authority in Chilamakur Nagireddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1998 . But this case is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the charge was under section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter, for certain injuries were caused by different accused persons. The doctor, in that case, was certain about the two injuries caused by the 2 accused persons, but he did not make a mention about the third injury whether it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned Judge, on that ground, acquitted the third person for the charge of murder and converted the charge under section 302 I.P.C. to under section 326 I.P.C. The present case cannot be governed by the observations of the learned Judges in that case. Here, the accused persons have been charged and convicted with the aid of section 34. In these circumstances, we do not feel persuaded to convert the conviction of the appellants from under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. to one under section 304 part 2 read with section 34 I.P.C. 14. Appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.The learned counsel for the appellants prays for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We cannot certify it to be a fit case. The prayer for leave to appeal is therefore, rejected. *******