Short Note : 1. Learned counsel for the appellants, however urged that the Court below committed an error in convicting the appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that there was no intention of any of the two accused to cause the death of Kanchedi. All that they intended was to give a thorough threshing to the deceased. It is urged that even though one of the accused was armed with a Farsa, a formidable sharp edged weapon, no injury by the sharp side of the Farsa was inflicted on any vital part of the body. All the injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body except injury No. (VI) and that two is net a serious one but is only superficial inasmuch as there was no fracture of the occipital bone. In these circumstances of the case, this Court is of opinion that the accused cannot be convicted for an offence of murder under section 302 read with S. 34 IPC. However, they must have known that by assaulting Kanchedi in the manner in which they did and dealing blows with a Farsa and, a Lathi that they were likely to cause his death. The medical evidence show that there were multiple injuries on the person of the deceased. This Court is therefore of opinion that the accused are nevertheless liable for an offence under section 304 Part II, read with section 34 IPC. Appeal partly allowed.