Short Note : 1. The two appellants: Kalibai and Indersingh have come to this Court in appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ratlam, whereby the first appellant was convicted for the offence under section 325/34 IPC and sentenced' to 3 year's R.I. and the second appellant was convicted for the offence under section 325 IPC and sentenced to five year's R.I. in S.T. No. 31 of 77. 2. After the investigation was over the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence under section 302/34 IPC. The third accused Mangu was charged for the offence under section 323 IPC. They pleaded not guilty. The case of the third accused Mangu was that he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged offence, the case of the appellants in defence was that the deceased and his son were the aggressors and that while deceased's son was assaulting the appellant Kalibal by means of a Lathi she bent low and the Lathi fell on the back of the deceased. The trial Court found the accused Mangu not guilty and, therefore, acquitted him of the charge under section 323 IPC. However, the two appellants were held guilty for the offence under section 325/34 and 325 IPC respectively for which they were convicted and sentenced as already indicated above. They have, therefore, come to this Court in appeal. Held: The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the convictions and sentences passed against the two appellants can be sustained. The report of the incident was made by the deceased himself, which was recorded in the roznamcha vide Ex. P-3. In this report it was stated that after the exchange of abuses in the morning between the deceased and appellant No.1 Kalibai, when the deceased had sat under a mango tree for rest in the noon time the appellant No.2 Indersingh passed by that side and at that time he was told by the deceased that his mother had unnecessarily called him bad names. In the meanwhile the first appellant Kalibai and the other accused Mangu came there and Kalibai again abused the deceased. It is further stated in the said report that Kalibai then pelted a stone at the deceased and thereafter Indersingh dealt two stick blows on the back of the deceased. The other accused Mangu also assaulted the deceased by means of a stick. It is further stated in the said report that Kalibai then pelted a stone at the deceased and thereafter Indersingh dealt two stick blows on the back of the deceased. The other accused Mangu also assaulted the deceased by means of a stick. From the said report. It does not appear that the two appellants and the third accused Mangu had common intention to cause grievous hurt to the deceased. it appears, that it was a matter of chance that all the accused persons joined together at the place were the deceased was sitting and after the exchange of abuses between the deceased and appellant No.1 Kalibai, they or any of them individually assaulted the deceased. The allegations in the report that Kalibai assaulted the deceased by means of a stone in the knee is not corroborated by medical evidence. The witness Mangulal (PW 4 is the son of the deceased. He claims to be the eye witness. But from the report Ex.P-3, it appears, that the witness Mangulal came at the spot from the well after the assault was over. 3. It is thus clear that there is no reliable evidence on record to prove that Kalibai appellant No.1 caused any injury to the deceased. It may be that she called bad names to the deceased and in the meanwhile the appellant No.2 Indersingh and the third accused Mangu assaulted him by sticks. When according to the case of the prosecution on the second appellant as well as the third accused Mangu had assaulted the deceased on the back by means of sticks, it cannot be said with certainty whose blow caused grievous hurt. It is quite probable that the stick blow administered by the third accused Mangu caused the fracture of the ribs, but the trial Court acquitted that accused. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to appellant No. 2 Indersingh and he cannot be held liable for causing grievous hurt. 4. That apart from the medical evidence it is clear that the rupture of the spleen was caused on account of the fracture of the ribs and the fracture of the ribs could be caused even by a fall. It has come in the report Ex P-3 made by the deceased that on account of the receipt of the injury on the back he had fallen down on the ground. It has come in the report Ex P-3 made by the deceased that on account of the receipt of the injury on the back he had fallen down on the ground. Dr Chandra Vansh Mishra (PW1) has stated that in case rupture would not have occurred the injury by itself could not have caused the death of the injured and in that case it would have been a simple injury, The deceased was an old man of 60 years of age. At the time of the postmortem examination Dr Chandra Vansh Mishra (PW 1) found only one external injury which was a purple colouled bruise of 16 cm x 3 cm. which could have been caused by a hard and blunt object. It is, therefore, quite probable that the stick blow inflicted by the appellant Indersingh caused only simple hurt and thereafter as the deceased felldown on the ground he got the fracture of the ribs which ultimately ruptured the spleen. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that only appellant No.2 Indersingh can be held liable for the offence under section 323 IPC. As it is not proved that Kalibai inflicted any injury and in the absence of common intention, she cannot be held liable for causing simple hurt to the deceased. Appeal partly allowed.