JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence dated 18-12-1977 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. By means of the said judgment and order appellants Ram Jatan, Ram Chander, Chandar, Ramayan, Naresh, Ram Nath, Dal Singar, Birju and Sharikh have been found guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Barai, Channa and Suraj appellants have been found guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. All the appellants have been found guilty under Section 302 lead with Section 149 IPC for the murder of Kharpattu and have been awarded life imprisonment on that account. All of them have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years' R. I. under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC for causing injuries to Balli (PW 8). All of them have further been sentenced to undergo one year's. R.l. for causing injuries to one Patro since deceased. The order under appeal further provides that the various sentences awarded to the appellants shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case may now be stated :- Appellant Dal Singar's father was one Kishun whose uncle Ramjas left behind five Bighas of land at village Bhanpur. This land was inherited by the widow of Ramjas Smt. Badaki Dalsingar appellant is said to have obtained a fictitious sale-deed in his name and in the name of his three brothers from Smt. Badaki who on coming to know of it filed an objection in the mutation proceedings. A suit was also filed for the cancellation of the said sale-deed which was pending at the time of the incident giving rise to this appeal. Patroo is said to have acted as Pairokar in these two cases on behalf of Smt. Badaki. About eight days price to the date of the incident, Ram Jatan, Birju, Dal Singar, Naresh, Ram Nath, Ramayan, Ram Chander and Chander appellants along with certain other persons forcibly harvested the barky crop belonging to Smt. Badaki. This led to a riot and gunshots are said to have been fired by Dal Singar and others in which Khaderu, Jholai, sons of Kharpat and one Kishore were injured and a criminal case in respect of this incident was started. This led to a riot and gunshots are said to have been fired by Dal Singar and others in which Khaderu, Jholai, sons of Kharpat and one Kishore were injured and a criminal case in respect of this incident was started. According to the prosecution, Kharpat deceased and injured Patroo and Balli were going towards their village through village Dubari. Tie appellants who belonged to one group lay in wait for them at village Dubari at the khaliyan of one Lochan situate towards the west of the abadi of village Bhanpur. This place was about 150 paces from the house of Ram Awadh (PW 1). Appellant Barai was armed with a Pharsa and appellants Channa and Suraj with Barchhas and the rest of the appellants had lathis with them. As soon as Kharpat, Patroo and Balli reached the scene of occurrence near the khaliyan of Lochan, all the appellants pounced upon them and started beating them with their respective weapons. The victims raised an alarm on hearing which Ram Awadh, Suruju Singh, Ram Kishun Singh who were sitting in front of the house of Ram Awadh Singh came running to the scene of occurrence and saw the appellants beating the three victims above named with the weapons which each of them possessed. On the intervention of Ram Awadh and others, the appellants ran away from the scene of occurrence. The place of occurrence was about three furlongs away from village Bhanwarpur and the residents of the said village arrived soon thereafter. All the three injured were carried to the police station on a cot by them. On way to the police station, a report Ex. Ka-10 is said to have been written by Ram Prasad (PW 7) on the dictation of Patroo. Police station Madhuban is situated at a distance of about 5 miles from the scene of occurrence. The party reached the police station and the first information report was lodged the same day. A chick report Ext. Ka-11 was prepared and a criminal case in the general diary was registered. The Station Officer Madhuban Shariful Hasan was present at the police station and he interrogated the complainant Patroo and the injured Kharpat and Balli at the police station. The three injured were sent to the Madhuban Dispensary and their injuries were examined by Dr. Moti Lal Jaiswal on the same day between 5.30 P. M. to 7. The Station Officer Madhuban Shariful Hasan was present at the police station and he interrogated the complainant Patroo and the injured Kharpat and Balli at the police station. The three injured were sent to the Madhuban Dispensary and their injuries were examined by Dr. Moti Lal Jaiswal on the same day between 5.30 P. M. to 7. P. M. Kharpat was thereafter transferred to the District Hospital, Azamgarh where he succumbed to his injuries at 9.45 a. m. on 9-4-1974. The inquest report was prepared by Radhey Shyam Dwivedi in the District Hospital. The dead body with necessary persons was sent for post mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body of Kharpat was performed by Dr. G. N. Gupta at 5.45 P. M. on the same day. In the meantime, S. O. Madhuban, Shariful Hasan investigated the case and interrogated the witnesses and prepared a site plan. He submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants on 3-5-1974. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, Ram Awadh Singh and Balli injured were examined as eye witnesses of the incident. They are P. Ws. 1 and 8 respectively. Ram Prasad Singh who scribed the first information report was examined as P. W. 7 and he proved that Ext. Ka-10 was written by him on the dictation of Patroo. 4. It may be stated that Patroo was murdered on the night between 9/10th April, 1974 in the Baithak of one Komal Pathak in village Newada. Appellants Dal Singar, Birju, Ram Jatan and Ramayan were prosecuted in connection with the murder of Patroo but they were acquitted of the charge. The prosecution also examined Radhey Shyam Dwivedi (PW 2) who prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka-1 and related documents. Janardan Singh (PW 3) is the person who went with the injured from the police station to Madhuban Dispensary. Dr. G. N. Gupta was examined as PW 4 and he proved the autopsy report. Dr. M. L. Jaiswal proved the injury report of Kharpat, Patroo and Balli. The post mortem report is Ext. Ka-5 and the injury reports are Ext. Ka-7, Ka-8 and Ka-9. Other formal witnesses were also examined on behalf of the prosecution and it is not necessary to refer their names. 5. The appellants denied the allegation of the prosecution. They alleged that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The post mortem report is Ext. Ka-5 and the injury reports are Ext. Ka-7, Ka-8 and Ka-9. Other formal witnesses were also examined on behalf of the prosecution and it is not necessary to refer their names. 5. The appellants denied the allegation of the prosecution. They alleged that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Appellants Ram Jatan, Ram Chandra, Chander and Ramayan of village Bhanpur stated that Ram Prasad Singh and the members of his family bore enmity with them and they have been falsely implicated on that account. Appellants Ram Nath and Naresh also stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Appellant Dal Singar stated that Smt. Badaki lawfully executed a sale-deed of the land which stood in her name. He further stated that her maternal grand son Babu Ram disputed the validity of the said sale-deed and the litigations in connection with the said sale-deed were commenced at the instance of the said Babu Ram who was doing Pairvi in that case. He denied that Patroo had anything to do with the cases arising out of the execution of the sale-deed by Smt. Badaki. He stated that he was in possession over the plots covered by the said sale-deed and he had lawfully reaped barley crop from the said plots. He also attributed that the prosecution was the outcome of the enmity of the appellant with Ram Prasad Singh and his family members. Appellants Barai, Surju and Channa also pleaded not guilty. They stated that one Rambriksha Harijan was the Halwaha of PW Ram Awadh and that a criminal case for rioting and Marpit had been started against Ram Briksha Harijan and his sons by Barai appellants and that Ram Awadh was doing Pairvi in the said case. They also pleaded that Barai was a witness against Patroo in a criminal case. The further case of these appellants was that on the very date on which the incident giving rise to this criminal appeal took place, Lalji, their father, was murdered and a report of that incident was made by their brother Sadbrij in which the members of the family of Patroo were named as the perpetrators of the said murder. It was also alleged that there was enmity between them and accused Ramayan. The appellants did not produce any oral evidence in their defence. It was also alleged that there was enmity between them and accused Ramayan. The appellants did not produce any oral evidence in their defence. They, however, filed a number of documents including a copy of the general diary dated 8-4-1974 relating to the incident in which Lalji, father of the appellants Barai, Channa and Suraj, lost his life. It appears from the said document that Narayan, Jholai, Khaderu and Dayanand who are admittedly the members of the family of Patroo and Kharpat deceased were named as the authors of the said crime. 6. The trial court believed the evidence produced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. They have now appealed to this court. As already stated, the injuries of Patroo were examined by Dr. Motilal Jaiswal, Medical Officer Incharge, Madhuban Dispensary on 8-4-1974 at 5.30 P. M. The relevant injury report is Ext. Ka-7' in which the following injuries have; been noted on the person of Patroo :- The examination of Patroo took place at 5.30 P. M. Balli was examined by the same doctor at 6.30 P.M. and he noted the following injuries on his person :- The medical examination of Kharpat deceased took place at the said dispensary at 7 P.M. and the under noted injuries were found on his body :- In the case of Patroo, Dr. Jaiswal was of the opinion that all the injuries were simple and had been caused by a blunt object. In respect of injuries nos. 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 on the person of Balli it was reported by Dr. Jaiswal that they were simple. In respect of other injuries, he stated that they were to be kept under observation and were to be referred to the District Hospital, Azamgarh for X-ray and treatment. In the case of Kharpat deceased, the report stated that all the injuries were simple except injuries nos. 7 and 9. According to the observations made in the report the said injuries were to be referred to the District Hospital, Azamgarh for X-ray. Dr. Jaiswal further opined that injuries 1, 2 and 6 on the body of Kharpat deceased had been caused by a penetrating weapon whereas injuries mentioned at Nos. 3, 7, 8,9,10 and 11 had been caused by a blunt weapon and injury no. 5 was caused by a sharp object. Dr. Jaiswal further opined that injuries 1, 2 and 6 on the body of Kharpat deceased had been caused by a penetrating weapon whereas injuries mentioned at Nos. 3, 7, 8,9,10 and 11 had been caused by a blunt weapon and injury no. 5 was caused by a sharp object. As already stated above, injured Kharpat was sent to the District Hospital, Azamgarh where he died at 9-45 a.m. on 9-4-1974. The autopsy was performed by Dr. G. N. Gupta at 5.45 p.m. the same day. Postmortem memo prepared by Dr. G. N. Gupta disclosed the following ante- mortem injuries. 7. On internal examination, the doctor found that the 8th and 9th ribs were fractured and right side lacerated right pleura cavity contained blood about 4 ounces. 8. It may be remarked that the examination of the external injuries of the deceased Kharpat made by Dr. G. N. Gupta is identical with the injuries noted in the medical examination of the said person conducted by Dr. Jaiswal. The death of Kharpat, according to Dr. G. N. Gupta, took place due to shock and haemorrhage from the ante-mortem injuries. From the evidence of Dr. M. L. Jaiswal (PW 5) and the injury reports Ext. Ka-7 relating to Patroo and Ext. Ka-8 relating to Balli, it can be safely concluded that these persons sustained the said injuries on 8-4-1974. IT was not contended on behalf of the appellants in the trial court nor before us that the said injuries were self inflicted. Moreover, the evidence of Dr. M. L. Jaiswal (PW 5) and Dr. G. N. Gupta (PW 4) and the injury report Ext. Ka-9 relating to Kharpat and the autopsy report Ex. Ka-5 also leave no room for doubt that the deceased Kharpat was mortally injured on 8-4-1974 and succumbed to his injuries on 8-4-1974. The questions which survive for determination are : (1) whether the incident took place in the manner suggested by the prosecution; (ii) whether all the appellants participated in inflicting fatal injuries on Patroo, Balli, and Kharpat; and (iii) if so, what offence has been committed by the appellants. Ram Awadh Singh (PW 1) has supported the prosecution case in its entirety. He has stated that he was resident of village Bhanpur. Ram Awadh Singh (PW 1) has supported the prosecution case in its entirety. He has stated that he was resident of village Bhanpur. He disclosed that the thrashing field of Lochan was situate at a distance of 150 paces west of the door of his house where he along with Surju Singh and Ram Kishun was sitting. At 1 P. M. he heard hue and cry and he reached with the aforesaid persons on the scene of occurrence and he saw that Channa and Surju appellants were armed with Ballam, Barai appellant was armed with a Pharsa and the rest of the appellants were carrying lathis and they were belabouring Kharpat, Patroo and Balli with the said weapons. He also said that when he and his companions reprimanded the appellants, they ran away from the scene of the occurrence leaving the injured behind. The evidence of this witness has been strongly assailed on behalf of the appellants. It has been contended that he is; a partisan witness and his enmity with the appellants is well established. It has been further argued that he is the real brother of Ram Prasad Singh (PW 7) who is alleged to have taken down the first information report on the dictation of Patroo. According to the appellants, both the brothers Ram Prasad Singh and Ram Awadh Singh have long standing enmity with all the appellants and they have been falsely implicated in the incident at the instance of Ram Pd. Singh who is real motive force behind the prosecution. Ram Awadh Singh (P. W. 1'and Ram Prasad Singh (P. W. 7) have been cross-examined at length in order to prove their enmity with the appellants. They have admitted without any reservation a number of facts which clearly go to show that there is long standing enmity between these witnesses on the one hand and the appellants on the other. If the evidence of these two brothers Ram Awadh Singh and Ram Prasad Singh had been the only evidence against the appellants, there would have been some force in the contention raised on their behalf. It has, however, to be conceded that Ram Awadh Singh is a natural witness. If the evidence of these two brothers Ram Awadh Singh and Ram Prasad Singh had been the only evidence against the appellants, there would have been some force in the contention raised on their behalf. It has, however, to be conceded that Ram Awadh Singh is a natural witness. His house is situated at a very short distance from the thrashing field of Lochan where the incident took place on 8-4 - 1974 at 1 P. M. and where the appellants waylaid Patroo, Balli and Kharpat and inflicted the injuries upon their person. It is true that Ram Awadh Singh has stated that he went to the scene of the occurrence along with Surju Singh and Ram Kishun and that the two last named persons have not been examined to support the prosecution case. It is, however, to be born in mind that Surju Singh and Ram Kishun were the family members of Ram Awadh Singh and their testimony would have been open to the same criticism which has been levelled against the evidence of Ram Awadh Singh and Ram Prasad Singh. It must be said to the credit of Ram Awadh Singh and Ram Prasad Singh P. Ws. 1 and 7 respectively, that they have not concealed any fact and have made a clean breast of the previous incidents which established their enmity with the appellants. 9. Be that as it may be, ocular evidence furnished by Ram Awadh Singh finds support from the evidence of P. W. 8 Balli who was the only surviving person out of the three who were waylaid and beaten up on 8-4-1974 at the khaliyan of Lochan Ahir. In assessing his evidence the trial court has observed, and we think rightly so, that it was highly unlikely that he would spare his real assailants and implicate wrong persons in connection with the incident. The incident occurred in broad day-light and P. W. 8 Balli had full opportunity to observe the assailants who caused injuries to him and his companions. The appellants sought to discredit his evidence on the ground that his version that he was returning after making purchases is unbelievable inasmuch as on his own admission he had only a few annas with him when he went to the market. In our opinion, the trial court has rightly concluded that this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to discredit his testimony. In our opinion, the trial court has rightly concluded that this circumstance by itself is not sufficient to discredit his testimony. This witness was not further questioned as to how he could make purchases when he was possessed of only such an small amount. May be that he had borrowed money from some friend or acquaintance or the purchases were made by him on credit. The outstanding feature in this connection is that this witness, according to the injury report Ext. Ka-8 received as many as 12 injuries. In our opinion, the testimony of PW 8 Balli goes a long way in proving the prosecution case. Hence we are of the opinion that the incident took place in the manner and at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution. 10. It has been next submitted on behalf of Channa and Suraj and Barai appellants that they had no previous enmity with Kharpat deceased or Patroo and Balli. It was urged that these appellants had no motive to commit the offence. This argument has no force. The copy of the general diary dated 8-4-1974 has been filed by the appellants themselves which goes to show that on the very day on which this incident occurred, Lalji, father of these appellants, was murdered and Narain, Jholai, Khaderu, who are members of the family of Patroo and Kharpat were named as culprits in the said murder. We are, therefore, inclined to believe the prosecution case that the appellants inflicted injuries on the person of Patroo, Balli and Kharpat deceased. We are also inclined to hold that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Kharpat died as a result of the injuries inflicted on his person by all the appellants. 11. It has been next contended on behalf of the appellants in the alternative that considering the nature of the injuries inflicted on Kharpat deceased, the appellants could not have been held guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Learned counsel submitted that at all events the injuries on the person of Kharpat deceased only make out an offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been often debated before the courts and has been decided by them. No case can of course is an authority on facts. 12. The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been often debated before the courts and has been decided by them. No case can of course is an authority on facts. However, certain principles have been well recognised and given effect to in a number of decisions including those by the Supreme Court. Reference in this connection may be made to Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 , Anda v. State of Ra- jasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148 , Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. Punaiya, AIR 1977 SC 45 . It is trite to say that Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code which defines culpable homicide is dealing with a genus. Murder is species of culpable homicide and has been defined in Section 300 IPC. It is the gravest form of culpable homicide. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is in two parts. The first part of Section 304 deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is an offence of lesser degree than murder as defined in Section 300 IPC. The second part of Section 304 deals with a less aggravated form of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The controversy in most cases arises in a case falling under clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 and a case falling outside the ambit of the said clause and yet covered with the following words of Section 299 IPC :- "Whoever causes death by doing an act ......with the intention of causing such bodily injury......commits the offence of culpable homicide." If a case falls outside the ambit of clause 'thirdly' to Section 300 and is yet covered by the words of Section 299 quoted above, a stage is reached to find out whether the first part of Section 304 would apply to the case or it would fall within the ambit of its second part. The scope of clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 was expressed by Vivian Bose, J. in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra) in the following words : "The prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300 "thirdly". First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present. The scope of clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 was expressed by Vivian Bose, J. in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra) in the following words : "The prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300 "thirdly". First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present. Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type, just described, made up of the three elements set out above, is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender," 13. In the case of Anda v. State of Rajasthan (supra), Hidayat Ullah, J. observed as follows :- "The third clause of Section 300 IPC views the matter from a general stand point. It speaks of an intention to cause bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Here the emphasis is on the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The sufficiency is the high probability of death in the ordinary way of nature. When this sufficiency exists and death follows and the causing of such injury is intended, the offence is murder." 14. It would thus appear that it is well established by authorities that in order to bring a case within the mischief of clause "thirdly" of Section 300 IPC a bodily injury should be intended and such bodily injury should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the case of Anda v. State of Rajasthan (supra) it has been observed that in determining the aforesaid factors, sometimes the nature of the weapon used and sometimes the part of the body on which the injury is caused and sometimes both are relevant. In the case of Anda v. State of Rajasthan (supra) it has been observed that in determining the aforesaid factors, sometimes the nature of the weapon used and sometimes the part of the body on which the injury is caused and sometimes both are relevant. Keeping the said principles in view, we shall now proceed to determine whether the offence committed by the appellants is covered by clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. If the answer to this question is in the negative, only then would it be necessary to decide whether the appellants are guilty of an offence punishable under the first part or the second part of Section 304 IPC. On behalf of the appellants, it has been pointed out that injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11 on the body of Kharpat deceased have been inflicted only on the arms and fingers whereas injuries Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are to be found on the legs. From this we have been asked to conclude that the assailants of the deceased only intended to inflict injuries on the non-vital parts of the deceased. It is further submitted that internal injuries to the ribs and laceration of the right pleural cavity was accidental or at least was not intended. On this basis it has been pressed upon us that we should conclude that the case was not covered by clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. We have given serious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel but we are unable to accept the contention. It is to be remembered that the appellants who were 12 in number waylaid the victims when they were returning to the village. Appellant Barai was armed with a pharsa and appellants Channan and Suraj carried Barchas (Ballams). The remaining nine appellants had lathis with them. PW 4 Dr. G. N. Gupta has stated in his evidence that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could have been caused by a pointed or sharpedged weapon. In respect of injuries Nos. 5 and 6, he has opined that they were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. It is thus evident from the post-mortem report that the deceased Kharpat was attacked by Barchas and perhaps also by Pharsa. There are as many as seven injuries on his person which have been caused by lathis. In respect of injuries Nos. 5 and 6, he has opined that they were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. It is thus evident from the post-mortem report that the deceased Kharpat was attacked by Barchas and perhaps also by Pharsa. There are as many as seven injuries on his person which have been caused by lathis. The injuries on the hands and legs of the deceased are not difficult to explain. He must have been trying to ward off the blows which were being showered at him by the assailants and in doing so he must have been using his hands and moving quickly on his feet. The fact, however, remains that the attack on Kharpat and his two companions was premeditated. It was executed by deadly weapon. The beating did result in two of his ribs being broken. It may also be noted that the right side of the pleura was lacerated and the right pleural cavity contained about four ounces of blood. The expert opinion of Dr. G. N. Gupta is categorical and he has disclosed that the death of Kharpat was due to syncope and haemorrhage caused by antemortem injuries. He is further of the view that the injuries on his person were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 16. AS already stated, the remaining (:wo companions of the deceased Kharpat had as many as 25 injuries. There were 13 injuries on the person of Patroo and 12 on the person of Balli. Modi in his work "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" 20th Edition at page 295 has stated as follows :- "Fractures are not ordinarily dangerous, unless they are compound, when death may occur from loss of blood, if a big vessel is wounded by the split end of a fractured bone." 17. In the instant case, eighth and ninth ribs of Kharpat had been fractured resulting in the laceration of the right pleural cavity and loss of blood. The manner in which the attack on the deceased and his companions was planned and executed excludes the possibility that the injury inflicted on the deceased was not intended by the appellants or they did not know that the injuries which they were inflicting by such beating was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, fails. 18. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, fails. 18. In the result, we find no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed upon the appellants are maintained. They are on bail. They shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences awarded to them. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal dismissed.