JUDGMENT H. N. Kapoor, J. 1. THESE appeals have been filed by Teepu and Ghaffar against the order and judgment dated 2-3-1976 of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh in sessions trial no. A-285 of 1975 convicting them under section 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to life: imprisonment for committing the murder of one Parshadi. 2. THE prosecution case, as revealed in the first information report and by the prosecution evidence briefly stated, is as follows. Parshadi deceased resided in Natwali Gali, Madar Gate, Aligarh along with his wife Smt. Daya Devi (PW 1). His sister Pushpa (PW 2) also resided there and she was carrying on the profession of a prostitute. That was redlight area add prostitutes resided in other houses. Generally daughters and sisters carried on this profession while wives did not indulge in that profession. Appellants Teepu and Ghaffar used to visit that area frequently. They were bullies and used to extract money from the prostitutes. Five or six days prior to the occurrence, both the appellants were quarrelling with Pushpa and trying to extract money which she was not prepared to pay. They then threatened her that they would not allow her to reside there in case she did not pay them money for drinks. Parshadi deceased intervened and asked them as to why they were demanding money. Teepu then whipped out his knife threatening him. Parshadi at the same time threw brick-bat injuring Ghaffar. Both the accused persons then went away saying that they would see him some other day. On 9-5- 1975 at about 9.30 P.M. both the appellants armed with knives along with two other associates went to that Gali. Parshadi went out of his house in order to bring milk from the market. All the four miscreants at once surrounded him as soon as he came out of his house. The two strangers caught hold of him while Teepu and Ghaffar appellants struck several blows on his person with knives. Smt. Daya Devi (PW 1) and Pushpa (PW 2) were sitting in their courtyard. The deceased and Smt. Daya Devi raised an alarm which attracted several persons of that locality including Smt. Karan Devi (PW 3) and Moolchand (PW 4). The four miscreants then ran away after inflicting severe injuries on the person of Parshadi. They were seen in the light of electric bulbs which were there. The deceased and Smt. Daya Devi raised an alarm which attracted several persons of that locality including Smt. Karan Devi (PW 3) and Moolchand (PW 4). The four miscreants then ran away after inflicting severe injuries on the person of Parshadi. They were seen in the light of electric bulbs which were there. One electric bulb was in front of the house of Smt. Tara Devi, Her house was towards the north after one house of the house of Parshadi. Another electric bulb was at the end of the Gali outside the shop of Iqbal sugarcane juice seller. One electric bulb was said to be there at the end of the lane about which there was a controversy. The injured was at once removed to the district hospital, Aligarh known as Malkhan Singh Hospital by Smt. Daya Devi and others. His injuries were examined by Dr. S. K. Saxena Medical Officer (PW 7) at 10 p. m. He found the following injuries on his person. (Injuries quoted -Editor). In the opinion of the doctor all injuries were fresh caused by sharped weapon. Injuries nos. 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 were simple while the rest were kept under observation. 3. SMT. Daya Devi then went to the police station Kotwali and lodged a written FIR which she got written by one Vijai, at 10.50 P.M. on the same day. A chik report was prepared by the clerk constable Mahabir Singh (PW 8) on the basis of the written report. He registered a case under section 307 IPC against both the appellants and two unknown persons. 4. S. I. Ramadhin Singh (PW 9) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. There was no person at the police station at the time when the first information report was lodged. On getting information, he went to the site and reached there at about 1 in the night. He found one bulb lighted outside the house of Tara Devi and another bulb outside the sugarcane juice shop. He took both the bulbs in his possession and found them in proper working order. He found blood at the place. He took blood-stained and ordinary earth in his possession. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-ll). He interrogated Moolchand, Kiran Devi and Daya Devi. Parshadi died in the hospital at 1.45 a.m. The inquest report on the dead body was prepared. He found blood at the place. He took blood-stained and ordinary earth in his possession. He inspected the site and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-ll). He interrogated Moolchand, Kiran Devi and Daya Devi. Parshadi died in the hospital at 1.45 a.m. The inquest report on the dead body was prepared. The postmortem examination on the dead body was conducted by Dr. J. S. Panwar Medical Officer (PW 6) on 10-5-1975 at 4.30 p.m. He found the following antemortem external injuries on the dead body. (Injuries quoted- Editor). 5. THE doctor on internal examination found that the peritoneum mesentery lacerated and cut stitched. He also found that small intestines and its contents were stitched at several places. In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the abdominal wounds. 6. THE clerk constable Mahabir Singh on getting information about the death of Parshadi, converted the crime into one under section 302 IPO. S. O. Parmendra Singh (PW 10) took up the investigation of the case in his hand and searched about the accused persons but they were not available. Both the appellants, however, surrendered in court on 30-5-1975. After completing the investigation the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against both the appellants on 20-7-1975, Both the appellants were duly tried having been committed to the court of sessions. Both the appellants denied the prosecution allegations. Teepu appellant stated that the police was inimical to him. The police got him implicated in two other cases in which he was acquitted. Ghaffar appellant stated that he was doing business; Vijai, brother of Smt. Tara owed some money to him; he had some verbal altercation with him on non-payment of that money, and so Vijai got him implicated in this crime. He also stated that there was no light in the gali. The accused examined two witnesses in defence, namely, Prem Bahadur (DW 1) retired court draftsman and Shaukat (DW 2). Prem Bahadur prepared a site plan according to scale of that Natwali Gali. He also showed the position of two electric poles which were on the Madar Gate Road. According to him, there was one telephone pole and not the electric pole, at the end of the Natwali Gali. He, however, could not say whether there was electricity inside the Natwali Gall. He also showed the position of two electric poles which were on the Madar Gate Road. According to him, there was one telephone pole and not the electric pole, at the end of the Natwali Gali. He, however, could not say whether there was electricity inside the Natwali Gall. Shaukat stated that he heard shriks at about 9.30 p.m. He went out and saw Parshadi lying injured with bleeding injuries. On am enquiry Parshadi told him that he could not recognise his assailants. He stated that at that time there was no one outside the house of Tara. But he admitted that there was a bulb outside the shop of the sugarcane juice seller. But he stated that there was no electricity at that time and there was electricity about half an hour after the occurrence. 7. IN support of its case the prosecution has examined Smt. Daya Devi (PW 1), Smt. Pushpa (PW 2), Kiran Devi (PW 3) and Moolchand (PW 4) as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Sri Y. K, Gupta (CW 1) resident engineer was examined as a court-witness. He had brought the relevant registers and stated that there was electricity in Natwali Gali and there was no breakdown between 8 and 10 p. m. on 9-5-1975. This statement has fully proved that Shaukat (DW 2) was a highly interested witness and he had made a wrong statement in support of the defence that there was no electric light at that time. Prem Bahadur (DW 1) also could not say whether there was electricity inside the Natwali Gali or not. According to the statement of Sri Y. K. Gupta, it was proved that there was electric connection inside that lane. It was only 9. 30 p m. and there could certainly be electric light outside the house of Tara Devi. The sugarcane juice shop too must have been opened and even according to Shaukat (DW 2) there was electric bulb outside the shop. It can, therefore, safely be held that there was light of two bulbs in that lane. Both these points have been shown in the site plan at nos. 1 and 2. There was a controversy about the third point which is said to be the electric pole at the southern end of the Natwali Gali. It can, therefore, safely be held that there was light of two bulbs in that lane. Both these points have been shown in the site plan at nos. 1 and 2. There was a controversy about the third point which is said to be the electric pole at the southern end of the Natwali Gali. According to (DW 1) Prem Bahadur there was a telephone pole at that place and not the electric pole as has been shown. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly discarded the theory of the third source of light. Learned counsel for the appellants, however argued that in the first information report there was no mention of the light and so the introduction of the light in the evidence is an improvement. The occurrence took place in a city area where there was electric light. The author of the first information report obviously presumed that things could be seen in the electric light and so he might not have considered it necessary to make a special mention of light in the FIR. It would, therefore not make much difference when it has been proved by the prosecution witnesses of fact that there was light at that time and it has also been proved from the record of the electricity department that there was no breakdown of electric light in that area. 8. ALL the four eye-witnesses of the occurrence have fully corroborated each other in all material particulars. PW 1, 2 and 3 are also witnesses of the earlier incident which took place 5-6 days prior to the occurrence. Smt. Daya Devi and Pushpa were residing in the bouse of Parshadi while Kiran Devi (PW) was residing in the house of Smt. Sukho which was adjoining to the house of Parshadi towards North. Smt. Shanti is sister of Moolchand PW 4 and both were residing in the house to the south of Parshadi. Kiran Devi, Pushpa and Shanti are the dancing girls carrying on their profession in that Natwali Gali. Moolchand, brother of Smt. Shanti can be considered as much a natural witness of the locality as other women residents. Smt. Daya Devi lodged the first information report and named Kiran Devi, Moolchand and others as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Kiran Devi, Pushpa and Shanti are the dancing girls carrying on their profession in that Natwali Gali. Moolchand, brother of Smt. Shanti can be considered as much a natural witness of the locality as other women residents. Smt. Daya Devi lodged the first information report and named Kiran Devi, Moolchand and others as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. She did not mention the name of Pushpa (PW 2) specifically but she being the sister of Parshadi was an inmate of the house and is a natural witness. These witnesses did not have any previous enmity with the appellants apart from the incident which took place 5-6 days prior to the occurrence. There was no reason to falsely implicate them. Moolchand was not a witness of the first incident. He and Kiran Devi (PW 3) had no involvement in the first incident, and, therefore, could not have any enmity with the accused persons on account of that incident as well. They are wholly independent witnesses and have stood the test of cross-examination well. Smt. Daya Devi and Pushpa have also given a vivid description of the entire occurrence. The statement of Smt. Daya Devi finds corroboration from the first information report which was lodged by her without any undue delay. The evidence of these witnesses, therefore, too cannot be rejected simply because they are closely related to the deceased. Their oral evidence also stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence as all the injuries received by the deceased were caused by knife. In our opinion, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against both the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that the case was not covered by section 302/34 IPO and could not go beyond the scope of section 324/34 IPC or at the most section 304 IPC. His argument is that there was no long standing enmity between the deceased and the appellants ; that even at the time of the first incident which took place 5-6 days before, they were only said to have inferred that they would see him again which did not necessarily mean that they had threatened to kill him. His argument is that there was no long standing enmity between the deceased and the appellants ; that even at the time of the first incident which took place 5-6 days before, they were only said to have inferred that they would see him again which did not necessarily mean that they had threatened to kill him. It was also argued that the victim was unarmed and the assailants had full control over him, and in case they had the common object of killing him, they would have caused more serious injuries on vital parts of the body killing him on the spot as there was no resistance. Much stress was laid on the fact that there was no internal damages to the heart or to the lungs. Only the injury on the abdominal region proved fatal. It was argued that it was possible that there might be only one injury on the abdominal region which proved fatal while care was taken to cause such injuries only which could be simple. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the intention, therefore, must have been to cause simple hurt with knives and it must be the individual act of that person who caused the fatal blow in the abdominal region ; since it is not possible to find out as to who had caused the: fatal blow, both the appellants cannot be convicted under section 302/34 IPC. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the case of Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216 , Laxman Kalu Nikalje v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 1390 and Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1968 SC 867 . The Honourable Supreme Court had made a review of the earlier decisions in tie case of State of U. P. v. Iftikhar Khan, AIR 1973 SC 863 . While discussing the Pandurang's case cited above, it has laid great stress on the following observations made in that case itself : "It has also been stated in the said decision Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216 that there is no special rule of evidence for applying section 34 and at bottom, it is a question of fact in every case and however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another. All that is necessary is either to have direct proof of prior concert or proof of circumstances which necessarily lead to that inference, or, as we prefer to put it in the time-honoured way, the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis.'' 9. ON the facts of that case, it allowed the State appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has relied upon a recent decision of Hon. the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kalu Shivram Jagtap, AIR 1980 SC 879 . In this case also, the State appeal was allowed and the conviction recorded by the High Court under section 326/34 IPC was converted into one under section 302/34 IPC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court made the following observations in that case : "Once the evidence established that both respondents 1 and 2 had a common intention to kill the deceased, which is manifest from the fact that they were armed with sticks, participated equally in the; actual assault on the deceased as also in the abuses hurled on him, having coma together and having gone together clearly leaves no room for doubt about the common intention of respondents 1 and 2 to cause murder of the deceased. Thus there can be no doubt that section 34 clearly applied to the facts of the present case." 10. IN that case only one fatal blow was struck on the head. In the present case motive has been proved. The appellants were obviously bullies and extracted money from the dancing girls on the threat that they would he turned out otherwise. Five or six days back, they were obstructed in doing so by Parshadi, who even went to the extent of injuring one of them with a brick-bat. They went away threatening that they would see him again. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that they did not say that they would kill him. We do not think that the actual words spoken were material. By saying that they would see him after a few days or to take revenge could clearly mean that they would kill him. Intention can also be gathered by the nature of the injury inflicted. We do not think that the actual words spoken were material. By saying that they would see him after a few days or to take revenge could clearly mean that they would kill him. Intention can also be gathered by the nature of the injury inflicted. When two persons inflicted ten injuries with knives on an unarmed person and five of them were on vital parts of the body which had to be kept under observation, as is clear from the report of Dr. Saxena and when ultimately it was found that he died as a result of the injuries on the abdominal region and there were four such injuries on the abdominal region, it is difficult to hold that only one person might have inflicted the fatal blow and both the persons did not share the common intention of inflicting such injuries on the person of the deceased which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The doctor was not even cross- examined on the point whether the internal damage was as a result of one injury only and Parshadi died as a result of the injury in the abdominal region. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to persuade us to agree to his contention that even when the injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body, care was taken that they were not deep while only some accidental blow proved fatal. We are unable to agree with this contention. When several injuries were inflicted by both the appellants on vital parts of the body and ultimately death resulted as a result of the same injuries on the vital part, it is not possible to hold that the intention of the assailants was only to cause simple hurt and at least their intention was not to cause the death of the victim. In our opinion, the present case could be covered more by the latest authority of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1980 SC 879 rather than by the earlier authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Sessions Judge and to alter the conviction from one under section 302/34 IPC to some other section of the Code. In the result both the appeals are dismissed. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Sessions Judge and to alter the conviction from one under section 302/34 IPC to some other section of the Code. In the result both the appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentences of the appellants are upheld. Both the appellants Teepu and Ghaffar are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail bonds and be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as swarded to them. Appeals dismissed.