JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. 1. Ram Nayan, Neur and Raksha, brothers interse, residents of mohalla Kailashpati, police station Kotwali, district Basti have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 323 IPC. Raksha has been convicted under sections 324 and 323/34 IPC. RAM Nayan and Neur have been convicted under sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated was : Yakub PW 2 carried on a motor garage under the style Punjab Auto Engineering Works in mohalla Pilkaura in the town of Basti. There were some houses close to the garage. Yakub had filed a suit for ejectment of his tenants. The appellants claimed that they were the owners of the house property in question. Therefore, there were strained relations between the appellants on one side and Yakub on the other. On 30-6-1973 Yakub was getting a wall near his garage constructed by some labourers in the morning. At about 9 a.m. Raksha assaulted him with a lathi and Ram Nayan and Neur assaulted him with fists and kicks. Yakub received injuries. The lathi of Raksha fell on the head of Yakub . Yakub lodged a report of the occurrence at 12. 10 hours at police station Kotwali. Dr. O. P. Khattri PW 5, examined Yakub and found following injuries: (Injuries quoted-Editor) 3. Injuries nos. 1 and 2 were simple. Injury no. 3 was kept under observation. It apperas that nothing particular was found later on in respect of injury no. 3. 4. The appellants did not admit the allegations of the prosecution. The prosecution examined Dharam Raj, Yakub and Ram Harash to prove its case. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions judge, Basti, believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellants. 5. Parties counsel have been heard and record examined. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants died not assail the finding of the trial Judge in respect of the occurrence. He firstly urged that the appellants could not be convicted under sections 324 and 324/34 IPC. The learned trial Judge has found them guilty of the offence under section 324 IPC because section 324 IPC also punishes the person who uses "any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death". He firstly urged that the appellants could not be convicted under sections 324 and 324/34 IPC. The learned trial Judge has found them guilty of the offence under section 324 IPC because section 324 IPC also punishes the person who uses "any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death". The learned trial judge has observed that if a lathi is used as a weapon of offence, the offence can be covered by section 324 IPC. He has assigned two reasons for the view (1) Word "instrument" in section 324, according to its dictionary meaning, means an implement or tool for committing an offence and (2) a Lathi if realised with its full fledged impact would cause the instantaneous death of a person and as such words "likely to cause death" in section 324 will be answered. 7. So far as the first reason is concerned, there is no dispute. But the second reason does not envisage a usual user of a lathi as a weapon of attack. This reason envisages a special contingency. 8. It is well established that the words of a statute should, prima facie, be given their ordinary meaning. But to arrive at the real meaning, it is necessary to get an exact conception of the aim, scope and object of the whole Act. The true meaning of any passage is to be found not merely in the words of the passage, but in comparing it with other parts of the law. Construction is to be made of all the parts together, and not of one part only by itself, because the true meaning of any passage is that which best harmonises with every other passage of the statute. It may also be indicated that heading or marginal notes of a section, though it forms no part of the section, is also of some assistance. Relevant provisions of the Code (Indian Penal Code) may now be examined. Section 319 defines the word 'hurt' in the following words : "319. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt." 9. Relevant provisions of the Code (Indian Penal Code) may now be examined. Section 319 defines the word 'hurt' in the following words : "319. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt." 9. Section 321 defines expression "voluntarily causing hurt'' as "whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person is said "'voluntarily to cause hurt." Section 323 punishes the person who voluntarily causes hurt. Heading or marginal note of this section is "punishment for voluntarily causing hurt." 10. It is a matter of common knowledge or expression that if a person causes simple hurt with a lathi, he is liable to be punished under section 323. Section 324 lays down that whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body or to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished. Heading or marginal note of this section is "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means". It is evident that the object of this section is to make simple hurt more grave and liable to a more severe punishment when it is inflicted by one of the modes described in the section. 11. This section will be applicable not only to hurt caused by sharp edged or pointed weapon or fire arm, but also to hurt caused by any instrument which is likely to cause death. Therefore, the instrument must be one which is likely to cause death, and not which is liable to cause death. In other words it must be one of which one can predicate that the probable result of its use will be, by virtue of its very nature, death. It must be inherent in the nature of the instrument used that death is likely to ensue. 12. In other words it must be one of which one can predicate that the probable result of its use will be, by virtue of its very nature, death. It must be inherent in the nature of the instrument used that death is likely to ensue. 12. The learned trial judge has visualised a case in which use of lathi is liable to cause death. In the usual course, a lathi will cause a simple hurt punishable under section 323. In case, a lathi causes grievous hurt, the offender will be punished under section 325. Looking to section 323 and 325, heading of section 324 and the ordinary use of a lathi, it is clear beyond doubt that a lathi is not covered by the words "any instrument which is likely to cause death employed in section 324. Lathi, like a gun or pistol or a sharp cutting or piercing weapon, is not ordinarily a weapon imminently dangerous to life or likely to cause death. 13. Moreover, in the present case injury no. 2 (lacerated wound) was caused by lathi. This injury in the opinion of Dr. Khatri was simple. Therefore, it is apparent that Raksha did not want to use the lathi with the intention of causing the death of Yakub. From this aspect also the present case does not fall within the ambit of section 324 IPC. Hense, the conviction of the appellants under section 324 or 324/34 IPC cannot be sustained. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants has then urged that the sentence of two months' RI under Section 324/34 IPC awarded to the appellants is severe. The occurrence took place on 30-6-1973. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants on 17-2-1976. They were granted ad-interim bail by the trial judge-Raksha caused a lacerated wound on the back side of the head, Ram Nayan and Neur assaulted with fists and kicks causing a contusion on the right clavicle and an abrasion on the lower part of the neck. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, ends of justice will meet if Raksha is made to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and Ram Nayan and Neur each is made to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, ends of justice will meet if Raksha is made to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and Ram Nayan and Neur each is made to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. Appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed in this way that the conviction and sentence of Raksha appellant under section 324 IPC and the conviction and sentence of Ram Nayan and Neur appellants under section 324/34 IPC recorded by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Basti on 17-2-1976 are set aside. Conviction of all the three appellants under section 324/34 IPC is affirmed, but the sentence of 2 months RI awarded to them is set aside. Instead, Raksha is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and Ram Nayan and Neur each is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. These 3 appellants are allowed three months' time from this day to deposit the fine in the court below. In default of payment of fine Raksha will undergo SI for one month and Ram Nayan and Neur each will undergo SI for 15 days. 15. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged, after they have deposited the fine in the court below. A copy of this order will immediately be communicated to court below. --- Appeal partly allowed.