JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta dated 24th Feb. 1977. By the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants for the offences under section 307 read with 34, IPC and sentenced them to 4 month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted for the offence under section 323, IPC and sentenced to undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Gom Singh was also convicted for the offence under section 325,IPC and sentenced to one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under: On 5-8-1976 Doongar Singh and Bhivan Singh went to the well of Ramsingh for fetching water on the she-camel through the field of Surjan Singh and Gom Singh. When they were returning back to the same field, accused Gom Singh inquired of them as to why they had passed through his field. Doongar Singh and Bhiavan assured that they would not do so in future. Despite that, Gom Singh gave a 'Jeli' blow on the right fore-arm of Doongar Singh causing fracture of Ulna. Bhiavn Singh ran away from that place. On hearing the cries of Doongar Singh his father Jatan Singh, his mother Gopal Kanwar and his sister Saysar Kanwar reached the field of Gom Singh. On intervention, they were given a beating by `Jeli' by Gom Singh and with the handle of the Kassi by Bhagwan Singh and Sardar Singh. All the injured persons were taken to Hospital at Losal, where PW 10 Dr. Bajrang Lal examined their injuries. On 8-8-76 Abhey Singh lodged a report at Police Station, Chitawa. As the police did not take action, an application was filed before the S.P. alongwith the X-Ray report. The application was sent to police station, Chitawa and a case was registered on 13-8-76 and investigation commenced. 3. Upon completion of necessary investigation, chargesheet against the accused appellants was filed. They were then committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Merta, who conducted the trial and held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them by the impugned judgment. 4. I have heard, Mr. 3. Upon completion of necessary investigation, chargesheet against the accused appellants was filed. They were then committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Merta, who conducted the trial and held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them by the impugned judgment. 4. I have heard, Mr. M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the accused appellants and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor and carefully examined the record of the case. 5. Mr. Singhvi has confined his arguments to the point that no offence under section 307/34 IPC is made out against any of the accused. 6. The conviction for the offence under sections 307/34 IPC is for the fractures of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs on the right side of Jatan Singh. There was reputure of pleura and respiratory embracement. The learned trial Judge has held that the offence was committed with the common intention to murder, because Dr. Bajrang Lal PW 10, has opined that, had the medical did not given to Jatan Singh immediately, he could have died, because of the rupture of pleura Mr. Singhvi strenuously contended that the Doctor had not specifically stated that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and, therefore, ingredients of section 307, I.P.C. are not made out. It has also been urged that Bhagwan Singh and Bhanwar Singh had used the handle side of the Kassis and the fatal injury has not been attributed to any of the three appellants specifically. 7. This is not a case, in which common intention to commit murder or cause any such injury which in the ordinary course of nature be sufficient to cause death, may be inferred and, therefore; section 34 IPC is not attracted. The quarrel is said to have been taken place at the spur of moment because of Doongar Singh taking his she-camel through the field of Gom Singh. Initially, the quarrel was between Doongar Singh and Gom Singh. Jatan Singh, his daughter and wife reached the site on hearing the cries of Doongar Singh. Hence there could not be any common intention to commit the murder or cause serious and grievous injuries to the rescuers. The learned trial Judge has also opined that there was no intention to beat Jatan Singh, and, therefore it cannot be said that the accused had common intention to kill him. Hence there could not be any common intention to commit the murder or cause serious and grievous injuries to the rescuers. The learned trial Judge has also opined that there was no intention to beat Jatan Singh, and, therefore it cannot be said that the accused had common intention to kill him. Learned Judge has only attributed knowledge to the appellants that the beating given to Jatan Singh, may cause his death. In order to ascertain as to how these injuries were caused and what was its nature, it would be profitable to look to there nature coming in the statement of Dr. Bajrang Lal. In his cross-examination, the Doctor has admitted that there was damage to the issues of the lungs. The doctor could not say, what is meant by immediate treatment and in how much time after receipt of the injuries this treatment is necessary. The age of Jatan Singh at the time of incident 70 years. The doctor has stated that the ribs become very week due to old age. The prosecution case is, that after the first blow given by Gom Singh on the head of Jatan Singh, he had fallen down, and thereafter others gave the beating. Dr. Bajrang Lal has admitted that the fractures of the ribs may be possible due to the fall. He has further observed that all the fractures of the ribs 7th, 8th and 9th of Jatan Singh might have been caused by not blow. In this view of the matter, I find full force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ingredients of section 307, IPC are not made out regarding the grievous injury of Jatan Singh. Bhanwar Singh and Bhagwan Singh have used only handle side of the Kassis when Jatan Singh, sayer Kanwar and Gopal Kanwar reached there. Initially, there was quarrel between Gom Singh and Doongar Singh Dr. Safi Mohammed (DW 2) had examined Gom Singh on 6-8-76 and noted 7 simple injuries caused by blunt object on his person. Duration of injuries given by the doctor is within 10 to 12 hours. In this view of the matter, no common intention to cause any such injuries to Jatan Singh, which may be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, can be inferred. Section 34, IPC therefore, cannot be pressed into service. Duration of injuries given by the doctor is within 10 to 12 hours. In this view of the matter, no common intention to cause any such injuries to Jatan Singh, which may be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, can be inferred. Section 34, IPC therefore, cannot be pressed into service. The conviction for the offence under section 307/34 IPC for causing the injuries to Jatan Singh, is therefore not sustainable. 8. The learned public prosecutor submitted that in such circumstances the appellants may be convicted for the offence under section 325/34 IPC. It is relevant to note that there was specific charge under section 325/34 IPC for the injuries caused to Jatan Singh. But accused Bhagwan Singh and Sardar Singh have been acquitted for that charge. Gom Singh was charged under section 307 IPC for the injuries caused to Jatan Singh and has not been found guilty for that charge simplicitor. As discussed above in the absence of proof if common intention even the conviction section 307, IPC without aid of section 34 IPC is not sustainable against any of the appellant. 9. Dealing with the individual acts of the appellants, the learned trial Judge has held that all the accused persons were guilty for the offence under section 323, IPC. The appellant Gom Singh was held guilty for the offence under section 325, IPC for causing grievous injury i.e. the fracture of Ulna of Doongar Singh. This finding calls for no interference. 10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants for the offence under section 307/34 IPC are set aside and they are acquitted of that charge. Their conviction for the offence under section 323 IPC & sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment & conviction of Gom Singh for the offence under section 325 IPC and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment, are maintained. Sardar Singh has remained in custody for one month and 19 days; Bhagwan Singh for one month and 21 days, and Gom Singh for 18 months and 24 days. Thus, they have all suffered the total period of sentence, awarded to them. Gom Singh has also suffered sentence, in lieu of the fine. They are on bail and need not surrender to it. Thus, they have all suffered the total period of sentence, awarded to them. Gom Singh has also suffered sentence, in lieu of the fine. They are on bail and need not surrender to it. Their bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******