JUDGMENT 1. - The following pedegree will show the relationship of the two accused-appellants, the deceased and the witnesses:The prosecution story is that in village Tatanwa were agricultural fields Khasra No. 187, 189, 192, 406, of which the common ancestor of the parties one Asharam was the Khatedar. After his death the land was mutated in the name of four sons of Asharam, named Surajmal, Ganwa, Rameshwar and Murlidhar. Though no partition of the agricultural land is said to have taken place through Court, buy at site all the four brothers were in possession of separate parts of it and were cultivating it. Ganpat one of the three brothers had not married and used to reside with Surajmal,his brother, and after the death of Surajmal he was residing with Sohanlal accused-appellant (1). A compromise (Ex. P. 13) on a non-judicial stamp paper had been entered into in between Ganpat Ram, Rameshwar, Murlidhar and Sohanlal (appellant) had also signed it. Under the said compromise dated 25-10-79 it was decided that 5 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 187 measuring 30 Bighas which Ganpat was cultivating as his share and which was adjacent to the fields of deceased Murltdhar will fall to the share of Murlidhar and Rameshwar, and the rest 5 Bighas of land will be cultivated by Sohanlal. The case of the prosecution is that the compromise was acted upon and 5 Bighas of land was demarcated at site. Since the day of compromise, i e., 25.10-79, Rameshwar and deceased Murlidhar were in possession of 5 Bighas of land and were cultivating it. 2. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 6-6-80 at about 5 P.M. the two accused-appellants alongwith Vishwapal brother of the accused-appellants and one Smt. Moongi, mother of both the appellants, started uprooting the boundary marks which had been placed under the compromise by Rameshwar and Murlidhar. Rameshwar and Murlidhar (deceased) had shown B.31ra crop in 5 Bighas of lard, which had fallen to their share. When the deceased Murlidhar and Rameshwar used the two accused-appellants and Vishwapal and Moongi, it is alleged that the accused-appellants gave beating to Murlidhar. The appellant Mst. Madni is said to he armed with Gandasi (sharp edged weapon) and appellant Sohanlal with a lathi. When the deceased Murlidhar and Rameshwar used the two accused-appellants and Vishwapal and Moongi, it is alleged that the accused-appellants gave beating to Murlidhar. The appellant Mst. Madni is said to he armed with Gandasi (sharp edged weapon) and appellant Sohanlal with a lathi. It is alleged that the appellant Sohanlal gave a blow by lathi to Murlidhar on his chest either in front or in the back and appellant. Mst. Madni gave Gandasi blows on the head of Murlidhar who fell down on the ground. He was taken to the hospital where he died later on. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that when Rameshwar (PW 18) intervened, Sohanlal and Mst. Madni appellants gave blows to him with their respective weapons. 4. Chothmal (PW 4) Sarpanch of the village sent a written report to P S. Losal, District Sikar (Ex. P. 1) wherein it was stated that in village Totanwa Murlidhar and Rameshwar sons of Asharam have been beaten by Sohanlal, Vishwapal and Mst. Madni sons and daughter of Surajmal. It was also stated that the wife of Surajmal has also beaten them. The incident took place in the fields and the condition of Murlidhar is serious. 5. On the report a case was registered and the investigation was set in motion. 6. Balvir Singh was posted as SHO of P.S. Losal at the relevant time. He took over the investigation of ne case, prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased Murlidhar, prepared site plan (Ex. P 5) and got the post-mortem of the dead body conducted. He noticed that uprooted sticks, which were used in demarcating 5 Bighas of land were lying on the spot, which appeared to have been recently uprooted. The blood was lying in 5 Bighas of land, which had fallen in the field of Rameshwar and the deceased. It was noticed that there was Bajra crop in that field. 7. He arrested the accused Mst. Madni vide memo Ex. P 7, and as the clothes Sari and Petty Coat which she was wearing were blood stained, the S.H.O. took them in possession vide Ex. P. and sealed them. Accused Mst. Mandi made a discovery statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act that Gandasi, blood stained, had been concealed in her house in village Totanwa in a room in a corner and she would get it recovered. P. and sealed them. Accused Mst. Mandi made a discovery statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act that Gandasi, blood stained, had been concealed in her house in village Totanwa in a room in a corner and she would get it recovered. Her statement was recorded in Ex. P 29 and consequent to her information she got recovered in the presence of Chouthmal (PW 4) and Maneilal (PW 16) Gandasi (A 4) and according to the prosecution the weapon of offence. Accused Sohanlal was arrested vide memo Ex. 6 by Balbir singh (PW 21) and on his discovery statement a lathi of Bans was recovered, which also had blood stains. It was seized vide memo Ex P 12 and was thereafter sealed. 8. Dr. B.P. Jangid (PW 17) was posted as Medical Jurist at Sikar Hospital. On 7-6-80 at 1-30 A.M. he examined the injuries of Murlidhar and found as follows : 1. Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/4" x bone deep surrounded by contusion 21/2" x 1" x on the hack of left upper arm lower part. There was fracture of humerous hone. 2. Incised wound 1" x ⅛" x 1/4" on the occipital pre-tube-rance-placed transversely. 3. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" half inch below injury No. 2 placed transversely. 4. Incised wound 1" x ⅛" x 1/4" on the right to the occipital pre-tube-rance placed obliquely. 5. Incised wound 21/2" x 1/4" x bone deep in the Middle of right parietal region obliquely placed. The bone was fractured and small pieces were present in the would, the brain matter was also visible in the depth of the wound. 6. Abrasion 2" x ⅛" on the back of chest left side upper part. 7. Irregular contusion 4" x 31/2" on the back of chest upper part. 8. Contusion 4" x 1/2" on the back of left side of the chest just below injury No. 7. 9. The doctor advised for X-ray for injuries Nos. 7 and 8. In his opinion clinically injuries Nos. 1 and 5 were grievous and 2, 3, 4 and 6 were simple Injuries Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were caused by sharp object, while the rest by blunt object within a duration of 12 hours. The condition of the patient was low. 7 and 8. In his opinion clinically injuries Nos. 1 and 5 were grievous and 2, 3, 4 and 6 were simple Injuries Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were caused by sharp object, while the rest by blunt object within a duration of 12 hours. The condition of the patient was low. Murlidhar was admitted in the hospital and died on the same day at 1.50 A M The doctor conducted post-mortom on his dead body at I2-noon on 7-6-80. The external injuries were the same, which were found at the time of examination and are contained in the injury report Ex. P.23. On opening the body the doctor found that there were fractures of left humerous bone, right parietal bone, and 2nd to 7th left ribs. The dura matter was cut and the brain under it was lacerated. There was blood in left pleural cavity. The left lung was collapsed and lacerated against the fracture side. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were ante mortem in nature, and the deceased died due to intra-cranial and intra-pleural hemorrhage. Intra-cranial haemorrhage was the result of injury No, 5 of Ex. P 23 and intra-pleural haemorrhage was the result of injuries Nos. 7 and 8 of Ex. P 23 In his opinion injuries Nos. 5,7 and 8 of Ex. P 23 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death individually and collectively. Dr. Jangid (PW 17) on the same day examined the injuries of Rameshwar (PW 18) and found that there were as many as 8 injuries and out of them injury No 8 was caused by sharp object and was on the left wrist placed transversely. The other injuries were caused by blunt object. All the injuries were simple and are contained in Ex. P 25. He has further stated that injuries Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Ex. P 23 and injury No. 8 of Ex. P 25 were caused by Gandasi (A 4). 10. The sealed articles including the Gandasi (A 4) and the lathi, which were recovered from the accused persons were sent to the State Forensic Science Labratory, and the report Ex P 3i shows that so far as lathi in packet 'G' and Gandasi in picket 'E' are concerned, blood was detected. P 25 were caused by Gandasi (A 4). 10. The sealed articles including the Gandasi (A 4) and the lathi, which were recovered from the accused persons were sent to the State Forensic Science Labratory, and the report Ex P 3i shows that so far as lathi in packet 'G' and Gandasi in picket 'E' are concerned, blood was detected. The matter was further referred to the serologist, who on examination found that blood stains on items 61 and 63, i.e., Gandasi and lathi, were disintegrated and their origin could not be determined. He found that there was human blood on the blood smeared soil and the clothes of the deceased. He further found that the petty coat and dhoti which Mst. Mandi accused wearing at the time of arrest were stained with human blood. 11. After investigation a charge sheet was filed and the accused-appellants were tried along with Vishwapal. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. In their statements under Section 313, Cr. PC., the accused Sohanlal besides denying the case of the prosecution pleaded that at the time of incident he was in the fields of Ganpat which were in his possession. Kishna Rram and Khgaram were ploughing the fields on his behalf. Murlidhar and Rameshwar had no concern whatsoever in the land of Ganpat. On the day of incident Murlidhar started placing boundary marks on the land of Ganpat. When he asked him not to do so, Murlidhar (deceased) gate a jeli blow on the head of Mst. Madni accused, who fell on the ground. According to him, Murlidhar and Rameshwar committed criminal trespass on his fields. Accused MST. Mandl denied that the deceased Ganpat ever lived with Ramesawar and Murlidhar (deceased). She also stated that on the day of incident at 5 P.M. the deceased Murlidhar started putting boundary marks on the land of Ganpat, and when she asked him not to do so Murlidhar gave a jeli blow on her head on account of which she fell down. Murlidhar had committed criminal trespass. On behalf of the defence, Hari Sing (DW 1) and Kishnaram (DW 2) were examined. On conclusion of the trial the appellant Sohanlal and Mst.Madni were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, by the lerned Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereas Vishwapal was acquitted. 12. Murlidhar had committed criminal trespass. On behalf of the defence, Hari Sing (DW 1) and Kishnaram (DW 2) were examined. On conclusion of the trial the appellant Sohanlal and Mst.Madni were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, by the lerned Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereas Vishwapal was acquitted. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned P P. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that deceased Murlidhar and Ramesh-war (PW 18) were in possession of 5 Bighas of land of Ganpat. According to him, the compromise (Ex. P 13) was no doubt executed between the parties when Ganpat was alive, but it was not acted upon and no boundary marks to demarcate 5 Bighas of land, which was to go to Murlidhar (deceased) and Rameshwar (PW 18), were placed. Therefore, the first question is, whether on the evidence on record, it can be said that the deceased Murlidhar and Rameshwar were in possession of 5 Bighas of land where the incident took place. It may be stated at the very outset that so far as the place of incident is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties that it took place in the field of Ganpat, who had died about a month prior to the incident. A look at Ex P 13 the compromise, the execution of which is not disputed by the accused and has been proved even by the scribe DW 1 Hari Singh. will show that 5 Bighas of land of Ganpat was to be given to Murlidhar (deceased) and Rameshwar (PW 18) jointly. It is mentioned in Ex. P 13 that both the parties had agreed that though Murlidhar and Rameshwar on the one hand and Ganpat and Sohanlal on the other were entitled to half share in the land in dispute, but 3 Bighas of land is being given more to Rameshwar and Murlidhar (deceased). Chothmal (PW 4) the Sarpanch has stated that in the life of Ganpat about 5 months prior to his death,a compromise had been arrived at be:ween the parties and under it 5 Bighas of land of Ganpat was to remain with Rameshwar and Murlidhar and the rest was to remain with Sohanlal. Chothmal (PW 4) the Sarpanch has stated that in the life of Ganpat about 5 months prior to his death,a compromise had been arrived at be:ween the parties and under it 5 Bighas of land of Ganpat was to remain with Rameshwar and Murlidhar and the rest was to remain with Sohanlal. Rameshwar (PW 18) states that 5 Bighas of land of Gannat was given to him and Murlidhar (deceased) and the boundary marks wee placed by Ganpat. At that time, he and the accused persons were present. He stales that he and Murlidhar (deceased) agreed to take 5 Bighas of land of Ganpat and after 2-1-79 they have cultivated the land. He further states that in the year of dispute, i.e., in the year 1980, on 5 Bighas of land of Ganpat which had come to their possession under Ex. P 13, they had sown Bajra crop. The learned Advocate for the appellants has contended that Chothmal (PW 4) does not state that the boundary marks were placed by him and as per the statement of Harisingh (DW I) the boundary marks demarcating 5 Bighas of land were placed by Chothmal and Harisingh. Hari Singh (DW 1) states that he did not do so. The learned Advocate con'ends that the compromise (Ex. P 13) was not acted upon and during his life time Ganpat continued to be in possession, and after his death Sohanlal with whom Ganpat was residing was in possession of the entire land of Ganpat including 5 Bighas. No doubt, Harisingh (DW I) does not state that he placed boundary marks to demarcate the land and Chothmal (PW 4) the Sarpaneh states that he cannot say as to whether the land was demarcated or not, but there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Rameshwar (PW 18) that after the compromise (Ex. P 13) 5 Bighas of land had been demarcated and boundary marks were placed and thereafter Murlidhar (deceased) and Rameshwar (PW 18) entered into possession of 5 Bighas of land. 13. A look at the site plan (Ex P 5) will show that in the east of the land of Ganpat, which he was cultivating during the life time, are the fields of deceased Murlidhar. When the site was inspected by SHO Balbir Singh (PW 21), he noticed that in about 5 Bighas of land Khasra No. 187 small Bajra plants had sprouted. When the site was inspected by SHO Balbir Singh (PW 21), he noticed that in about 5 Bighas of land Khasra No. 187 small Bajra plants had sprouted. He further noticed the occurrence had taken place in 5 Bighas of land adjoining the fields of Murlidhar and blood was lying there. It is not the case of the accused persons that Bajra crop had been sown by them, but the accused persons had come out with a plea in their statement under section 313, Cr. PC that their Hilis were ploughing the fields on the day of incident. Thus, the condition at site immediately after the occurrence indicates that the boundary marks had been uprooted that very day and it lends credence to the prosecution case that on the day of incident, 6-6-80, at 5 P.M. it were the accused-appellants who uprooted the boundary marks and committed the offence in 5 Bighas of land. So far as the remaining land of Ganpat is concerned, it is to the west of the disputed 5 Bighas of land and a look at Ex. P 5 will show that 5 Bighas and the remaining land of Ganpat was clearly demarcated at site. Thus, there is sufficient material to conclude that on 5 Bighas of land adjoining the fields of deceased Murlidhar, Murlidhar and Rameshwar were in possession on the day of incident, and they I ad con e to possess it under Ex. P 13 on 25-10-79. It may be stated that Ex. P 13 was acted upon in as much as if Ex. P 13 would not have been acted upon then after the death of Ganpat, his brothers Murlidhar deceased and Rameshwar (PW 181 would have inherited his entire property to the exclusion of Sohanlal son of pre-deceased brother of Ganpat. 14. Having held above that Rameshwar (PW 18) and Murlidhar (deceased) were in possession of 5 Bighas of land where the incident took place, we have to examine as to whether both the accused persons caused injuries to Murlidhar (deceased) and also to Rameshwar (PW 18). If so, what offence is made out against them. 15. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on the statements of Rameshwar (PW 18), Prahlad (PW 19) son of Murlidhar (deceased) and Jhumor (PW 20) son of Rameshwar (PW 18). If so, what offence is made out against them. 15. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on the statements of Rameshwar (PW 18), Prahlad (PW 19) son of Murlidhar (deceased) and Jhumor (PW 20) son of Rameshwar (PW 18). So far as Rameshwar is concerned it may be stated that he is himself the injured and has received as many as 8 injuries including injury No. 8 by sharp weapon. His presence, at the time of incident in his own fields was natural and cannot be doubted. So far as Prahlad and Jhumar are concerned, they are also the sons of deceased Murlidar and Rameshwar respectively. The deceased Murlidhar and Rameshwar were having their fields nearby and the disputed 5 Bighas of land also belonged to them. Therefore, their presence was also natural at the time of occurrence. Rameshwar (PW 18) has stated that when they were in their fields, the appellants Mst Madni and Sahanlal alongwith Vishwapal and Mst. Mrongi came there and started uprooting the boundary marks which been placed to demarcate 5 Bighas of land of Ganpar, whicit had come to their share. Murlidhar (deceased) asked them not to do so, but the accused did not pay any heed. Murlidhar left his plough and went towards the accused, and all of a sudden accused Sohunlal gave a blow by lathi on the left chest of Murlidhar, who fell on the ground. He further states that thereafter Mst. Madni gave a Gandasi blow on his head, Prahlad (PW 19) on this point stated almost similarly. He states that accused Sohanlal gave a blow by lathi on the chest of his father. His father fell on the ground and then Mst. Madni gave blows by Gandasi. It is stated that she gave 3-4 blows by Gandasi. PW 20 Jhumar states that accused Sohanlal gave a lathi blow on the chest of Murlidhar, and thereafter Mst. Madni gave blows by Gandasi on the neck and head of Murlidhar and 3.4 blows by Gandasi were repeated. It can, therefore, be said that so far as accused Sohanlal is concerned, he save a lathi blow on the chest of Murlidhar. So far as accused Mst. Madni is concerned, she gave 3-4 blows by Gandasi on the head and other vital parts of Murlidhar. It can, therefore, be said that so far as accused Sohanlal is concerned, he save a lathi blow on the chest of Murlidhar. So far as accused Mst. Madni is concerned, she gave 3-4 blows by Gandasi on the head and other vital parts of Murlidhar. We have already referred to the statement of the doctor (PW 17), who found as many as 4 incised wounds on the occipital region, on the middle of right parietal region and on the occipital protuberance. Thus, the evidence of eye-witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of the doctor, so far as injuries a scribed to Mst. Madni are concerned. Out of 8 injuries found on the dead body of Murlidhar, four injuries were by blunt weapon. Injury No. I is on the black of left upper arm. No. 6 on the back of chest left side upper part, No. 7 on the back of chest upper part, and No. 8 on the back of left side chest just below injury No. 7. The case of the prosecution was that besides the two accused-appellants, one more person Vishwapal was having a lathi and Mst. Moongi was armed with a Jell. It was also the case that they had also beaten the deceased with their weapons. The police did not file a c large-sheet against Mst. Moongi, and so far as Yishwapal is concerned, he was tried with the two appellants but was acquitted. Thus the possibility cannot be excluded that the other injuries by blunt weapon other than one which is ascribed to Sohanlal on the chest of Murlidhar might have been inflicted by those who were either not challaned or have been acquitted. Therefore, it can be said that accused Sohanlal gave a blow by lathi. 16. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted Mst. Madni accused under section 302 read with Section 34. IPC, 324, IPC, 323/34, IPC, and accused Sohanlal has been convicted under section 304/34, IPC, 323, IPC and 324/34, IPC. Under the first offence under section 302/34, IPC both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50/-, or in default thereof to further undergo 3 months RI. Under Section 324, IPC accused Mst. Madni and under section 324/34, IPC Sohanlal have been sentenced to one year RI. Accused Sohanlal has been sentenced under section 323 and Mst. 50/-, or in default thereof to further undergo 3 months RI. Under Section 324, IPC accused Mst. Madni and under section 324/34, IPC Sohanlal have been sentenced to one year RI. Accused Sohanlal has been sentenced under section 323 and Mst. Madni under section 323/34, IPC to 4 months RI. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants is that firm Ex. P 5 site plan it is clear that the fields of accused-appellants were near the place of occurrence. The accused-appellants a-e said to be armed with a lathi and a Gandasi, which are implements of agriculture and it cannot he said that the accused persons had come to the place of occurrence earlier with determination to put an end to the life of Murlidhar. According to the learned Advocate, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused simply started uprooting the boundary marks placed on 5 Bighas of land, and when Murlidhar and Rameshwar intervened, accused Sohanlal gave only one blow by lathi, though on the chest of deceased Murlidhar, and accused Mat. Madni gave blows by her Gandasi. He, therefore, contends that it cannot be said that the beating was administered to deceased Murlidhar in furtherance of the common intention of both the appellants, and it can also not be said that the common intention of both the appellants was to cause the death of Murlidhar. According to him, at best, the common intention even if there was one, which according to him was one, could have been to cause injuries or at best grievous injury by sharp weapon to deceased Murlidhar and/or to Rameshwar (PW 18). There is no evidence on record that there was any pre-meditation or that common intention was anterior to the actual commission of the offence. It can also not be said that there was any previous enmity between the parties in as much as in Ex. P 13 of October, 1979 the dispute about the property of Ganpat had been settled during his life time and 5 Bighas of land of Ganpat had been given to Rameshwar (PW 18) and Murlidhar jointly. it is the admitted case of PW 18 Ramesh-war that after October, 79 till the date of incident there was no quarrel between them. P 13 of October, 1979 the dispute about the property of Ganpat had been settled during his life time and 5 Bighas of land of Ganpat had been given to Rameshwar (PW 18) and Murlidhar jointly. it is the admitted case of PW 18 Ramesh-war that after October, 79 till the date of incident there was no quarrel between them. The learned Advocate, therefore, contends that no case of application of Section 34, IPC is made out. 17. The law is settled that common intention should be anterior in time to the actual commission of the offence. No doubt common intention may develop at the spur of the moment , but it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, if the two accused persons give simultaneous beating with their respective weapons to the injured and cause multiple injuries, the manner of assault and the numb-r of injuries may lead to the inference that the common intention was developed at the spur of the moment. But, in the instant case, we have already narrated the facts of the case. The two accused persons were armed with lathi and Gandasi. These two weapons are used in agricultural operations and are available with agriculturists in their fields. The accused Sohanlal is said to have given only one blow by lathi, and it cannot be said that the beating was administered or the death was caused in furtherance of the common intention of both the appellants. The same can be said so far as beating to Rameshwar (PW 18) is concerned. With this conclusion, both the appellants can only be convicted for their own acts. 18. Dr. Jangid (PW 17) has stated that the four injuries 2 to 5 were caused by sharp weapon. Helms also stated that these injuries could have been caused by Gandasi (A. 4). He has also stated that the deceased died due to hock and intra-cranial haemorrhage The former was the result of injury No. 5 and the latter of injuries Nos 7 and 8 of Ex P 23 injury No. 5 is incised wound which is ascribed to Mst. Madni and injuries No. 7 and 8 are on the hack of chest, and on the back of left side of chest just below injury No. 7. We have already said earlier that besides accused Sohanlal the other two persons Vishwapal and Mst. Madni and injuries No. 7 and 8 are on the hack of chest, and on the back of left side of chest just below injury No. 7. We have already said earlier that besides accused Sohanlal the other two persons Vishwapal and Mst. Moongi were armed with lathi and Jeli respectively, and that the possibility of their inflicting injuries cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it cannot be safely inferred as to which injury out of injuries Nos. 7 and 8 was inflicted by Sohanlal. The doctor found that there was fracture of 2 to 7th left ribs. He does not say as to which external injury, 7 or 8, was responsible for the fracture. So far as the injuries to Rameshwar (PW 18) are concerned, Rameshwar has stated that Sohanlal gave lathi blow on his back and Vishwapal gave a blow by Jell on his head. Sohanlal also gave a lathi blow on his elbow. We have stated earlier that on examination the doctor found that all the injuries of Rameshwar were simple. So far as injuries to Rameshwar are concerned, Mst. Madni can be held responsible under section 324. IPC and accused Sohanlal under Section 323, IPC. Mst. Madni is also responsible for having caused the death of Murlidhar, and accused Sohanlal can be held responsible only under Section 325, IPC, even if we hold that the fracture of ribs was the result of his lathi blow. He cannot be held responsible for the acts of accused Mst. Madni, as we have excluded the applicability of Section 34, I PC. But so far as Mst. Madni accused is concerned, she repeated 3-4 blows by sharp weapon, and as per the statement of the doctor, the injuries inflicted by her individually were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. A person w ho uses a Gandasi repeatedly on a vital part like head intend, to cause the death of the victim. Thus, Mst. Madai is liable under Section 302, IPC. 19. In the result, we partly allow this appeal. The conviction of accused Mst. Madni is altered from Section 302/34, IPC to Section 302, IPC, and she is sentenced to imprisonment for life. She is further convicted under Section 324, IPC for having caused simple injury to Rameshwar (PW 18) by sharp weapon. She is sentenced to undergo one year's RI under Section 324, IPC. 20. The conviction of accused Mst. Madni is altered from Section 302/34, IPC to Section 302, IPC, and she is sentenced to imprisonment for life. She is further convicted under Section 324, IPC for having caused simple injury to Rameshwar (PW 18) by sharp weapon. She is sentenced to undergo one year's RI under Section 324, IPC. 20. Accused Sohanlal is convicted under Section 325, IPC and is sentenced to undergo 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months RI. He is also sentenced to undergo one year's RI under section 325, IPC. 21. The substantive sentences of both the accused-appellants shall run concurrently. 22. Accused appellant Smt. Madni is on bail. She shall surrender to her bail bonds forthwith. She shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. 23. Accused-appellant Sohanlal is in Jail since the date of his arrest, which took place on 14-6-80. Thus, he has already undergone more sentence than awarded by us. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The Superintendent Central Jail, Ajmer be informed about the result of appeal of Sohanlal.Appeal partly allowed. *******