A. P. RAVANI,, J. ( 1 ) (HIS Lordship discussed the facts in paragraphs 1 to 13 and held that the case was duly proved. Thereafter His Lordship proceeded to state in paragraph 14 and onwards ). . . . . . . . . 14 The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the offence against the accused cannot be said to be falling either under the provisions of sec. 302 or 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case the injured was first examined by Dr. Kantilal T. Padshala Medical Officer Primary Health Centre; Gariadhar P. W. 3 (Exh. 20 ). Thereafter he was examined by Dr. Romeshkumar B. Shah Medical Officer Mansinhji Hospital Palitana P. W. 1 (Exh. 16 ). Ultimately the injured was examined by Dr. B. K. Joshi Medical Officer Sir T. Hospital Bhavnagar. This doctor carried out the post-mortem examination and as per his deposition and as per the post-mortem notes the deceased had the following injuries: (i)Multiple scattered abrased contusions over upper part of right upper arm anterolateral aspect. Old lesion-faint colour. (ii) Multiple scattered abrased contusions over middle part of right upper arm anterolateral aspect-old lesion. (iv) Two wheel marks over right shoulder old lesion. Black in colour-faint colour. (iv) Swelling over the upper part of right forearm. (v) Scattered abrased contusions over front of right forearm. (vi) Sutured wound over the base of right thumb 1/4 in length. (vii) Abrased contusion over lower part of right forearm anterolateral aspect. (viii) Abrasion over the back of right wrist. (ix) Wheel mark over upper part of right thigh anterior aspect 3 in length-faint in colour. (x) Multiple abrasions over right leg. (xi) Abrased contusion over middle part of left leg anterior aspect. (xii) Three scattered wheel marks over left thigh upper part-upper two injuries over anterior aspect lower one injury on lateral aspect. (xiii) Sutured wound over middle part of left upper arm 2 in length. (xiv) Multiple scattered wheel marks over upper part of left forearm-upper one-third anterior aspect. (xv) Scattered released contusions over front of middle part of right upper arm. (xvi) Wheel marks over the middle part of lest scapular region 3 in length black in colour old injury faint in colour. Dr. B. K. Joshi clearly stated in his deposition tilat the injuries were collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (xv) Scattered released contusions over front of middle part of right upper arm. (xvi) Wheel marks over the middle part of lest scapular region 3 in length black in colour old injury faint in colour. Dr. B. K. Joshi clearly stated in his deposition tilat the injuries were collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that there was no external marks on any of the vital parts of the body and that the injuries were not likely to prove fatal and result into death and the whippers used were hot deadly or lethal weapons and therefore the accused cannot be said to have committed offence falling under sec. 305 or under sec. 304 Part I or II of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Karku Krishna v. State of Gujarat reported in 13 GLR 457. The observations made by this Court and relied upon by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge are reproduced hereinbelow: "usually what is taken to account in ascertains intention of the offender is (1) the anatomy selected by the assailant to intention the injury (2) the weapon selected by the assailant to inflict the injury (3) the number of blows administered to the victim (4) the movie which operated on the mind of the individual concerned (5) the circumstances in which the assault Case to be made and (6) the occasion for doing so. If it is shown that a vital part of the anatomy was specially selected by the assailant it only point at the intention of the assailant either to kill the man or to inflict all injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Is a particular type of dangerous weapon is selected with some purpose it may also give a clue to the working of the assailant to the assailant continues administering also till the victim receives injuries sufficient to jeopardize his life it may be possible to hold that he had an intention to I in or to inflict a particular injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death". In the instant case the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have taken into consideration the following factors: 1 The number of blows administered to the victim. In the instant case the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought to have taken into consideration the following factors: 1 The number of blows administered to the victim. 2 The motive which operated in the mind of the accused. 3 The fact that the accused chased and pursued the deceased. 4 The accused gave several blows and caused as many as 16 injuries on legs and arms of the deceased. ( 2 ) IN view of the aforesaid factors and particular in view of the fact that the accused gave several blows caused as many as 16 injuries which ultimately resulted into the death of the injured it cannot be said that the accused had no knowledge that the bodily injury which they were causing would not result into death. By one of the injuries fracture was caused. Simply be cause the accused had selected non-vital part of the body and gave numerous blows on the non-vital part of the body it cannot be said that they would not have knowledge that the injury which the were causing was likely to cause death. IN this view of the matter the finding given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the accused were not guilty of the offence falling under sec. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is requied to be reversed and see aside. As far as the common intention of the accused is concerned the same is obvious. Both the accused started together cn motor-cycle. Both of them chased and pursued the deceased in the filed and even though the deceased made entreaties they continuel to beat him. In this view of the matter the accused are liable to be convicted and sentenced for ordains under sec. 3c4 Part 11 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. H. K. Thakore counsel for the appellantsaccused. The appellants accused have been convicted for offence under sec. 304 Part II read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have submitted affidavits and requested that lenient view be taken while imposing sentence. . . . . . . . . . ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. H. K. Thakore counsel for the appellantsaccused. The appellants accused have been convicted for offence under sec. 304 Part II read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have submitted affidavits and requested that lenient view be taken while imposing sentence. ( 4 ) THE appellant-accused Muljibhai Harjibhai Patel has in affidavit dated 12/03/1985 submitted that his wife who is aged about 38 is suffering from certain ailments and is required to be admitted into hospital often and on this mother is aged about 70 years and is not in a position to sec property. Therefore his own presence and the presence of his writ is very much necessary to se we the old mother. It is further submitted that his sons are studying in college and one of the sons is studying 5 secondary school. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs. 50 0 has been paid to the parents of the deceased. In order to raise the aforesaid amount is with of land have been sold away. Moreover the incident has taken place on 14/07/1980 Much time has elapsed thereafter. The accused had remained in jail for a period of seven months as an under-trial prisoner. In view of the fact that the village from which the accused and the deceased hail is a very small village and the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement between them it is submitted that lenient view be taken. Similarly the appellant-accused Arjanbhai Ganeshbhai Patel has also filed affidavit. Inter and these was stated that he is working as a skilled labourer on lathe and his children are very young and they are studying in school at Surat. His favour is staying in the village He himself was suffering from kidney trouble. He is even now required to take treatment for kidney trouble and therefore it is submitted that lenient view be taken. ( 5 ) EXCEPT one circumstances i. e. the payment of Rs. 50 0 to the parents of the deceased all other circumstances mentioned by the accused in the affidavits and which have been advanced at the time of oral submissions made by the counsel for the appellants are the circumstances which would be found in almost all the cases in the Indian life. 50 0 to the parents of the deceased all other circumstances mentioned by the accused in the affidavits and which have been advanced at the time of oral submissions made by the counsel for the appellants are the circumstances which would be found in almost all the cases in the Indian life. Even today amongst agriculturists joint family is a rule rather than exception. At any rate it is still predominant. Therefore almost in all the families there is bound to be small children and aged parents. Someone from the family is likely to be deprived of the services of the accused who may be ordered to undergo sentence of imprisonment. These circumstances though relevant cannot be made the basis for taking lenient view. As far as the circumstance of payment of Rs. 50 0 as and by way of compensation to the parents of the deceased is concerned it may be said that the administration of criminal justice is not a matter between the two parties the society at large is concerned as far as the administration of criminal justice is concerned. The maintenance of social order and the equilibrium of the society is the object of criminal justice. Therefore criminal justice cannot be purchased by a person having powerful economic resources at his command. It is on account of the paucity of legal services and the inadequate consciousness of the injured or the heirs and legal representatives of the victim concerned that the suit claiming compensation based on tortious liability are not being filed. For ought we know if the parent of the deceased or the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased would have taken action to hold the appellant-accused liable for their tortious act of causing the death of the victim they i. e. the accused would have probably been held liable to pay compensation. Therefore the settlement on account of the tortious liability though relevant cannot be taken as the basis for taking unduly lenient view while imposing sentence. The Court cannot forget that one life has been lose and the court should also be conscious of the fact that if a person having adequate economic resources at his command can make huge payment and get out of the clutches of incarceration that would definitely lead to a very had precedent and the peoples confidence in the administration of justice would be shaken. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we direct each of the accused to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under sec. 304 Part II read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal allowed. .